Revision as of 15:27, 11 February 2007 editFlcelloguy (talk | contribs)15,378 edits →Decided: Comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:13, 20 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,125 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Not around|3=November 2014}} | |||
'''Welcome!''' | '''Welcome!''' | ||
Line 4: | Line 5: | ||
NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM. | NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM. | ||
Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: | Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: | ||
*] | *] | ||
Line 18: | Line 19: | ||
*] | *] | ||
*] | *] | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*]}} | *]}} | ||
== ] == | |||
==Reporting repeated disruptions== | |||
Thanks. Not only is he NOT me, I've already reverted his bizarre little freakout essay. Thanks for being on the watch, I've already reported him to the admin who blocked his other IP. ] 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
You might like to know that I have reported 3 users (, , ) who are violating Misplaced Pages consensus on ] to the ArbCom probation enforcement page. Feel free to leave any comments, if you'd like. All the best, --] 02:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:It appears you've already beat me to the revert, and we edit conflicted... but i didnt' get the EdCon notice... anyways, he's gone way over 3RR on the Heroes page, pretending to be an NBC lawyer. We definitely need admin intervention. Cna you step in, or should I go to AIV? thank you. ] 22:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I have blocked the IP address for some time to stop further disruption. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:Re. Marzipan. Yes, you are right. I should have clarified this to him/her. Thanks for helping out. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hi there. Would you mind reconsidering your !vote now the article has been expanded significantly? I would like to take it to DYK but I cannot do so before the AFD is not settled so I'd like to ask you whether you'd object if the nominator withdrew the AFD request. Regards ''']]''' 09:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Sock == | |||
Looks like Asterion already blocked him/her. What is the story with that IP? {{user|Ace Class Shadow}} is on my watchlist (because of the naming conventions ArbCom case) and his pages were hit a few times today. —] (]) 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==waeselly talk on INc- hulk== | |||
:By the way, I have semiprotected your user and talk pages. I will review this in a few days or as soon as you are confident there will be no more disruption. Hope this helps. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
How is moderatley (in light of the fact that the budget was less for the first film and it has performed well in dvd sales, now 306 million gross) weaselly? i dont think so. Factual and understated, even ecyclopedically restrained. rather than describing a a 61 and 54 RT and MC scores as mixed for the first hulk and 61 and 66 scores as generally positive, i would say that is weaselly. going off topic a bit the reason everyone thought the first hulk was a flop was mainly because avi arad and ang lee and the studio did not see eye to eye, and marvel especially in regards to profits which is why they now develop in house. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Thanks B == | |||
== ] == | |||
I see you've really had my back this week, as usual. Thanks. I don't think I have much to worry about if I start to conduct mysekf more professionally. No more "Crazy ACS" for a while...*sigh*. ]; ]. 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hello. I reverted edit while watching RC's. I know nothing of the subject but noted you had reverted the same IP executing the same edit and trusted your judgement. If you could give me some pointers on what to look for it would help me stay out of trouble on my reverts. If the page has enough eyes on it, just let me know and I'll stay out of the way. Regards ]] 05:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Once again, good looking out. However, the user's edits aren't vandalism. In the strictest sense, it ''might'' be a content dispute, but I don't have any problem with using "silly" over "retarded". (Some people take issue with that kind of stuff.) ]; ]. 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== I've responded to your comment on my talk page == | |||
== User deleting links from references == | |||
You can read it or ignore it as you choose. I'm just letting you know there is a response. -- ] (]) 05:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Regarding {{user|71.231.107.188}}, whose edits it appears you rolled back today because he was deleting a lot of dead links from pages' reference sections: I'm just wondering why it's such a problem that he was deleting dead links. Now what we have are a LOT of articles with dead links to yahoo news that he spent a lot of time deleting - there are few citations to be found, simply blue text that says "Yahoo news report" that leads to a 404 page. I totally understand the reasoning behind not deleting viable citations simply because the url no longer works, but it seems like what he was doing (at least, in the most recent edits) was valuable grunt work, and he was repaid by having his changes reversed wholesale. Thanks-]<small>]]</small> 06:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Glenn Beck== | |||
:First, there was an AN/I against him for his actions, so I'm not the only one who found his behavior odd. Second, he used misleading edit summaries. If you actually look, he dropped wikilinks, sentences, and so on. If he found a yahoo citation, and that was dead, he seems to have deleted the relevant information too. Further, Citations aren't supposed to be deleted just because the link location may have changed. there's more info on AN/I on this, I recommend taking a look there. ] 06:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
ThuranX, I replied to your comment but wanted to leave a personal message. I think some of your comments have become uncivil and border on personal attacks (at least I felt they were to me). It would be better if we could discuss the content as it relates to the relevant policies. I expect you believe we should follow ] and ]. Our discussion on that article would be more helpful if we focused on the content and how best to apply Misplaced Pages standards. I only started reviewing the article myself a couple weeks ago, so I'm not some long time editor protecting it. I would apply the same standards to any biography I get involved with. I do take the view that this is an encyclopedia and not a web profile listing news, meaning that a biography should reflect what you would expect to see in an encyclopedic biography of a notable person. This is also the view of Misplaced Pages. This may also reflect your view, and perhaps we just need to work out the degree based on wiki policies. In any case, I hope that you'll consider a more constructive approach as we do need good editors to improve the article. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)</i></small> | |||
::I came to this from AN/I - is there anything else besides the one user's request that someone block the IP? I did not notice the other changes the editor made to the articles, if that's true your reverts are more understandable, but my original question still stands. Is it bad to delete a dead link if all that gets deleted is that - a dead link, not a larger citation etc? Also, if the link is dead and the info is no longer accessible in any way (including any way that would be facilitated by having a full citation), is it such a problem to delete the text that depended on that link as its source? I don't have a particular feeling on this either way, I am just wondering. -]<small>]]</small> 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Check his talk, you'll see links to the FUTON bias pages. I recommend reading them. THe principle is that while the rapidly accessible links at yahoo.com and cnn.com may change, the story is still there. It's far more helpful to wikipedia for him to relink the citation to the correct story instead of use a bot to find dead yahoo.com links and remove them and associated context. I am also concerned because if his does this with Yahoo, he can nxt do it to any other site. We have no way of gauging this user's biases, either. How can we tell if he's doing this in a general, NPOV manner, merely hitting major news carriers, or if he next intends to hit CNN.com, The New Yorker's site, and then Mother Jones? or hitting links to The Economist, the WSJ, and FOX? Either way, this is an amazingly subtle and high volume way to subtly push an agenda of removing newslinks which may cater to, in writing style, some political leaning or other. By removing a link instead of relinking, he can simply remove a percieved potential bias. ] 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::I read all the relevant stuff, I don't comment on things if I don't know what's going on:) So, what you're saying is, when a link like this goes dead, the story is still there just at a different link, so what a user should do is fix the link rather than delete it. Is this always the case? Does yahoo news actually archive every news story that ever passes across its voluminous pages? Also, I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that this might be political POV pushing, as we should assume good faith of this user (although if he is using truly misleading edit summaries, that's not in his favor.)--]<small>]]</small> 07:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::To be clear, I admitted already that I can't be sure he's doing anything wrong; that it's the potential for anyone to misuse this behavior which concerns me. I certainly think he's doing this in good faith; but the next person? Finally, I think that even if the yahoo story's been lost, most of them are from the AP, UPI, Reuters, and the other wire services, and can be found elsewhere. It's slower going, but if the editor doesn't want to do it, the article's context provides enough for a reader to search for the article in question. removing the citation instead means that any such info in the article can be removed as lacking citation, another way in for POV. It is far better to leave a citation in, to demonstrate that the item was cited at one point, and other editors should AGF about the cite, and work to replace it. Again, look at the user's talk page. I'm not the only one concerned abou this. ] 16:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Let me also add that in truth, I can live with the quote as written, but do have concerns as I noted. I would just like someone to discuss those concerns. If I lay out a logical and policy driven reason why something is a concern, I would hope editors working for inclusion would layout a counter logical and policy driven argument for inclusion. Instead I get attacked. How are editors suppose to respond to that? It then becomes aggressive as an editor defends a policy driven argument against an emotional one, when in reality, it doesn't matter much if the content is included or not. Like that quote, I don't care if it's in there, but I would like some rational, logic, and policy to drive it (as there arguments for not including it). I can get behind a logical discussion and lend support, but I can't get behind an emotional one. Hope this helps to explain some of my edits and will increase our productive collaboration. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>14:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)</i></small> | |||
:I'm not sure that I've been protecting Bytebear. I disagree with him, but I think he's made some valid arguments that require discussion, not dismissal. I agree there is consensus on including content - I'm part of that consensus, but I'm not sure what that means as far as content as most people just come in and complain. Bytebear is at least explaining his position and presenting an argument. I'm not interested in making Beck look like a saint either, but "balance" is something defined in policy, not some measure of 50/50 saint / devil. Biographies have a much higher threshhold for including criticism and praise. I know people are upset, but that's not reason to disregard our job as civil editors that respect the policies of the encyclopedia. I sort of feel like we have a few people trying to have a constructive discussion of entries in the mists of an angry mob with pitch forks. Bytebear may be unconvinced, but there are several others that also have similar concerns. We should work to address them, not dismiss it with the ]. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)</i></small> | |||
