| Revision as of 00:34, 18 February 2012 view sourceYoureallycan (talk | contribs)12,095 edits →Rob, please...← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:12, 5 November 2018 view source Jusdafax (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers101,898 edits Remove stale template message mooted by ban |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
== November 2013 == |
|
{{Important| '''<big>Previous account was ]</big>'''}} |
|
|
|
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for sending harassing email. Access to your talk page has been withdrawn.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. If you do not have Misplaced Pages email enabled, please see the instructions at ]. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 08:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> |
|
{{NOINDEX}} |
|
|
{{OTRS topicon}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::<big>'''Welcome to Youreallycan's talkpage. If you are unable to post here <u></u>.'''</big> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Veteran Editor III|right}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{|class="messagebox" |
|
|
|rowspan="2"|] |
|
|
|<div id="talk" style="text-align:center; background-color:#ccf; padding:5px; clear:both;> |
|
|
'''''Welcome'''''<div align="left"> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|<div class="plainlinks"> |
|
|
If you start a discussion here on my talkpage I will likely respond on this page as I like to keep discussion complete in one location. If I feel the discussion is confrontational or attacking I reserve the right to request you to host it on your own talkpage. If I move the discussion to your talkpage please do not replace it here, I will delete it.</div></div> |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{Template:User Good Article|Ed Miliband}}{{-|left}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Just FYI == |
|
|
|
|
|
* - For a guy with a username like ], vandalizing ], you can just report it to UAA or AIV as an attack account. They don't need to be warned when the username makes it clear he intends to just disrupt the article. Good luck with your work on ]! ] (]) 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ah thanks for the note Reaper. <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 21:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==DRV== |
|
|
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a ] discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;). |
|
|
|
|
|
If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, ] (]) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RFC user Fae == |
|
|
* - You should tone it down |
|
|
|
|
|
Your addition uses unnecessarily inflammatory language. ] (]) 21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:<s>That seems like a reasonable reflection of past editing patterns.</s> Thanks for the nudge , after consideration, I agree with your comment and have struck that comment - thanks - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 21:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
*Do not delete content from the talk pages of articles, you should archive it instead. Please read ] for further reference. ] (]) 06:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
**My apologies. I realised you forgot to place the archive navigational boxes. ] (]) 06:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Apologies == |
|
|
|
|
|
...are in order for in the context of the ''santorum'' mess. I was being a and I am sincerely sorry. I decided it would be a good idea to walk away from that talk page for a few days; I've been a happier person since then and it looks like the page is better off as well (I'd like to think I'm not the only reason for that, but I won't shut out the obvious conclusion). I still disagree with your opinion on the suitability of the external link, but I don't want to contribute to a poisonous editing environment. If we meet on the same talk page again in the future, I hope to comport myself more honorably and work with you more harmoniously. In the case that I do not, please feel free to call me on it immediately, and refer me to this comment. Thank you. Sincerely, <span style="font-family:Garamond;">]]]</font></span> 20:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thats very decent of you to come and comment in such a way Zen and you are the bigger for that. Its a discussion more than a few feel quite strongly about - Its a sign of maturity that you saw yourself getting overly involved and took a break - you have all my respect and gratitude for your contributions to the discussion and for your comment here - best - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 20:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== January 2012 == |
|
|
<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''one week''' for your ] caused by ] and violation of the ] 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 would like to be unblocked, 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 "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}} below this notice, but you should read the ] first. --] ] 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)</div>{{z10}}<!-- Template:uw-3block --> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{unblock reviewed | 1=Willing to agree to <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 16:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC) | accept=Unblocked per agreement, a 0RR restriction until Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:17:16 GMT. --] ] 17:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== A barnstar for you! == |
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|
|
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] |
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I know that sometimes the going gets tough and our work remains unappreciated. I award you the Tireless contributor barnstar as a recognition for all the thankless work you do on the ]. — ] ] 14:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
* - Great - aw, many thanks Sir Nick - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 21:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
This notice is being sent to you because you participated in this RFC, which was placed on indefinite hold when the user who was the subject abruptly retired from Misplaced Pages. As of today that user has announed that they are no longer retired and are retuning to the project. This does not mean that the RFC ''must'' be re-opened, but it can be if anyone feels there is a need for the discussion to continue. ] (]) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well that didn't take long, it is now re-opened. As you are currently blocked if there is anything you would like to post there add it here and it can be copied over. I may not be around all the time but I'm guessing you have enough talk page stalkers to help out with that. ] (]) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==RfC== |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the ] article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted . ] 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==A generous offer== |
|
|
A genuinely generous offer exists at . I hope you'll avail yourself to the reasonable terms. ] (]) 17:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ah, thanks for your input My76Strat. I have updated my unblock request accordingly. <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Welcome back - now get ]! :) --]<sup>]</sup> 18:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Aw, thanks for the pointer - I had a quick look and mostly under control there - I need to stop being so naughty for such non existent benefit - best regards to you Ponyo - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 18:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reminder to self and any TPS == |
