User talk:Hamedog: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:09, 28 May 2007 editHamedog (talk \| contribs)6,208 edits →Warning: reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:33, 28 May 2007 edit undoJarrahTree (talk \| contribs)378,034 editsm →Warning: think of something elseNext edit →
Line 56:		Line 56:

	::::: I don't want to see WF getting sued either. I was simply trying to find out what occurred on the talk page of ], an article I worked on to get up to GA status. I am sure 95% of editors would also like to know what occurred on the talk page of an article they have made major contributions. I no way am I condoning or attempting to aid the spread of this material - the edits are deleted after all, but I was very interested in why such a fuss was thrown up by admin following these edits. I have not done a thing wrong so I will not archive now - this discussion is still active in my mind.--<small>]<sub>]</sub>\|<sup>]</sup></small> 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)		::::: I don't want to see WF getting sued either. I was simply trying to find out what occurred on the talk page of ], an article I worked on to get up to GA status. I am sure 95% of editors would also like to know what occurred on the talk page of an article they have made major contributions. I no way am I condoning or attempting to aid the spread of this material - the edits are deleted after all, but I was very interested in why such a fuss was thrown up by admin following these edits. I have not done a thing wrong so I will not archive now - this discussion is still active in my mind.--<small>]<sub>]</sub>\|<sup>]</sup></small> 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

			::You are your own undoing mate - you have what some police, ambulance and fire workers call it the ''I have to see the car crash/fire syndrome'' - long standing editors and admins have perused the talk page item and deemed it inappropriate - If you cannot hack that try worrying about something else. There '''is something wrong''' in wanting to resurrect or spark interest in an item that is no longer there - leave well alone. It has absolutely not one iota or anything to do with making wikipedia a better encyclopedia.]] 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:33, 28 May 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 16 days are automatically archived to User talk:Hamedog/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Note:If you post a message here, I will reply here. If I post a message on your talk page, don't reply here. I have your page in my watchlist. This keeps the conversation from breaking.

Archives

User talk:Hamedog/Archive 1: 23 November 2005 – 14 September 2006
User talk:Hamedog/Archive 2: 18 September 2006 - Current

Jellybeans

Here are some Jelly beans for you. I love jelly beans as they have sugar in them and most people love sugar. But on the other hand just receiving somthing from somone else just makes you happy and also just giving this to you makes me happy. I hope to spread the jelly beans all over Misplaced Pages, so here, you can have this lot. Please enjoy them. (I like the lime ones.)

Editors need a bit of a sugar high too.

An apple a day keeps -The Doctor- away. Or does it! 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

David Beckham

Chocolate

Hi, do you like whittakers chocolae?

2006 Tri Nations Series images

Hey, I was wondering if you could create two more of those starting line-up images for this article? I have added the starting line-ups, and replacements and everything to the article, and all that is needed are those images. Would be great if you could do this, thanks! - Shudda 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if I get time.--Hamedog_Talk| 06:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wallabies

Do you want to help me in order to better this article Wallabies (version française) ? It should be a very nice result... Ddfree 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If I get time.--Hamedog_Talk| 22:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 final

Hey, have started something here. - Shudda 03:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hey, thanks for the RfA nomination. I must decline however. I don't really have any need for the admin powers, and am quite happy contributing the way I am at the moment. I'm really flattered that you nominated me - so please don't be offended that I have declined. Thanks. - Shudda 01:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Hamdog Willkca has been warned that repeating the comments will result in a block please leave the issue alone, in short the comments were offensive statements about staff, student and parents of student at the school including names. Gnan garra 02:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you deleted the edits? Yes, sorry about this I was curious as to what had happened, not trying to re-start the fire or anything. Was I mentioned?--Hamedog_Talk| 02:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What was said was deleted, there is no need for further comments. If you have concerns raise it WP:AN/I. Gnan garra 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you make it sound like I have done something wrong.--Hamedog_Talk| 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:LIBEL is the official position of Misplaced Pages, please read it Gnan garra 03:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Slander_and_libel#Australian_law Gnan garra 03:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on- just stay off the issue or a more adventurous admin will block you on the spot, Stay out of the issue and dont leave anything on any page to do with the issue. Simple as that. Satu Suro 03:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of slander and libel but I don't think Australian Law applies in this situation as the offence technically occurs in Florida, coming under United States Law (as Misplaced Pages's servers are hosted there). On what grounds would I be blocked? As far as I am aware I have just made an inquirey into the events that occured on the talk page of an article I have made major contributions too (a mouthful!).--Hamedog_Talk| 03:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Having read Slander_and_libel#Australian_law, I take back some of the comments made earlier. But I have not made claims that could be regarded as libel (at least not recently :P)--Hamedog_Talk| 04:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