Just to clarify, the statement the president has '''repeatedly exposed himself''' as having a deep-seated hatred... is referring to Beck's belief regarding Obama's agenda for reparations and social justice for blacks. That was the discussion for that entire week on Beck's show. If you look at the entire quote, it becomes more clear that he was talking about ], which is why I think the context is needed. There are different definitions for racism, and I don't think Beck implied that Obama thinks blacks are superior to whites. So that's what I was getting at... hope this clarifies it. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>17:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)</i></small> | |||
==]== | |||
I have added a "{{]}}" template to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "]" and ]). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at ]. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to ], where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the ]. ] 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I can see that point. I had it originally worded differently that I think expressed your point but it was trimmed down. In late July 2009, Beck argued that ] and ] were driving President Obama's agenda, discussing issues of ] and ].<ref name="ObamaAgenda">{{cite news| url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534643,00.html | title=What's Driving President Obama's Agenda? | date=2009-07-23 | accessdate=2009-08-01 | last=Beck | first=Glen}}</ref> That week in response to the ], Beck stated that Obama has repeatedly exposed himself as having... Still may be considered SYN, would have to look at the sources. I'll think of how we might be able to clarify using one of these other terms based on what we have in the direct sources. I'm fine with removing the reparations from this section and moving it to the politics. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)</i></small> | |||
== Henry Ford == | |||
Thanks yr msg. Is there grounds for commencing an arbitration proceeding? This is a longstanding problem. Also you should lodge a 3RR if warranted. I saw in an edit summary a threat to do so. Don't threaten. Do it. --] 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:yikes! sorry for posting in wrong spot. You should get an e-mail address, by the way.--] 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I probably should, but I geek out enough on WP as it is. Getting Email updates about it would probably incapacitate me, LOL. As for the 3RR, I decided that giving him the opportunity to self-revert something which is a borderline situation would be better than running for an admin. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem interested in working with anyone, and as you may recall, he wasn't interested last time he tried this either.] 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::It's easy to add an email address, and I highly recommend it. As for Henry, I went back to the page and I see that the identical battles as previously are being refought. Given the protracted nature of this thing, you really have to follow the rules and go step-by-step in the dispute res process. --] 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::It's not worth it. Things like this make me stick to simple articles on Misplaced Pages. I'm wasting my day off arguing with a neo-nazi about whether or not Henry Ford was or wasn't one of many influences on Hitler, which he admits over and over in talk but seeks to remove from the article. The less I have to deal with him, the better, and I've already walked away from it. I'm tired of it. He won't reply with answers, he just deliberately misreads everything said to him, picks the best way to make it a fight, and goes with it. I've already stated there that I won't waste any more time with it. ] 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::Might be better to stick it through for a short while, as other outside editors take a look at it.--] 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::there are no other editors looking at it. He's making personal attacks and gettign away with it. I'm tired of it. ] 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Well, that does not help his case. What makes you say other editors aren't looking at it? I am.--] 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I've left him a final warning, revert or strikethrough, or else be reported. He hasn't replied. We'll see. As for who is and is not watching, no one other than BenBurch, an account under investigation for sockpuppetry, are opposing him. I'm tired, and have work to do. I'm out. we'll see what happens. ] 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for the forum check, should have just kept my mouth shut. :-) ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>15:52, 01 September 2009 (UTC)</i></small> | |||
== Myspace == | |||
==Blocked for edit warring== | |||
I've been dealing with the blog.myspace.com issue as of late. One citation (Jon Favreau's Myspace blog) was removed from ''Iron Man'', and when I restored it, I found myself discussing the issue with ]. He's currently up for ] now, and there's some brief discussion about the blog.myspace.com issue. Apparently, Raul654 added it to the spam blacklist, so I've contacted him to see what this was about, as some Myspace blogs are valid for usage. —] (] • ]) - 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:24hours|a period of '''24hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] to prevent further ] caused by your engagement in an ]{{#if:| at ]}}. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] <small>| ] | ]</small> 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
I see four reverts in less than 24 hours. . You are well aware that you were doing this as you warned another editor for it, and you have been here long enough to know this is not acceptable. I see and understand your concerns about the Beck article, but you are not making things easier with your behavior over there. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:yeah, regretably, apparently, Jimbo Wales decided MySpace is out. When the owner says no, you can't argue. First evidence of the 'cabal' I've ever actually seen. I've asked about a way to appeal this, in light of the magazines discussing Piven and Story's intent to involve fans. I'm hoping that demonstrating that these two blogs, at least, contain enough valid content to be worth ban waivers or just a reversal. MySpace is too big and complicated to use a blanket yes/no. I'm hoping that there may be SOME way to introduce a discussion, but on the other hand, it might just get me permabanned for arguing with Jimbo. ] 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Yes, punish those who work with others, those who follow the system, and reward the POV pushers. The Civil POV Push wins again. Good Job. Genius. ] (]) 20:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Feel free to request an unblock, though I'm guessing that's not your style. You obviously didn't "follow the system" in that you broached 3RR. That was not necessary. And this is not about civility at all, though you really do need to tone it down on the article talkpage. I get your complaint about what's going on over at ] Thuran—I really do. I'm going to see if something broader can be down about the problems over there. When you edit war and throw bombs on the article talk page though, you cloud the core issues and make it harder to do something about them. It gives me no pleasure to block you or anyone else, but I can't very well block Bytebear for (far more egregious) edit warring and then simply ignore the fact that you were doing the same thing and yourself broached the 3RR "bright line." You're welcome to think this a terrible block and demean my capabilities as an admin, but I would request that you try to see things a bit from my perspective as someone trying to be impartial in dealing with edit warring. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Whatever. That page has a large handful of editors arguing the points of making a good article up against two or three people only interested in protecting Beck's article from the reality of Glenn Beck himself. That sooner or later some of those editors would wind up in dangerous territory is a result of their excessive efforts to AGF and try to work with such obvious trolls. You'll note that there are admins already involved there, (Will Beback), and others (Oronem) Who warned Bytebear when he was past 3RR, but didn't block him for it. To then decide to block me and warn Paglew shows your inability to actually read through the large amount of evidence I provided, instead relying on the idea that since I've got a block log already, you can point at it and say 'he must be guilty', and hope you'll get away with it, and point to blocks of people from both sides as proof that you surely must have been neutral in assessing this situation. I haven't 'thrown bombs' at all there, and believe me, I could. The dossier posted about Bytebear's POV conflicts and CoI was removed, and I didn't even once restore it, though it would've done a great deal for my case that he's an intractably concreted user. But you'll keep insisting that we humor him and be kind to him and AGF till our cocks fall off, because you cannot recognize a 'Civil POV Push' when you see it. Raul654 wrote a lengthy essay on the matter, you would do well to read it. ] (]) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I've requested the action of him. —] (] • ]) - 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Any idea who the admin was? I wouldn't mind chewing his ear off. —] (] • ]) - 14:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Doom's talk page== | |||
:I'm not sure if Chris had added it yet. I don't see anything in the history, but I don't understand how we were able to re-add the link on a couple of occasions if it was still blacklisted. I've pointed him to a SuperHeroHype.com citation confirming the validity of the blog. —] (] • ]) - 14:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Your brazilian nemesis left a message for you on there.] (]) 19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Re:Kosher == | |||
== ] == | |||
LOL, sorry. That's a good one though. I don't think I would have thought of that, at least not in that terminology. Kudos for extra thought. ] 04:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:WQA-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 05:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Genealogy wikis== | |||
Hello. Mindful of your recent attempts to weed out links to mostly small one-family wikis, I thought I'd better tell you that I believe deserves to be listed. In view of something above, I won't bother appealing to your loyalty to Jimbo (Wikia chief) - but maybe the fact that the one-and-only Angela is Vice-President may convince you that that wiki isn't rubbish. | |||
== ] Warning == | |||
] 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC) in ] | |||
Comments such as you made are unacceptable. Do NOT repeat such transgressions. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 05:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Spidey == | |||
:Learn what NPA is, and go read that talk page. He's spent days on end objecting to any and ever source, nitpicking against any number of editors. You can redact this bogus warning any time. ] (]) 06:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:Well, per ], it's at the ideal length of about 600 words. And for the bits of information that you mentioned, they probably don't quite belong in Reception. I've been trying to expand the Production section (pretty much done with Development), and Bignole's got some Reception and Costume stuff in his ]. I've been working my way backwards using an array of sources -- IGN, Access World News, Comics2Film. —] (] • ]) - 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