|
|
|
|
|
I must remember I am on a zero revert condition for the next few days - if by some mind numbing brain freeze I forget - please revert for me or nudge me to self revert. - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 19:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Nudge: .--] (]) 17:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*Oh, I'll do better than that--I'll block you for a week, a month!, in a second. Happy days! ] (]) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
**you bugger, stop stop - you are my evil enemy - --- no!!! ... not really - we have fallen out, but we are moving on from that - rapid - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 22:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
***I actually spoke out on your side on that RfC about including the santorum link. ] (]) 00:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
****I was stalking your talk page on my mobile phone earlier today, got distracted and put my phone in my pocket. Later, it seems I had sent you a garbled email. I've heard of "pocket dialing" before but this is a first for me. Sorry if you got a strange email. ] ] 00:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*****Hi Cullen. Yes I did get a garbled mess age and thought your account might have been hijacked ... good to see its all ok - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 08:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*Rob, I never thought I'd say this in truth: I had a Rick Santorum dream last night. I was telling him at some campaign stop that I appreciated that he was a straight shooter, not a flip-flop like Romney (I was repeating Piers Morgan's comments on TV last night). He was pretty good-looking as well, and I was starting to like him, until he began explaining that the federal government would soon start taxing faxes to support the left-wing welfare state, like a vulture, and to emphasize his point he started hopping around like a vulture (on the table) and screeching. Then, I decided I had had enough of that dream and woke up. Now, is my telling you this a BLP violation? ;) Keep in mind, you can't revert this! Haha, ] (]) 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I can't revert, I can't revert...damn, I love reverting. I might put this in one of those boxes and prominently display it and set up shop and collect and publish wikipedian dreams...lol - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 08:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::It can't be a BLP violation as you've provided a reliable dream source and you are truthfully reporting the fax, I mean facts. How do you feel about the dream? What does your therapist say? Do people still really fax things? Did you have a pet vulture when you were a child? I'll stop now.--] (]) 00:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::They are all quite good looking apart from Newt. All ponies in a one horse race viewing from this side of the pond. I fancy the black stallion is the odds on favorite. <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 08:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi guys , thanks for the amusing opening to my day. I had a bit of an Internet outage ..caused perhaps by strange emails I have been receiving. Alls well in the wiki world, glad to see - best regards - Rob - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 08:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== February 2012 == |
|
|
3RR at ] ]</sup> 21:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Searching == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm tellin' ya man, from what I've seen and understand, collapsed and uncollapsed don't make any difference in the internal search engine. It reads the underlying wikitext and then does some mysterious search indexing, especially it seems, for simple searches. We just proved it between us, through the totally improbable event that you chose as an example search string some text that had not only been hatted on one page, but also copied to another page and left unhatted. Your search found neither, my search found both. I won't disagree that our search engine has its drawbacks and quirks, but I don't believe use of collapse boxes is one of them. And OTOH, it is the only engine that can see past NOINDEX, and try advanced search, click only (Article) and enter "cite web" Bet you can't do that with any other search engine. So for me, the answer is to improve the documentation. ] (]) 07:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ok Fran , thanks for the detail - I have heard some complaints about how poor the en wiki search engine is, as a simple searcher with limited returns, I am grateful for your guidance on the more intricate aspects of how to get the best out of it. - ] 12:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thanks for the info == |
|
|
|
|
|
Limited as it is. ] (]) 17:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sure, no worries. Sometimes ''privacy'' overrides ''openness'' - ] 17:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Some baklava for you! == |
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] |
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for your input on the ] issue. I think I want to let things sit for a while to see if stronger sources become available or if this issue just goes away. I would rather cite a single excellent source than low-level sources, as you say. ]] 20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm.. baklava, love it. Thanks a lot BR, sweet indeed - best regards - ] 20:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hi == |
|
|
|
|
|
]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)]] |
|
|
Hi YRC, just a belated note to thank you for welcoming me back. I'm not quite up to steam yet, just dipping in here and there, heart not fully in it at the moment. But it feels quite good to be more semi-detached. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, thanks again for the note. It was nice to hear from you, and I hope this finds you well. Best, <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Aw, thank you SV. Lovely flowers. Good to see you around, albeit a bit semi interested (I feel the same way - I think the project is at a bit of a watershed in regards to what its focus is) - Anyways, all things are temporary and policy is weak to defend neutrality. Its good to be disattached from such a place. Very best wishes - ] 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think a lot of people feel that way right now. Looking around on talk pages, I see lots of editors say they're a bit fed up, more than usual. Wonder how things will work out. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 19:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Probably end up in a court of law, closed down by a viral increase in defamation and libel claims. ] 19:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==3RR on Santorum== |
|
|
It appears you've made more than three reverts to Rick Santorum in the past 24 hours. Please undo your last revert. <b>] ] </b> 21:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I will never reinsert policy violating content to a en wikipedia article - if you feel I have violated any policies - feel free to take responsibility for the issue and add the disputed content yourself ] |
|
|
