This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) at 21:21, 20 February 2013 (→B2C close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:21, 20 February 2013 by Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) (→B2C close)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is TParis's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
| If you have come here to change my opinion, be ready to also change yours. |
| USER PAGE | TALK PAGE | CONTRIBUTIONS | AWARDS | DASHBOARD | RECALL | MOTIVES | POLITICS | RTRC |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
You might get a kick out of this TP
Check this out. 
— - dain- talk 22:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, I've seen that photo. That angle doesn't show you his desert combat boots.--v/r - TP 23:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Twinkle
Tom, as you probably know the TW rollback vandal feature, more specifically the abuse thereof, is a pet peeve of mine. I've requested the feature be removed here and would like to invite you to comment. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 12:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
From the frequent messages I see here, you appear to be a database guru. How could I get a query to give me a list of the first 500 diffs starting at date/time X that have the TW vandalism message in the edit summary? I'd like to go through that list manually and identify the percentage of actual vandalism reverts vs "other" so I have some statistics to present for a possible RfC. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Reply
Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir's talk page. Mr T 16:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please go through my latest post. Thank you. Mr T 07:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- There has been no modification to change the context. - I didn't accuse of anything if that is what you thought. BTW, you might want to go through my latest post on RegentsPark's talk. Thank you. Mr T 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't intend to accuse you of accusing me of doing that. I just meant that it's all together and I wasn't piecing together different parts of the source. I'll go read that in a sec, working on a close for something else atm.--v/r - TP 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I replied there.--v/r - TP 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't intend to accuse you of accusing me of doing that. I just meant that it's all together and I wasn't piecing together different parts of the source. I'll go read that in a sec, working on a close for something else atm.--v/r - TP 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- There has been no modification to change the context. - I didn't accuse of anything if that is what you thought. BTW, you might want to go through my latest post on RegentsPark's talk. Thank you. Mr T 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please go through my latest post. Thank you. Mr T 07:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Cúchullain /c 23:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Replied.--v/r - TP 23:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
B2C close
Seems like a fairly rational call. Hate when that happens. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ditto. Both counts. :) --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think this was a very well thought out call. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- On the first sentence ("preempt") did you mean "preface"?North8000 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I did, thanks.--v/r - TP 18:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just wanted to pile on and compliment you on the close. It's not what I would have preferred, but it's fair and well thought out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I did, thanks.--v/r - TP 18:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- On the first sentence ("preempt") did you mean "preface"?North8000 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think this was a very well thought out call. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Since I never hold back when I have an issue with an admin, it seems only fair that I would compliment a particularly astute action. Of course, life's not fair. NE Ent 18:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you should place a time limit on the sanction be in months or years. -- PBS (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I hadn't though of that. But couldn't B2C just ask that the sanctions be removed in 6+ months if they are no longer needed?--v/r - TP 20:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, though you didn't mention that. Maybe just say 1 year and can ask to have it removed earlier? North8000 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, I can do that. I just figured it was expected.--v/r - TP 20:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, though you didn't mention that. Maybe just say 1 year and can ask to have it removed earlier? North8000 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I hadn't though of that. But couldn't B2C just ask that the sanctions be removed in 6+ months if they are no longer needed?--v/r - TP 20:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)