A thread has been started on ] that you may be interested in, you can find the discussion . ] (]) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Inappropriate Link Removal== | |||
I added the link on the ] article to the Dmoz.org directory on Furniture. You deleted the external link calling it "commercial". I am not sure if you are not aware of what Dmoz is what? Dmoz is not a commercial webiste at all, it is the first man-made durectory of web links. There are over 1,400 articles on Misplaced Pages that link to the Dmoz Directory. Please see ] for more information about Dmoz and the Open Directory Project. Please make sure that know what you are deleting before making such hasteful edits on ]. I am going to go add the link again now and please leave it alone this time. ] 23:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Thanks... == | |||
:A giant listing of all the places tht keep self-adding to the Furniture page, woo hoo! No, it's gone. it's a commercial spam link, plain and simple. every site on there is a place to buy stuff. that's commercial. It lacks any useful informational pages. A link should build on a page's topic, not take a reader where they can spend money on it. ] 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
For giving me a red link... ] (]) 06:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:You're welcome! | |||
I removed the tag because it was put in by a unnamed user who is doing it to other ones that I believe still have references. ] 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:It's been fixed. Dunno why it looked right, then posted wrong. I think the colons and if statement are some fancy behind the scenes stuff that get completely borked by a diff link in that field of the preset warning system. ] (]) 06:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::That was meant as a general "D'oh"/facepalm comment at my not spotting it sooner, rather than an insult. No offense or insult meant. My apologies ] (]) 06:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm going to make a great physical effort at AGF, and return to a 'none taken'. In the future, when you're opening multiple complaints against editors, try to avoid calling them dumb. ] (]) 06:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::I can try to find instances where I've done the same thing, it's not really an insult to you but a general "wow, I can't believe I missed that" moment. ] (]) 07:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Thank you also == | ||
For cleaning up my talkpage :) ] (]) 16:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Thanks for the advice! it was appriciated.--] 21:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for you comment, though... looking into the birth date of ] and the one of ], you must agree that this is not a contemporary (!) comment, maybe should ask some ''professional'' assistance on this subject. That is, if you do not mind. ] (]) 08:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
You are being very unfair here. Why did you put (Caution: Page blanking, removal of content on Howard Pyle. (TW)) (top) when this is not correct ? We both know this was not the case. The rest, I leave it to other people to check. ] (]) 12:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Your comment solicited == | |||
:You seem not to understand: Time will tell..., and I consider this discussion as closed. ] (]) 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Red Hulk== | |||
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch | |||
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion on the edit conflict on Red Hulk . Can you offer your opinion on the four points there? Thanks. ] (]) 15:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks. You said the identity info should be in chrono-order. But what are your thoughts on whether it should be broken up or mentioned together? ] (]) 15:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Ida Shaw== | |||
Thanks! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
Yeah, usually people who just sign up on Misplaced Pages have to learn things about lingo and syntax. ] (]) 17:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Re: Rants == | ||
Your use of this phrase on the adminstrator's notice board toes the very thin line between expressing a viewpoint with passion and a personal attack. Since it appears that the offer was made in otherwise good faith, can I get you to redact? - <font color="black">]</font> 05:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Argh! Sorry mate, I was clearly not very clear there: I just mean that ''single phrase'' should be redacted! Yes, good thing, extending hands across water, etc... I apologise without preveraication for my thick tongue. I just didn't wnt someone to latch onto those two owrds and miss the larger point. - <font color="black">]</font> 05:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Well, I'm not REinserting it. No desire to look like a fool. I did as an admin asked, end of story. ] 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Show me one thing he said that was either constructive or that even addressed the article rather than those editing it, and I'll gladly revert. ] (]) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Re:Hello?....McFly..anybody in there? == | |||
:You'll also notice significant time gaps, I noticed one edit and reverted, then had to run. I didn't have time, sorry<ref></ref>. ] (]) 18:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Batman characters in Robot Chicken== | |||
Yeah, I was loosely following what was going on, and I got a good deal by looking at other people's (including McFly's) contributions to better understand what was going on. I saw where he was reverting you and claiming that it was a double standard, and I went back and saw his original post. It seems that he's now just picking a fight over something very small. I reverted him earlier and left a warning on his talk page. If he continues, I would suggest seeking an admin for his disruptive behavior. That, or just deciding to let him delete it, thus eliminating him from future equations (hopefully). He may think that he has won the battle, but I think that's better than all of us falling prey to his little game any longer. Just a thought. ] 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
If that's so, how come you allowed Joker's appearance to stay? ] (]) 5:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== FYI == | ||
This might be of interest, and goes to disproving a certain claim. On the '''2nd January, 2009''', we see you congratulating me on my editing of the article '']'' : Note that references are ''out of the article and in footnote form''. | |||
Thank you for your diligence regarding this article. The editor in question has a notable whitewashing POV. He and I have discussed some of his edits in Ford's talk page previously and reached some compromises - compromises he unilaterally broke with the edit you reverted. Feel free to call on me any time you need assistance reviewing this editor's contributions. ] 15:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Then, note this: where I trialed a style that includes references in the article, and ''you support it''. Note the entry - '''22nd January''', '''2009'''. It is NOT June 2009, as I originally said. | |||
Also, please remember that at all times, even when in disagreement, we must ''civil''. | |||
:Ditto (re your note on my Talk page).--] 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 01:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
== Whoopsie!!! == | |||
FYI, the source of the information in that article appears to be in the public domain, and I've restored it per the author's request. See ] for the discussion. Informing you as the G12 tagger. Cheers, ] (]) 19:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
I used the undo function... It must be broken... --] 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Hi, ThuranX. I reviewed the copyright report on ] and added a comment to the talk page. The status is that the book from which the text was copy-pasted, , is in the public domain. The contributor added a proper summary note in the article history and a template at the bottom of the article to provide attribution. That is all the requirements needed per WP guidelines which say ]. So there is no copyright violation. However, just because it is public domain doesn't mean the text is appropriate. There is definitely some POV commentary that needs to be removed or revised. (I won't make any judgment about notability -- I'll leave that up to you.) Thanks for checking on the possible CV problem. Cheers. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — ] ]</span> 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== thank you == | |||
== Ex Machina == | |||
Re my note at ], it appears no one else cares (as of this timestamp), or nobody wants any part of it. Thank you for at least taking it seriously. I try to talk to this user and I just get it thrown back in my face: "proof of concept." What would you do? Do you think I'm overreacting by asking for input at AN/I? I'm signing off for the night. I hope I'll catch you later. Peace, — ] ] — 04:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Given the revelations in the most recent two issues of ''Ex Machina'', would you consider it reasonable to conclude that the gardener really ''did'' gain powers by eating crops which had been fertilized with Mitchell Hundred's blood? ] (]) 22:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Home furnishing franchise== | |||
Thanks for the feedback. I edited the rankings section to make it sound more neutral. ] 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Arguing with Idiots== | |||
:I'll try to expand the article a bit more. One question, I used ] as a reference and noticed that that article gives specific history and company examples. Could you explain why that is acceptable in that instance? Thanks! ] 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
If you aren't going to put what he said in the correct context, then you should remove the entire thing. Period. <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma">]]]</span></b> 00:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Who is a Jew?== | |||
== {{IPVandal|68.166.69.245}} == | |||
A relentless, pro-Orthodox user has materialized at ] and I can't keep up. I immediately thought of you... Best, ] (]) 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Rjanag Conduct RfC == | |||
if you look at the ] page, you'll see he relogged in, and redid the edits. As his actual point, not his ], was at least worth discussion, I'm going to let the edit stand under AGF, but I felt it right to make you aware of his avoidance of the block. If you feel that because of his behaviors, the edit should be reverted, I understand and will not revert that. I felt that in the interest of not escalating, letting the edit stand till the section can be properly reworked was a reasonable compromise for now, and I will make a new section later tonight. ] 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
A has been opened concerning the conduct of ]. This follows the of a number of arbitrators at the . I am contacting you because you previously discussed Rjanag's conduct at the underlying referenced Simon Dodd AN/I. | |||
The RfC can be found . | |||
:Thanks for the heads-up. If you feel that the situation can be managed in this way then I will leave it with you, as I am going off-shift now. Regards, ] 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by: | |||
== ] == | |||
:(a) ''posting their own view''; and/or | |||
:(b) ''endorsing'' one or more views of others. | |||
You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties. | |||
You have been listed as one of the involved parties in a case against Philwelch. Please follow the link above. Best regards, — ] 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Information on the RfC process can be found at: | |||
:Hello, ThuranX. I appreciate the fact that you don't wish to be involved in the Arbitration request mentioned above, but I've reverted your of the (brief) mention of your name in the request. Statements by other users should not be altered by others; likewise, the links to you as an "involved party" should not be removed. This does not mean that you are officially an "involved party": it simply means that you were mentioned in the initial case request and were notified as a courtesy. If the case is accepted, you are not obligated to participate at all, and from my understanding of the case, I do not think that it will center around you or your actions at all. Thanks for your understanding. ] <small>(])</small> 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:#] | |||
