| Revision as of 18:53, 30 July 2009 editRjanag (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users58,857 edits →Talk page edit warring: AN3 warning← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:57, 30 July 2009 edit undoJheald (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers53,015 edits IfDNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :Radiopathy, I have the section you removed; just because you don't agree with the editor's comments doesn't mean it wasn't a constructive or well-intentioned proposal. Do not remove this again; if you do so, you will be blocked for edit warring. | :Radiopathy, I have the section you removed; just because you don't agree with the editor's comments doesn't mean it wasn't a constructive or well-intentioned proposal. Do not remove this again; if you do so, you will be blocked for edit warring. | ||
| :As for your comments at AN3, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using an article talkpage as a venue for discussion of the topic's notability. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | :As for your comments at AN3, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using an article talkpage as a venue for discussion of the topic's notability. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == IfD == | |||
| If you're going to have anyone pay attention to your views at IfD, you're going to need to explain what makes ''this'' image significant, and why illustrating the look of ''this'' character rather than any other more significantly helps reader understanding. | |||
| Simply complaining your image has been nominated cuts no ice. The image ''has'' been nominated. Now you need to explain to people who don't know the show why it should be kept. | |||
| As it stands at the moment, there is nothing in your comment that would make an impression on either a closing admin or a review group at DRV. ] (]) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:57, 30 July 2009
User talk:PhilKnight
I do not appreciate your comments on this talk page at all. I most certainly have not abused my admin powers (which admin power do you feel I have abused?) and my course of action was perfectly legitimate. There was also no great urgency for those images to be restored- as I said, if it was determined they were required, I would be happy to restore them myself. If you have an issue with my conduct, raise it with me- don't just tramp around making snide accusations and generally creating an atmosphere of badwill. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk page edit warring
Just a note to say I am reporting your behaviour on Talk:Hollie Steel at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Radiopathy, I have restored the section you removed; just because you don't agree with the editor's comments doesn't mean it wasn't a constructive or well-intentioned proposal. Do not remove this again; if you do so, you will be blocked for edit warring.
- As for your comments at AN3, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using an article talkpage as a venue for discussion of the topic's notability. rʨanaɢ /contribs 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
IfD
If you're going to have anyone pay attention to your views at IfD, you're going to need to explain what makes this image significant, and why illustrating the look of this character rather than any other more significantly helps reader understanding.
Simply complaining your image has been nominated cuts no ice. The image has been nominated. Now you need to explain to people who don't know the show why it should be kept.
As it stands at the moment, there is nothing in your comment that would make an impression on either a closing admin or a review group at DRV. Jheald (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)