:: For feuding, edit warring false BLP assertions, and calling WBB a bigot, I am giving you a 24 hour break. If you edit in hot areas, please try harder to keep cool and avoid personal attacks, hounding, and feuding. You are very experienced and know that this style of editing is not acceptable. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Accusing someone of bigotry is not the same as calling them a bigot. This is not a justification for the insinuation, but from what I can see YRC was attempting to enforce BLP policy in good faith. He does not have a hound in the race and has been consistent with his positions on the BLP noticeboard. The issue was still under discussion when YRC was reverted, and the position that the "steroid" reference should not be included is backed by other users in good standing. A long term and established user like YRC should not be blocked without discussion on ]. We should not look for short-term solutions, but aim to address longer-term issues for the benefit of the project. At a time when the project has issues with editor retention, administrative discretion is strongly advised. — ] ] 05:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks Nick - the project is clearly dysfunctional and worthless blocks such as this are simply part of the reality of standing up against that dysfunction. ] 11:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Heres the talkpage discussion - that Jehocman has blocked me for - I never called anyone a bogot - user Willbeback completely misread one of my talkpage posts and I said, you see only your own bigotry, that is true of us all - we all interpret and see through our own eyes. This was in a usertalkpage discussion he actually butted into, he knows we don't get on and would be better avoiding me as I have been doing with him as much as possible, better that than to jump into discussions I am having on another users talkpage. ] 15:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
Editors rejecting BLP considerations |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Collect. I know you are a very considerate NPOV editor in regard to content additions in regard to BLP articles. Recently I have started to notice quite a few editors opposing any BLP considerations. Policy is quite strong from the foundation and Arbcom in regard to BLP and if this is not filtering through it may be necessary to return to Arbcom for further clarification - as your involved in many of the discussions, would you please log and keep an eye out for users that repeatedly oppose BLP considerations and for discussions that from your neutral BLP considerate position resulted in a POV support consensus. Youreallycan 20:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
User:Will Beback has joined in and User:Coffeepusher has also reverted - YGM - Youreallycan 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Is there a problem? Does a sentence on his most famous law case actually violate BLP? Will Beback talk 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You are well aware of the good faith NPOV concerns that your desired addition as focusing unduly on one project in four years work is in violation of WP:UNDUE - User:Coffeepusher has now two reverts and is edit warring the disputed content into the BLP. Youreallycan 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Huh? Working on Misplaced Pages for four years is UNDUE? That's a very strange theory. I am well aware that you don't like me and that you and Collect follow me around Misplaced Pages opposing perfectly good edits. Will Beback talk 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Not you - read before you comment please. You see your own bigotry . I have no idea about you at all - No one is following you around, you attract investigation through your contributions - Youreallycan 21:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Now you're accusing me of bigotry?! Whew. Will Beback talk 21:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::From an NPOV position, I am disturbed by your contributions and have already pointed that out to you - I urge you moving forward take a more BLP considerate NPOV position through your contributions - Youreallycan 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I honor and obey all of the Misplaced Pages policies. Please don't call me a bigot. I consider that to be a personal attack. Will Beback talk 22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I am disturbed by your contributions and have already pointed that out to you - I urge you moving forward take a more BLP considerate NPOV position through your contributions. - Your wiki lawyering claims of attack are just a meaningless distraction from reality. Youreallycan 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
My position on strong observance of the letter and spirit of WP:BLP should be pretty much clear. Collect (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: One admin posted on my UT page: |
|
|
:Hi Collect. I notice that you are attempting to use Misplaced Pages as a political battlefield. It isn't. Please use the normal dispute resolution channels to address any concerns, and don't be tendentious. Thank you. '' |
|
|
Pretty much out of the blue. I think that admin may be watchlisting my page, and if so, he might well be perceived as being an "involved admin" in any acts pertaining thereto. Cheers. ] (]) 16:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just delete his posts and ignore him - don't be tendentious and ad homin - are all part of the wiki lawyers bullshit bible. ] 04:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Rename at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism== |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, since you recently participated in ], I thought you might be interested , or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, ] 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thaks for the note - Be critical - regards - ] 04:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== WikiProject invite == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Youreallycan—it's been some time since I said hello, and thanks again for your help recently. Alas, no resolution has yet come to ], and the tagging editors eventually abandoned it, though one of these days I'll get back to it. The real reason I'm writing, however, is to invite you to ]. The idea is to provide a safe harbor for COI editors to make requests and propose changes—like COI/N, but without the presumption of guilt, you might say. It's had some good early momentum and new members steadily trickling in, but it could always use more. Cheers, ] (]) 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for the invite WWb Too - I will have a look round there later - I must say, you get my ''person with the patience of a saint award'' - well done working with users towards a resolution through all that. - ] 15:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hey, thanks for saying so. I suppose if patience is a virtue, on Misplaced Pages that goes double. Hope to see you around there! ] (]) 15:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rob, please... == |
|
|
|
|
|
...Disengage, log out and do something else for a couple of hours. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 00:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am cool - Its shit - shit and lubrication jelly mixed - leaking out of the arse-hole after anal sex - if thats not pretty enough or promotional enough for them then excuse me. What the issue is is beyond me, they want to link it to R Santorum but they don't seem to like it referring to their lifestyle. <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 00:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