:#] | |||
:#] | |||
:#] | |||
Thanks.--] (]) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Kosovo-Israel== | |||
Just leting you know that kosovo and israel have perfect cooperation Israel recognize kosovo passports will tell you 1 fact that ordinary people dont know regarding kosovo recognized by israel.The only reason why israel dont recognize kosovo is muslim world.If israel would recognize kosovo then the recognitions from muslim world would stop. | |||
there are a lot of israeli counselors in Kosovo’s Prime Minister Cabinet one of them is David Klein, Israeli counselor for economy of Kosovo’s Prime Minister Hashim Thaci. | |||
also check this | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/Albania%E2%80%93Israel_relations | |||
Precisely, only one Jewish family was deported and killed during the Nazi occupation of Albania. Not only did the | |||
Albanians protect their own Jews, but they provided refuge for Jews from neighboring countries. The Albanians | |||
refused to comply and hand over lists of Jews. Instead they provided the Jewish families with forged documents | |||
and helped them disperse in the Albanian population. Some 1,200 Jewish residents and refugees from other | |||
Balkan countries were hidden by Albanian families during World War II, according to official records. | |||
Israel has been one of the richest countries to receive Kosovar Albanians refugees from Kosovo War in 1999. | |||
Many refugees were provided medical care, food and accommodation by the Israeli authorities, as a gesture of | |||
thanks to the Albanian people after their contribution to the saving of Jews in the Holocaust period. | |||
i've added this cause i saw you have wrong percipience about Kosovo.--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
since most of the users coming from countries that dont recognize kosovo those users dont like kosovo as independent state here on wiki also | |||
i was refereeing to your last action of removing(revert) of KOSOVO Flag and COA on top (support for users who dont like flag on top ex.serbs) | |||
There is Consensus about this to put FLAG and COA on top just check the archive.--<span style="background:#27408B">] ] </span> 21:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ANI notice == | |||
Hello, ThuranX. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ]] 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Your comments== | |||
Hello. It is clear that you have a strongly negative emotional response to what you perceive is a cabal of Orthodoxy. I am uncertain as to the source of your reaction, but I respectfully request that you review and read all of the comments on ] carefully, and as dispassionately as you are able. I believe you will see that I am basing my stance on logic, not some superiority complex. I will say that when you respond to what I believe are respectful and logical statements with obscenity, dismissiveness, and condescension, it makes it difficult to follow the wiki process. Thank you. -- ] (]) 06:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I've been reading it for years. Don't talk down to me like you think is so 'respectful'. I know when I see the 'Orthodox is right' meme being promoted and whitewashed. I don't like it, and I won't stand for it on the page. ] (]) 06:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
I will reiterate that I think you are not responding logically but emotionally, and that is causing you to see memes where there are none. What we have there is a discussion about the best existing scholarship for practice circa 1000 BCE. You seem to think that 19th century scholars are better sources than 10th century or 3rd century sources, and you feel that way why? -- ] (]) 06:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I reiterate. Get good sources. Rabbis promoting the beliefs of a religion are biased primary sources. Get secondary sources, like this project requires. ] (]) 07:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==hallo from Uwe Kils== | |||
can you please vote again on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(3rd_nomination). | |||
Best wishes ] 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Help? == | |||
It's not too late to help at all - being busy has kept the work on it to a crawl. ;) I'd like to represent what you are referring to; was it on the Abom talk page or somewhere else? ] (]) 14:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Asgardian RFC/U == | |||
Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding ]. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already ], but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions. | |||
Also, I have come up with a and a based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page. | |||
Thanks! ] (]) 05:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi there, | |||
I'm just letting you know that the Asgardian RFC/U ]. | |||
Also, you made statements pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire. | |||
Thank you for your participation. ] (]) 06:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, thanks for weighing in there. All the best, ] <sub>]</sub> 08:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
], just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing . Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? ] (]) 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
==AfD== | |||
I've nominated ], ], and ] together for deletion: ].] (]) 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Genealogy== | |||
I've added back to the Genealogy article valuable resouces for our readers. As a former employee of a major genealogical library (the Newberry), I know firsthand the frustrations of people who are unfamiliar with books or articles that would solve many of their problems. This is especially important for dealing with genealogical resources in other countries. The titles furthermore demonstrate the wide range of genealogy today, especially as it links to social science. ] (]) 08:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
== removal of the juhurim in the who is a jew article == | |||
Dear Thuran X, | |||
I do agree that self identification matters greatly in this section. My problem is that the claim has no source cited and I do not feel that saying citation needed makes up for the fact that there is no source. If someone can cite a source, I would have no objection to the line "they consider themselves jewish by patrilineal descent." ] (]) 20:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
== ] at FAR == | |||
Hey there. As you put a significant amount of work into ], I'm letting you know that the article has been put up for ]. ] (]) 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
== O'keefy == | |||
*re the alleged gag order, please see the talk page for the article - i researched it, and there's no proof of it existing. and i think o'keefe is a total douche, but let's keep the article accurate.--] (]) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Courtesy notice == | |||
A discussion has been started about your actions on ] on the ], ''''']'''''. Best regards, ] (]) 00:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Stop ruining the article == | |||
Stop accusing people, calling it a smokescreen. | |||
Worse yet, when there is a non-controversial prose improvement, as was most of the edit, do NOT make it bad again. This is being bad! | |||
I removed your bad reverts but stuck the word professor in to satisfy you. ] (]) 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not the one continuously ignoring consensus and insisting there's a conspiracy to call him a professor, when the university itself flat out says he was a professor. This is your agenda pushing, and it will be reverted. If you want to retain the OTHER paragraphs, which, frankly, are better written as they are, not as you want them to be, do it WITHOUT altering the first paragraph. It's pretty simple, there's a consensus against you, long has been, the evidence is against you, the citation is against you... clue in. ] (]) 07:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
The evidence is actually against you. Somehow you are on a mad agenda to confuse the public. Actually, Senior Lecturer shows Obama is smart and worked his way up politically. If he were to become Professor of Law or Associate Professor of Law, he'd still be in Chicago giving lectures. | |||
You are rude first and that makes everyone upset. So please stop doing it. Anyway, you win because I am getting out of this cesspool at least for a day or two. ] (]) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration == | |||
==]== | |||
Hello, | Hello, | ||
Thank you for participating in the ] regarding ]. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the ] (please do not edit that page), and you may view the ] presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. ] (]) 03:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
== seeking an independent view == | |||
I have suggested another user's comment may indicate anti-Semitism, and am now being accused of libel for it. I often respect your way of handling conflicts, and wonder if you'd provide an independent view but also go to ] and just use your "find" function for "holocaust" and see how often it comes up, and how. Thanks, ] | ] 12:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I appreciate your looking at it, but you needn't bothe at this point. What really upsets me is, anyone who raises questions about Jesus is being compared to a Holocaust denier. I think it is just mortifying, using the Holocaust as a weapon. I don't want to get into an argument aabout whether Jesus existed or not, I just do not want anyon to think that it is appropriate to ring up the Holocaust as if that were a constructive part of the discussion. Yet one user at the Christ Myth Theory does this all the time. | |||
But I understand your weariness with conflict, don't worry about it. ] | ] 09:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Iron Man 2== | |||
Hi, TX. You might want to look in on ] and ]. As happened with Iron Man, where the term Iron Monger was never used for Obadiah Stane, there's much rv'ing going on at those two pages re: the terms Whiplash, War Machine and Black Widow, which are never used in the film. I don't know if an RfC may be needed, or just some experienced editors to go in and take a look. I'm involved, and if I'm off base, let me know. I'm going with the examples from ], where War Monger was not used, and , Abomination was not to be used. With regards, --] (]) 02:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:But it's always good to see you when you do! There's nothing like the old gang!--] (]) 12:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Barry Allen image== | |||
There's a new candidate for the main infobox image I've decided to present, and I'd appreciate your thoughts at ]. Thanks! --] (]) 00:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> -'''''— ]<span style="color:darkblue"> </span>'''''<sup>]</sup> 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
== You are now a Reviewer == | |||
] | |||
Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a ] scheduled to end 15 August 2010. | |||
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not ] to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only ], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at ]. | |||
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious ] or ], and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see ]). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found ]. | |||
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> ] (]) 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Metalocaplyse Characters== | |||
Hey, as someone that helped re-write and maintain the ] article, would you be interested in keeping an eye on the indivual band member articles: | |||
::]; | |||
::]; | |||
::]; | |||
::]; | |||
::]; | |||
We discussed this issue last summer on ] and probably some other places too. Thanks. --<small><span style="border: 1px solid">]] </span></small> 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