you asked about the willkca comments, They are why I have referred to those links, I have ask you to cease I'm now officially warning you that continuation of this is disruptive and are asking people to violate Australian law as that article link indicates. I am also requesting that you move this discussion to your current archive once you have read this message. Gnan garra 04:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect that anyone with knowledge of wikipedia policies - reviewing the situation can clearly state that any attempt to circulate or any way show knowledge of, or circulate the willkca comments back into circulation makes you party to the issue. Archive now, so you will not regret !Satu Suro 04:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have this page set up so it is achived every 16 days. I don't believe I have done anything wrong, I just wanted to know what had occured on the Scotch College talk page, an article I have heavily contributed to. In no way am I trying to help anyone spread material that could be regarded by the courts as libel.

Just a small tip - there's an old saying "choose your battles", this is *really* not worth going down over in my opinion. The above people aren't taking personal issue with you, it's the job of an admin to watch out for this kind of stuff to ensure Wikimedia Foundation doesn't get sued. Orderinchaos 05:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to see WF getting sued either. I was simply trying to find out what occurred on the talk page of Scotch College, Perth, an article I worked on to get up to GA status. I am sure 95% of editors would also like to know what occurred on the talk page of an article they have made major contributions. I no way am I condoning or attempting to aid the spread of this material - the edits are deleted after all, but I was very interested in why such a fuss was thrown up by admin following these edits. I have not done a thing wrong so I will not archive now - this discussion is still active in my mind.--Hamedog_Talk| 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are your own undoing mate - you have what some police, ambulance and fire workers call it the I have to see the car crash/fire syndrome - long standing editors and admins have perused the talk page item and deemed it inappropriate - If you cannot hack that try worrying about something else. There is something wrong in wanting to resurrect or spark interest in an item that is no longer there - leave well alone. It has absolutely not one iota or anything to do with making wikipedia a better encyclopedia.Satu Suro 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:09, 28 May 2007 editHamedog (talk \| contribs)6,208 edits →Warning: reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:33, 28 May 2007 edit undoJarrahTree (talk \| contribs)378,034 editsm →Warning: think of something elseNext edit →
Line 56:		Line 56:

	::::: I don't want to see WF getting sued either. I was simply trying to find out what occurred on the talk page of ], an article I worked on to get up to GA status. I am sure 95% of editors would also like to know what occurred on the talk page of an article they have made major contributions. I no way am I condoning or attempting to aid the spread of this material - the edits are deleted after all, but I was very interested in why such a fuss was thrown up by admin following these edits. I have not done a thing wrong so I will not archive now - this discussion is still active in my mind.--<small>]<sub>]</sub>\|<sup>]</sup></small> 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)		::::: I don't want to see WF getting sued either. I was simply trying to find out what occurred on the talk page of ], an article I worked on to get up to GA status. I am sure 95% of editors would also like to know what occurred on the talk page of an article they have made major contributions. I no way am I condoning or attempting to aid the spread of this material - the edits are deleted after all, but I was very interested in why such a fuss was thrown up by admin following these edits. I have not done a thing wrong so I will not archive now - this discussion is still active in my mind.--<small>]<sub>]</sub>\|<sup>]</sup></small> 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

			::You are your own undoing mate - you have what some police, ambulance and fire workers call it the ''I have to see the car crash/fire syndrome'' - long standing editors and admins have perused the talk page item and deemed it inappropriate - If you cannot hack that try worrying about something else. There '''is something wrong''' in wanting to resurrect or spark interest in an item that is no longer there - leave well alone. It has absolutely not one iota or anything to do with making wikipedia a better encyclopedia.]] 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)