This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 132.241.246.111 (talk) at 06:20, 5 May 2006 (→Re: []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:20, 5 May 2006 by 132.241.246.111 (talk) (→Re: [])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- Archive 1 - Pre April 25, 2006
- I'd like to request that anyone who uses my talk page sign your message with ~~~~. ---J.S (t|c) 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Blocks
Creating another account for useful purposes, as encouraged is not really regarded as sockpuppetry. In my opinion it's not encouraging anybody to create another vandal account to evade the block, seeing as it states clearly useful contributions. — FireFox (υ|τ) 10:45, 23 April 2006
- In most cases, probably yes. But you're forgetting, these users are indefinitely blocked, meaning that they are 99.99% likely never to be unblocked. So if they wish to make useful contributions, creating another account is the only option, and we encourage that. — FireFox (υ|τ) 10:49, 23 April 2006
- That's not what I'm trying to say. Yes, anyone who wishes to be unblocked can put the unblock template on their page, but indefinitely blocked users are blocked for a reason and aren't very likely to be unblocked. Users aren't blocked indefinitely always from a community decision. The decision could be made by the ArbCom, or an individual administrator. We are not encouraging vandals to create a new account and continue vandalising, we're encouraging them to create a new account if they wish to make useful contributions. Anyway, there is a 10 user throttle on the number of accounts that can be created from one location. — FireFox (υ|τ) 11:01, 23 April 2006
Templates
You showed confusion as to what we want with templates and all on Wikiproject Paranormal. I really think that we just need unique ideas to make our templates much better Mahogany-wanna chat?
Re: SS guide mirror...
Err... why are you linking to a mirror of wikibooks instead of directly to wikibooks? They are exactly the same, except one has a banklink from starsonata.com and the new one dosn't. Seems like there will be a fork of content.. and not nessessarly a happy one. ---J.S (t|c) 06:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Due to recent policy changes videogame guides are no longer welcome on Wikibooks--see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Computer and video games#This is only a recent policy change for more. Therefore I'm moving the guides, not mirroring them. The mention of Wikibooks is so people know what happened to the Wikibooks guides. Of course this is still all happening under the GFDL; any contributors unhappy with the new arrangement are welcome to fork a copy of their own. This is merely to save the originals from deletion; a deadline will eventually be set, and anything still remaining after that time will be promptly deleted. Garrett 07:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)
You are invited to vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
re: Zacarias Moussaoui
I am pretty sure bureaucrats can't delete individual edits from the edit history. We have to delete all of the edits and only restore the good edits. I ran into edit conflicts with another administrator, but it is all resolved now. Deleting the entire article for a few minutes was necessary to remove the edit history. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on PS2pcGAMER's talk page were extremely incivil. Please note that he was acting in good faith and he was in fact doing what he was supposed to do. Pepsidrinka 05:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Gen Lag
Just wanted to update you that I've added some references for the behavior outlined in the Gen Lag article you marked for deletion. If you still feel the article is worth deleting, I understand, but being a new term, it is my opinion (and just that: opinion) that it's worth bearing out. The phenomenon is real, it's just a matter of whether the term is adopted. I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this matter. Thank you! --Dorkmaster1 23:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI
1) John Doolittle is non-notable 2) I think it's fairly obvious what Mhking's goal here is 3) don't threaten me.