== ANI notice == | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Kudos== | |||
Hey, T. Just want to say it's always great to see another editor turning passive voice to active voice. Such a simple thing, and yet it makes articles so much more precise and sharply written. Nice editing! Regards as always, --] (]) 02:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
==RfC: Partisan sources== | |||
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Misplaced Pages policy, the ] policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is . ] (]) 18:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Consensus discussion on Ivan Brandon photo== | |||
== Location Maps == | |||
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion , and would appreciate your input. Thanks. ] (]) 03:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Hi. Since that discussion seems to have ended a while ago, I just thought I'd let you know that I'm going to leave that photo alone, due to my previous conflict with Brandon, and the accusation of COI on my part by him. So if you or someone else wants the photo switched, I'd prefer if someone else do it. ] (]) 01:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to ].<br/>New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the ''European continent'', and for countries of the ''European Union'' exist in two versions. From ], ] till ], ], a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.<br/>As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before ], ] a survey started that will be closed at ], ] 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.<br/>Please note that since ], ] all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of ], ] the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.<br/>Please read the ] (also in other sections ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the ''']. You are invited''' to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.<br/>There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote ''for'' one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — ] <span style="font-size:.87em;">]] 20:39 (UTC)</span> | |||
:About your comment on my talk page: Please keep watching your favorite TV program ;-)) There were 2 reasons for today's modification in the above: The lead might have given the impression it was a mere report on the outcome of the former poll, and some readers might have a hard time finding the 'Final survey' subsection farrrrrrr down in the section to which I had provided a link. I should have thought about those aspects yesterday, would have saved me hours today :( — Anyway, you still have almost 12 days to read and vote. — ] <span style="font-size:.87em;">]] 01:12 (UTC)</span> | |||
==About Hulk== | |||
==Your changes to ]== | |||
In India there is one and only one group of Hindu Fundamentalists represented by the ] and its ideology of hatred called ] - a group of editors has tried to base this article on Hindutva purely on indegenous sources that are not critical of Hindutva and tries to portray it as a social movement .] 00:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
I'd like to say that I wrote that on Hulk talk page ONLY because Hulk WASN'T included in Marvel Superhero's Category, unlike that bunch of villains. This has nothing to do with what you decided he is in his article. Thanks.] (]) 15:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Phunbot== | |||
:Ah, ok, I understand. ] (]) 04:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for asking me to take a fresh look at what Phunbot has been trying to accomplish on the Ra's al Ghul page. We'll see how that goes. ] 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
== |
==Josh Adams== | ||
Hi. A conflict with ] that is similar to the one we had with ] arose on Adams' article. You can see the details in that article's , and on the of the account used by the editor indicating himself to be Adams. The photo he insisted upon was way too dark and colorless, so I asked him if he could upload a better-lit version, and he did. Though I think his lips are a bit too red, I think it's a far better version, even though his rationale for changing the photo seems to flirt with ]. I just thought I'd let you know in the interest of transparency. ] (]) 06:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Why did you revert my edit? | |||
:I tried looking through policies relevant to this, such as WP:AUTOBIO, and at ], it says, ''"If you do not like the photo, you can help Misplaced Pages by contributing a good photo under a suitable free content license. If you have a promotional photo you are willing and able to release under such a license, that's ideal for us and you."'' When I read that, I thought that the modified version of Adams' photo was adequate. Or should he have to go through OTRS before we can use it? ] (]) 20:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Happy New Year. So what is your feeling on the Ivan Brandon and Josh Adams photo matters? Should we leave the ones currently in the articles? ] (]) 07:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Need opinions on photos== | |||
You said I engaged in speculation, what speculation? The process wasn't reversed, I have seen the show and even can give a link to it. In the show the process was not reversed, all that happens is Superman for an unknown reason gains his power back afterwards. So there is no speculation. Now if I said that the process was probably reversed by the destruction of the staff or the process was temporary due to it not being complete as the process was stopped before completion because of Batman's interference that be speculation or rather more an educated guess by me as ''I actually watched the show'' unlike you and if you have watched the show then how can you revert it as you know the revert isn't true. | |||
Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the ] article. Can you participate in ? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) ] (]) 04:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Article deletion discussion== | |||
As for my poor grammar, that can happen from time to time to anyone and besides I have seen you misspell in practically all your comments to me in the talk page so why are you talking about such a subject when you do it to. Besides I thinking attacking someones grammar especially when they have done ''the real contributing'' to the article is a bit rude, childish and mean. Pick either, they all fit. I mean we all make mistakes and if you have a problem with the grammar correct it, don't start insulting people. Now if I misspelled every other word in all my edits I could see you making a comment but making a rude comment about one sentence out of the hundreds I have done so far on wiki is rude. | |||
Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the ] deletion discussion ]? Thanks. ] (]) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
==X-Men: The Last Stand== | |||
So I am going to revert it back as ''I watched the show and actually know what I am talking about''. Be happy I now don't do nicely detailed statements when it comes to sections like that and do it simple like you. | |||
Hey, T. Haven't seen you around the project for awhile. There's a potential fancruft issue at ] over that endless Quill/Kid Omega thing again, and I thought you might want to keep an eye on it. Hope things are going well in real life. Regards, --] (]) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Grant Morrison photo== | |||
Also since I am the one who made the original contribution that you keep reverting my edits back to, I think I have some say in its content and when I did make that first edit afterward I actually watched the episode and then amended it make it correct which is why I got rid of the whole thing about it being reversed. | |||
Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested . If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. ] (]) 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
==I need your opinion== | |||
You can continue to revert it back but reverting it would be wrong as what you revert it to is wrong and since your big in having no speculation and big on facts I think its a bit peculiar for you to be purposely revert edits made by others that our correct to something you've been told by someone with facts backing them up that is wrong. I got over this whole Ra's debacle, how about you try to so we can move on and so I can actually go back to contributing as I haven't done anymore so far as I keep having to go back and forth to this article leaving me no time to contribute. | |||
Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint ]? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. ] (]) 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Moving ] - ongoing poll == | |||
'''P.S.''' In my edit description I did say it wasn't reversed which means you completely ignored that as well of course all the stuff I said in the talk page about my edits being accurate as I watched the shows and didn't just come into an article like you and just edit stuff without any facts to base your edits on unlike me. | |||
] 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move ]. | |||
== Hinnen == | |||
This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. | |||
It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. ] (]) 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== WP Heroes == | |||
At this point I don't care if they ban me or block me. Hinnen has been so mega-uncivil and mega-dispuptive that he has made this simply not-fun for me here. I cannot imagine why he is allowed to continue like this. And this wikistalking thing! Hell yes I said bring it on. I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him. --] 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
{{lw|WikiProject Heroes}} | |||
== Arbcom for Dino et al == | |||
Conversion to a ] is proposed and discussed in the talk page. Although I have no interest on the show, feel free. --] (]) 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
While it may ultimately happen in this case, the "admin/senior editor community" needs to figure out how to provide more forceful and effective feedback in cases like this. We also have to figure out how to discourage admins and senior editors from self-destructing like this. Sending it to Arbcom just lights the spilled gasoline on fire and burns it off that way. We need to figure out how to spill less. ] 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Moving ] - ongoing poll == | |||
==Uh huh..== | |||
Ok you said: | |||
''Please stop reveting the edit. YOu have been contradicted by two other editors, and saying 'I have the facts' does NOT demonstrate that you do, in fact, have the facts. Further, the speculative way in which you wrote the edit shows you lack some facts, including the 'not known' part. Doczilla and I have chosen to revert this to a version which is concrete, firm in it's assertions, and makes no guesses'. While I understand your desire to do well here, you admit to having little experience. Please choose to learn from us, not oppose us. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and review your edits. ThuranX 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
'' | |||
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move . I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. ] (]) 00:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
So lets get this straight by your logic this scenario would happen: 2 guys standing outside look at a the wall painted blue. Guy #1 says hey look at that blue wall and Guy #2 says its not blue its red then Guy #1 shows him the color blue and says that is blue, see. Then Guy #2 says I don't care if you have facts that it is blue, I said its red. Then Guy #1 says prove it, then Guy #2 says I don't need facts all I need is my buddy Guy #3 to come on over and agree with me and because there are two of us and one of you we are right. A child could understand that scenario ends up wrong and that Guy #2 & #3 are wrong and you want me to learn from you two. | |||
==Hi== | |||
And your assertions make no guesses, you say his powers come back due to the process being reversed. Uh that is a guess last I checked as in no way is that made clear in the episode. | |||
