This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shadowbot3 (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 15 May 2007 (Automated archival of 3 sections to User talk:Tawker/May07). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:20, 15 May 2007 by Shadowbot3 (talk | contribs) (Automated archival of 3 sections to User talk:Tawker/May07)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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.
You Can't Do That
YOu blocked Stephen Colberts site and I understand why you did that as he caused anchaotic vandalism breakout but I read his block log and it said that you would not unblock him until you "get an email from colbertnation.com saying that you get on the show" that's abusing your power as a moderator or whatever you are. you are living proof that Wiki-Authority can be corrupt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.95.109 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
- And evidentially you cannot understand a joke. Such lines were a common Colbert punchline at the time, surely you would have recognized that. -0 Tawker 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)