| Revision as of 09:01, 27 May 2007 edit71.177.82.26 (talk) →Methinks Colbert just claimed his account.....← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:55, 27 May 2007 edit undoAmiDaniel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,065 edits →Methinks Colbert just claimed his account.....: He never once claimed that the account was indeed his, and Jimmy, after contacting Colbert's staff about it, has made clear that the..Next edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| It seems that Tawker is blocking the account to garner some unwarranted relevancy/fame for doing so.] | It seems that Tawker is blocking the account to garner some unwarranted relevancy/fame for doing so.] | ||
| :He never once claimed that the account was indeed his, and ], after contacting Colbert's staff about it, has made clear that the account should remain blocked. Let it go. ] (]) 09:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:55, 27 May 2007
 | Tawker is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon. |
Ok, the bot takes care of almost everything I do, I'm swamped with work right now. I'm outta here. If you need anything urgent, email me. -- Tawker 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Tawker/Dec07. Sections without timestamps are not archived |
Archives (by month) @ User talk:Tawker/Archives
Removal of template acknowledging source of imported material
Please see Template talk:EnPW. I see that a dozen or more pages had that acknowledgment removed "per Danny". A violation of license, on the face of it. Robin Patterson 18 Feb 2007
Master Nan
I assume you are the one who deleted the article on Master Nan. I can't understand why you did that as the sources were cited and corrections were made to avoid copyright infringement. Moreover, at the time the only tag on the article was for the article to be cleaned up. All I did was try to reiterate some facts on a famous buddhist scholar and all the work put into it has been deleted in a flash and without warning. I cannot claim to be tech savvy enough to know whether you are directly responsible, but if so, it makes unfamiliar and new contributors like myself have a strong sense of distaste that there is not even the chance for correction. What's the point of trying to establish an article if it keeps on getting deleted before it's done. If you could please give specific reasons why it was deleted as the article was rewritten to avoid copyright infringement.
Why?
—METS501 (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was an attempt to discourage people by making it pretty out there that it's not appreciated. I figured it might save some grief - but obviously it's brutal to get metrics on it. -- Tawker 04:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I got that part; I was really curious what event(s) in particular you were thinking of. I guess I should have articulated more in my first question :-) —METS501 (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Methinks Colbert just claimed his account.....
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2858381/show/17677
It seems that Tawker is blocking the account to garner some unwarranted relevancy/fame for doing so.71.177.82.26
- He never once claimed that the account was indeed his, and Jimmy, after contacting Colbert's staff about it, has made clear that the account should remain blocked. Let it go. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)