I haven't forgotten about our little game almost 6 years ago. I hope you are well. ] (]) 08:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Sorry I am not gonna learn by someone who purposely doesn't bother to care about facts and I'm sure not going to learn from an Administrator who lets such actions go on as he is a disgrace if he chooses speculation over facts here and he should have his position taken away or at least suspended. | |||
:Behavior like this is why I don't edit here anymore.] (]) 04:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
And ya I do have facts, I have offered to give you a link to the episode on multiple occasions so you can see your wrong, your the one who doesn't want the facts because then you will see your wrong. Not my fault you don't want to admit your wrong, that's your problem and a sad one at that. | |||
==Photo consensus discussion== | |||
] 03:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of ? Thanks. ] (]) 02:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Article notability notification == | |||
I've seen no link offered. I'm not an Admin. I'm not longer going to help you. ] 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
] Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, ], has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Misplaced Pages's ]. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be ], ], or ]. Please consider adding ] to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: {{find sources multi | |||
|1 = Hulk Vs | |||
|2 = | |||
|3 = | |||
|4 = | |||
|5 = | |||
|introtext = ''Find sources:'' | |||
I have offered a link a few time, I have not posted it as I thought I get trouble for such an action but if you want the link now just ask and I will post it here. | |||
|introlink = g | |||
|introseparator = – | |||
|link1 = gnews | |||
I didn't say you were an Admin, I was referring to Doczilla. You were talking about both of you in your statement that I replied to above so I thought I didn't need to be that specific and considering how simple you like things I think you wouldn't want me to be specific. ] 04:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
|display1 = {{#if: | free news | news }} | |||
|link2 = gbooks | |||
|display2 = books | |||
|link3 = gscholar | |||
|display3 = scholar | |||
|link4 = jstor | |||
|display4 = JSTOR | |||
|link5 = gfreeimages | |||
|display5 = free images | |||
|free = | |||
== Villian categories == | |||
]. | |||
}}. Thank you for editing Misplaced Pages! <!-- NOVOXEL:{{{1}}} --> ] 13:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
I created an ] that I hope might be acceptable. Should I bother populating it, or do you think it's going to get deleted as well? --] | (]) 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Careful == | |||
:It's already been tagged for speedy deletion. I don't think there's much that can be done. --] | (]) 20:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
When you removed the merge template from ] you also removed 2 other things by mistake. ] (]) 17:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Philwelch RfAr == | |||
==Unblocking== | |||
This is just some procedural advice, not commenting on the merits of the evidence. | |||
Hi. In case you didn't already know, Asgardian has been . Just thought you should know. ] (]) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
:No surprise. Quality work is debased by crufters and trolls, who have more time to tear down than it takes good researchers and writers to build. ] (]) 04:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
I saw you added a new statement to the arbitration case page itself. Given that the case is already open, the arbitrators would probably be more likely to see if it you put it on the /Evidence page. | |||
== Clarification motion == | |||
Also, I think in a couple of places, you typed "RfA" where you meant "RfAr". You might want to change that to avoid any confusion. Regards, ] 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
A case (]) in which you were involved has been modified by {{oldid2|631252824|Motion|motion}} which changed the wording of the ] to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --]] 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== AfD == | |||
== Global account == | |||
Please see my response to your comments on my talkpage. ] 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hi ThuranX! As a ] I'm involved in the upcoming ] of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see ]). By looking at ], I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on ] and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ] with <nowiki>{{ping|DerHexer}}</nowiki>. Cheers, —] <small>]</small> 01:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Decided == | |||
== Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll == | |||
I'll stick around for a while, if only to see if he decides to attack OTHER editors on his RfAr than myself and Dionyseus. ] 02:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. ] ] (]) 09:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you for letting me know; rest assured that all evidence (where your modifications appear to have been moved) will be considered carefully. On an unrelated note, I've unprotected your talk page now - it was semi-protected in early January because of vandalism, which seems to have subsided now. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 15:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
== Philwelch == | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Do you want me to leave Misplaced Pages? ] 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692009577 --> |
Latest revision as of 02:13, 20 October 2024
This user may have left Misplaced Pages. ThuranX has not edited Misplaced Pages since November 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Welcome!
THIS IS MY USER TALK. IF YOU VANDALIZE IT, I WILL REVERT THE VANDALISM. AS MANY TIMES AS IT TAKES. HITTING MY TALK WITH 'CEASE AND DESIST' VANDALISM WARNINGS FOR UNDOING YOUR BAD INFO, OR YOUR OWN VANDALISM, WILL ALSO BE REVERTED.
NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM.
Hello, ThuranX, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Archives |
Reporting repeated disruptions
You might like to know that I have reported 3 users (Lontech, Sulmues, Spanishboy2006) who are violating Misplaced Pages consensus on Kosovo to the ArbCom probation enforcement page. Feel free to leave any comments, if you'd like. All the best, --Cinéma C 02:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reality Killed The Video Star
Hi there. Would you mind reconsidering your !vote now the article has been expanded significantly? I would like to take it to DYK but I cannot do so before the AFD is not settled so I'd like to ask you whether you'd object if the nominator withdrew the AFD request. Regards SoWhy 09:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
waeselly talk on INc- hulk
How is moderatley (in light of the fact that the budget was less for the first film and it has performed well in dvd sales, now 306 million gross) weaselly? i dont think so. Factual and understated, even ecyclopedically restrained. rather than describing a a 61 and 54 RT and MC scores as mixed for the first hulk and 61 and 66 scores as generally positive, i would say that is weaselly. going off topic a bit the reason everyone thought the first hulk was a flop was mainly because avi arad and ang lee and the studio did not see eye to eye, and marvel especially in regards to profits which is why they now develop in house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.251.6 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Dethklok
Hello. I reverted this edit while watching RC's. I know nothing of the subject but noted you had reverted the same IP executing the same edit and trusted your judgement. If you could give me some pointers on what to look for it would help me stay out of trouble on my reverts. If the page has enough eyes on it, just let me know and I'll stay out of the way. Regards Tiderolls 05:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've responded to your comment on my talk page
You can read it or ignore it as you choose. I'm just letting you know there is a response. -- Moss&Fern (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Glenn Beck
ThuranX, I replied to your comment but wanted to leave a personal message. I think some of your comments have become uncivil and border on personal attacks (at least I felt they were to me). It would be better if we could discuss the content as it relates to the relevant policies. I expect you believe we should follow Misplaced Pages:BLP#Criticism_and_praise and WP:WEIGHT. Our discussion on that article would be more helpful if we focused on the content and how best to apply Misplaced Pages standards. I only started reviewing the article myself a couple weeks ago, so I'm not some long time editor protecting it. I would apply the same standards to any biography I get involved with. I do take the view that this is an encyclopedia and not a web profile listing news, meaning that a biography should reflect what you would expect to see in an encyclopedic biography of a notable person. This is also the view of Misplaced Pages. This may also reflect your view, and perhaps we just need to work out the degree based on wiki policies. In any case, I hope that you'll consider a more constructive approach as we do need good editors to improve the article. Morphh 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me also add that in truth, I can live with the quote as written, but do have concerns as I noted. I would just like someone to discuss those concerns. If I lay out a logical and policy driven reason why something is a concern, I would hope editors working for inclusion would layout a counter logical and policy driven argument for inclusion. Instead I get attacked. How are editors suppose to respond to that? It then becomes aggressive as an editor defends a policy driven argument against an emotional one, when in reality, it doesn't matter much if the content is included or not. Like that quote, I don't care if it's in there, but I would like some rational, logic, and policy to drive it (as there arguments for not including it). I can get behind a logical discussion and lend support, but I can't get behind an emotional one. Hope this helps to explain some of my edits and will increase our productive collaboration. Morphh 14:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I've been protecting Bytebear. I disagree with him, but I think he's made some valid arguments that require discussion, not dismissal. I agree there is consensus on including content - I'm part of that consensus, but I'm not sure what that means as far as content as most people just come in and complain. Bytebear is at least explaining his position and presenting an argument. I'm not interested in making Beck look like a saint either, but "balance" is something defined in policy, not some measure of 50/50 saint / devil. Biographies have a much higher threshhold for including criticism and praise. I know people are upset, but that's not reason to disregard our job as civil editors that respect the policies of the encyclopedia. I sort of feel like we have a few people trying to have a constructive discussion of entries in the mists of an angry mob with pitch forks. Bytebear may be unconvinced, but there are several others that also have similar concerns. We should work to address them, not dismiss it with the angry mob. Morphh 14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the statement the president has repeatedly exposed himself as having a deep-seated hatred... is referring to Beck's belief regarding Obama's agenda for reparations and social justice for blacks. That was the discussion for that entire week on Beck's show. If you look at the entire quote, it becomes more clear that he was talking about institutional racism, which is why I think the context is needed. There are different definitions for racism, and I don't think Beck implied that Obama thinks blacks are superior to whites. So that's what I was getting at... hope this clarifies it. Morphh 17:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I can see that point. I had it originally worded differently that I think expressed your point but it was trimmed down. In late July 2009, Beck argued that reparations and social justice were driving President Obama's agenda, discussing issues of diversity and institutional racism. That week in response to the Henry Gates controversy, Beck stated that Obama has repeatedly exposed himself as having... Still may be considered SYN, would have to look at the sources. I'll think of how we might be able to clarify using one of these other terms based on what we have in the direct sources. I'm fine with removing the reparations from this section and moving it to the politics. Morphh 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the forum check, should have just kept my mouth shut. :-) Morphh 15:52, 01 September 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for edit warring
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. talkI see four reverts in less than 24 hours. . You are well aware that you were doing this as you warned another editor for it, and you have been here long enough to know this is not acceptable. I see and understand your concerns about the Beck article, but you are not making things easier with your behavior over there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, punish those who work with others, those who follow the system, and reward the POV pushers. The Civil POV Push wins again. Good Job. Genius. ThuranX (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to request an unblock, though I'm guessing that's not your style. You obviously didn't "follow the system" in that you broached 3RR. That was not necessary. And this is not about civility at all, though you really do need to tone it down on the article talkpage. I get your complaint about what's going on over at Glenn Beck Thuran—I really do. I'm going to see if something broader can be down about the problems over there. When you edit war and throw bombs on the article talk page though, you cloud the core issues and make it harder to do something about them. It gives me no pleasure to block you or anyone else, but I can't very well block Bytebear for (far more egregious) edit warring and then simply ignore the fact that you were doing the same thing and yourself broached the 3RR "bright line." You're welcome to think this a terrible block and demean my capabilities as an admin, but I would request that you try to see things a bit from my perspective as someone trying to be impartial in dealing with edit warring. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever. That page has a large handful of editors arguing the points of making a good article up against two or three people only interested in protecting Beck's article from the reality of Glenn Beck himself. That sooner or later some of those editors would wind up in dangerous territory is a result of their excessive efforts to AGF and try to work with such obvious trolls. You'll note that there are admins already involved there, (Will Beback), and others (Oronem) Who warned Bytebear when he was past 3RR, but didn't block him for it. To then decide to block me and warn Paglew shows your inability to actually read through the large amount of evidence I provided, instead relying on the idea that since I've got a block log already, you can point at it and say 'he must be guilty', and hope you'll get away with it, and point to blocks of people from both sides as proof that you surely must have been neutral in assessing this situation. I haven't 'thrown bombs' at all there, and believe me, I could. The dossier posted about Bytebear's POV conflicts and CoI was removed, and I didn't even once restore it, though it would've done a great deal for my case that he's an intractably concreted user. But you'll keep insisting that we humor him and be kind to him and AGF till our cocks fall off, because you cannot recognize a 'Civil POV Push' when you see it. Raul654 wrote a lengthy essay on the matter, you would do well to read it. ThuranX (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Doom's talk page
Your brazilian nemesis left a message for you on there.200.255.166.196 (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:WQA
Hello, ThuranX. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Soxwon (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPA Warning
Comments such as you made here are unacceptable. Do NOT repeat such transgressions. — Ched : ? 05:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Learn what NPA is, and go read that talk page. He's spent days on end objecting to any and ever source, nitpicking against any number of editors. You can redact this bogus warning any time. ThuranX (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:AN/I
A thread has been started on WP:AN/I that you may be interested in, you can find the discussion here. Soxwon (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...
For giving me a red link... Soxwon (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome!
- It's been fixed. Dunno why it looked right, then posted wrong. I think the colons and if statement are some fancy behind the scenes stuff that get completely borked by a diff link in that field of the preset warning system. ThuranX (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- That was meant as a general "D'oh"/facepalm comment at my not spotting it sooner, rather than an insult. No offense or insult meant. My apologies Soxwon (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to make a great physical effort at AGF, and return to a 'none taken'. In the future, when you're opening multiple complaints against editors, try to avoid calling them dumb. ThuranX (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I can try to find instances where I've done the same thing, it's not really an insult to you but a general "wow, I can't believe I missed that" moment. Soxwon (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to make a great physical effort at AGF, and return to a 'none taken'. In the future, when you're opening multiple complaints against editors, try to avoid calling them dumb. ThuranX (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- That was meant as a general "D'oh"/facepalm comment at my not spotting it sooner, rather than an insult. No offense or insult meant. My apologies Soxwon (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you also
For cleaning up my talkpage :) Soxwon (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Howard Pyle
Thanks for you comment, though... looking into the birth date of Vincent Van Gogh and the one of Howard Pyle, you must agree that this is not a contemporary (!) comment, maybe should ask some professional assistance on this subject. That is, if you do not mind. Ida Shaw (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
You are being very unfair here. Why did you put (Caution: Page blanking, removal of content on Howard Pyle. (TW)) (top) when this is not correct ? We both know this was not the case. The rest, I leave it to other people to check. Ida Shaw (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- You seem not to understand: Time will tell..., and I consider this discussion as closed. Ida Shaw (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Red Hulk
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion on the edit conflict on Red Hulk here. Can you offer your opinion on the four points there? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. You said the identity info should be in chrono-order. But what are your thoughts on whether it should be broken up or mentioned together? Nightscream (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Ida Shaw
Yeah, usually people who just sign up on Misplaced Pages have to learn things about lingo and syntax. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: Rants
Show me one thing he said that was either constructive or that even addressed the article rather than those editing it, and I'll gladly revert. Soxwon (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- You'll also notice significant time gaps, I noticed one edit and reverted, then had to run. I didn't have time, sorryCite error: There are
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. Soxwon (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Batman characters in Robot Chicken
If that's so, how come you allowed Joker's appearance to stay? Rtkat3 (talk) 5:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI
This might be of interest, and goes to disproving a certain claim. On the 2nd January, 2009, we see you congratulating me on my editing of the article Abomination : Note that references are out of the article and in footnote form. Then, note this: where I trialed a style that includes references in the article, and you support it. Note the entry - 22nd January, 2009. It is NOT June 2009, as I originally said.
Also, please remember that at all times, even when in disagreement, we must civil. Asgardian (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
James Pieronnet Pierce
FYI, the source of the information in that article appears to be in the public domain, and I've restored it per the author's request. See User talk:Jclemens#Copyright before 1964 for the discussion. Informing you as the G12 tagger. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, ThuranX. I reviewed the copyright report on James Pieronnet Pierce and added a comment to the talk page. The status is that the book from which the text was copy-pasted, History of Santa Clara County California (1922), is in the public domain. The contributor added a proper summary note in the article history and a template at the bottom of the article to provide attribution. That is all the requirements needed per WP guidelines which say In addition to the edit summary note, be sure to attribute the material either by using blockquotes, or quotation marks, by using an attribution template, using an inline citation and/or adding your own note in the reference section of the article to indicate that language has been used verbatim.. So there is no copyright violation. However, just because it is public domain doesn't mean the text is appropriate. There is definitely some POV commentary that needs to be removed or revised. (I won't make any judgment about notability -- I'll leave that up to you.) Thanks for checking on the possible CV problem. Cheers. — CactusWriter | 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ex Machina
Given the revelations in the most recent two issues of Ex Machina, would you consider it reasonable to conclude that the gardener really did gain powers by eating crops which had been fertilized with Mitchell Hundred's blood? DS (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Arguing with Idiots
If you aren't going to put what he said in the correct context, then you should remove the entire thing. Period. Joshua Ingram 00:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Who is a Jew?
A relentless, pro-Orthodox user has materialized at Who is a Jew? and I can't keep up. I immediately thought of you... Best, A Sniper (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag Conduct RfC
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you previously discussed Rjanag's conduct at the underlying referenced Simon Dodd AN/I.
The RfC can be found here.
Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
- (a) posting their own view; and/or
- (b) endorsing one or more views of others.
You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.
Information on the RfC process can be found at:
Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Kosovo-Israel
Just leting you know that kosovo and israel have perfect cooperation Israel recognize kosovo passports will tell you 1 fact that ordinary people dont know regarding kosovo recognized by israel.The only reason why israel dont recognize kosovo is muslim world.If israel would recognize kosovo then the recognitions from muslim world would stop.
there are a lot of israeli counselors in Kosovo’s Prime Minister Cabinet one of them is David Klein, Israeli counselor for economy of Kosovo’s Prime Minister Hashim Thaci.
also check this http://en.wikipedia.org/Albania%E2%80%93Israel_relations
Precisely, only one Jewish family was deported and killed during the Nazi occupation of Albania. Not only did the Albanians protect their own Jews, but they provided refuge for Jews from neighboring countries. The Albanians refused to comply and hand over lists of Jews. Instead they provided the Jewish families with forged documents and helped them disperse in the Albanian population. Some 1,200 Jewish residents and refugees from other Balkan countries were hidden by Albanian families during World War II, according to official records.
Israel has been one of the richest countries to receive Kosovar Albanians refugees from Kosovo War in 1999. Many refugees were provided medical care, food and accommodation by the Israeli authorities, as a gesture of thanks to the Albanian people after their contribution to the saving of Jews in the Holocaust period.
i've added this cause i saw you have wrong percipience about Kosovo.-- LONTECH Talk 03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
since most of the users coming from countries that dont recognize kosovo those users dont like kosovo as independent state here on wiki also
i was refereeing to your last action of removing(revert) of KOSOVO Flag and COA on top (support for users who dont like flag on top ex.serbs)
There is Consensus about this to put FLAG and COA on top just check the archive.-- LONTECH Talk 21:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello, ThuranX. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Your comments
Hello. It is clear that you have a strongly negative emotional response to what you perceive is a cabal of Orthodoxy. I am uncertain as to the source of your reaction, but I respectfully request that you review and read all of the comments on Talk:Who is a Jew? carefully, and as dispassionately as you are able. I believe you will see that I am basing my stance on logic, not some superiority complex. I will say that when you respond to what I believe are respectful and logical statements with obscenity, dismissiveness, and condescension, it makes it difficult to follow the wiki process. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've been reading it for years. Don't talk down to me like you think is so 'respectful'. I know when I see the 'Orthodox is right' meme being promoted and whitewashed. I don't like it, and I won't stand for it on the page. ThuranX (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I will reiterate that I think you are not responding logically but emotionally, and that is causing you to see memes where there are none. What we have there is a discussion about the best existing scholarship for practice circa 1000 BCE. You seem to think that 19th century scholars are better sources than 10th century or 3rd century sources, and you feel that way why? -- Avi (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I reiterate. Get good sources. Rabbis promoting the beliefs of a religion are biased primary sources. Get secondary sources, like this project requires. ThuranX (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
hallo from Uwe Kils
can you please vote again on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(3rd_nomination). Best wishes Uwe Kils 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Help?
It's not too late to help at all - being busy has kept the work on it to a crawl. ;) I'd like to represent what you are referring to; was it on the Abom talk page or somewhere else? BOZ (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Asgardian RFC/U
Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.
Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.
Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm just letting you know that the Asgardian RFC/U has begun.
Also, you made statements pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire.
Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for weighing in there. All the best, Doczilla STOMP! 08:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The Holocaust
ThuranX, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing here. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
AfD
I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Genealogy
I've added back to the Genealogy article valuable resouces for our readers. As a former employee of a major genealogical library (the Newberry), I know firsthand the frustrations of people who are unfamiliar with books or articles that would solve many of their problems. This is especially important for dealing with genealogical resources in other countries. The titles furthermore demonstrate the wide range of genealogy today, especially as it links to social science. Rjensen (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
removal of the juhurim in the who is a jew article
Dear Thuran X, I do agree that self identification matters greatly in this section. My problem is that the claim has no source cited and I do not feel that saying citation needed makes up for the fact that there is no source. If someone can cite a source, I would have no objection to the line "they consider themselves jewish by patrilineal descent." Rawleary (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Captain Marvel (DC Comics) at FAR
Hey there. As you put a significant amount of work into Captain Marvel (DC Comics), I'm letting you know that the article has been put up for Featured article review. BOZ (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
O'keefy
- re the alleged gag order, please see the talk page for the article - i researched it, and there's no proof of it existing. and i think o'keefe is a total douche, but let's keep the article accurate.--Milowent (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy notice
A discussion has been started about your actions on Rich Dad Poor Dad on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, here. Best regards, Yworo (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Stop ruining the article
Stop accusing people, calling it a smokescreen.
Worse yet, when there is a non-controversial prose improvement, as was most of the edit, do NOT make it bad again. This is being bad!
I removed your bad reverts but stuck the word professor in to satisfy you. JB50000 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not the one continuously ignoring consensus and insisting there's a conspiracy to call him a professor, when the university itself flat out says he was a professor. This is your agenda pushing, and it will be reverted. If you want to retain the OTHER paragraphs, which, frankly, are better written as they are, not as you want them to be, do it WITHOUT altering the first paragraph. It's pretty simple, there's a consensus against you, long has been, the evidence is against you, the citation is against you... clue in. ThuranX (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The evidence is actually against you. Somehow you are on a mad agenda to confuse the public. Actually, Senior Lecturer shows Obama is smart and worked his way up politically. If he were to become Professor of Law or Associate Professor of Law, he'd still be in Chicago giving lectures.
You are rude first and that makes everyone upset. So please stop doing it. Anyway, you win because I am getting out of this cesspool at least for a day or two. JB50000 (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration
Hello,
Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
seeking an independent view
I have suggested another user's comment may indicate anti-Semitism, and am now being accused of libel for it. I often respect your way of handling conflicts, and wonder if you'd provide an independent view here but also go to talk: Christ myth theory and just use your "find" function for "holocaust" and see how often it comes up, and how. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your looking at it, but you needn't bothe at this point. What really upsets me is, anyone who raises questions about Jesus is being compared to a Holocaust denier. I think it is just mortifying, using the Holocaust as a weapon. I don't want to get into an argument aabout whether Jesus existed or not, I just do not want anyon to think that it is appropriate to ring up the Holocaust as if that were a constructive part of the discussion. Yet one user at the Christ Myth Theory does this all the time.
But I understand your weariness with conflict, don't worry about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Iron Man 2
Hi, TX. You might want to look in on Iron Man 2 and Blacklash (comics). As happened with Iron Man, where the term Iron Monger was never used for Obadiah Stane, there's much rv'ing going on at those two pages re: the terms Whiplash, War Machine and Black Widow, which are never used in the film. I don't know if an RfC may be needed, or just some experienced editors to go in and take a look. I'm involved, and if I'm off base, let me know. I'm going with the examples from Iron Man (film), where War Monger was not used, and
- But it's always good to see you when you do! There's nothing like the old gang!--Tenebrae (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Barry Allen image
There's a new candidate for the main infobox image I've decided to present, and I'd appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010. Thanks! --CmdrClow (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite your edits
Template:Cite your edits has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Metalocaplyse Characters
Hey, as someone that helped re-write and maintain the Dethklok article, would you be interested in keeping an eye on the indivual band member articles:
We discussed this issue last summer on Talk:Dethklok#Character Bios and probably some other places too. Thanks. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Kudos
Hey, T. Just want to say it's always great to see another editor turning passive voice to active voice. Such a simple thing, and yet it makes articles so much more precise and sharply written. Nice editing! Regards as always, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
RfC: Partisan sources
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Misplaced Pages policy, the Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Consensus discussion on Ivan Brandon photo
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here, and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. Since that discussion seems to have ended a while ago, I just thought I'd let you know that I'm going to leave that photo alone, due to my previous conflict with Brandon, and the accusation of COI on my part by him. So if you or someone else wants the photo switched, I'd prefer if someone else do it. Nightscream (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
About Hulk
I'd like to say that I wrote that on Hulk talk page ONLY because Hulk WASN'T included in Marvel Superhero's Category, unlike that bunch of villains. This has nothing to do with what you decided he is in his article. Thanks.200.191.155.118 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, ok, I understand. ThuranX (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Josh Adams
Hi. A conflict with Josh Adams that is similar to the one we had with Ivan Brandon arose on Adams' article. You can see the details in that article's History, and on the talk page of the account used by the editor indicating himself to be Adams. The photo he insisted upon was way too dark and colorless, so I asked him if he could upload a better-lit version, and he did. Though I think his lips are a bit too red, I think it's a far better version, even though his rationale for changing the photo seems to flirt with WP:COI. I just thought I'd let you know in the interest of transparency. Nightscream (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- I tried looking through policies relevant to this, such as WP:AUTOBIO, and at WP:AUTOBIO#Problems in an article about you, it says, "If you do not like the photo, you can help Misplaced Pages by contributing a good photo under a suitable free content license. If you have a promotional photo you are willing and able to release under such a license, that's ideal for us and you." When I read that, I thought that the modified version of Adams' photo was adequate. Or should he have to go through OTRS before we can use it? Nightscream (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Happy New Year. So what is your feeling on the Ivan Brandon and Josh Adams photo matters? Should we leave the ones currently in the articles? Nightscream (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Need opinions on photos
Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Article deletion discussion
Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
X-Men: The Last Stand
Hey, T. Haven't seen you around the project for awhile. There's a potential fancruft issue at X-Men: The Last Stand over that endless Quill/Kid Omega thing again, and I thought you might want to keep an eye on it. Hope things are going well in real life. Regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Grant Morrison photo
Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I need your opinion
Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
WP Heroes
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Conversion to a task force is proposed and discussed in the talk page. Although I have no interest on the show, feel free. --George Ho (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi
I haven't forgotten about our little game almost 6 years ago. I hope you are well. Mcflytrap (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Behavior like this is why I don't edit here anymore.ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Photo consensus discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Article notability notification
Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Hulk Vs, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Hulk Vs" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Misplaced Pages! VoxelBot 13:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Careful
When you removed the merge template from Who is a Jew you also removed 2 other things by mistake. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Unblocking
Hi. In case you didn't already know, Asgardian has been unblocked. Just thought you should know. Nightscream (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- No surprise. Quality work is debased by crufters and trolls, who have more time to tear down than it takes good researchers and writers to build. ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Clarification motion
A case (Palestine-Israel articles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Global account
Hi ThuranX! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Beck, Glen (2009-07-23). "What's Driving President Obama's Agenda?". Retrieved 2009-08-01.