Revision as of 18:35, 8 April 2009 editIridescent (talk | contribs)Administrators402,683 edits →Jimbo's talk page: links← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:41, 8 April 2009 edit undoIndubitably (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers39,667 edits →Jimbo's talk page: cmtNext edit → | ||
Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
:::::He's deleted two threads about the same topic. That's enough. He doesn't want it on his User Talk page. That's enough. Meanwhile Sanger has restored with SPAs another two . If you're going to go around threatening 3RR to people, you need to be a little more even-handed. --<font color="navy" size="2">David</font> ''']''' 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | :::::He's deleted two threads about the same topic. That's enough. He doesn't want it on his User Talk page. That's enough. Meanwhile Sanger has restored with SPAs another two . If you're going to go around threatening 3RR to people, you need to be a little more even-handed. --<font color="navy" size="2">David</font> ''']''' 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::::Larry and . Quit lying. – <small>''<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font>''</small> 18:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | ::::::Larry and . Quit lying. – <small>''<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font>''</small> 18:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::::Shankbone, pull it together. When the shit hits the media fan, it's going to be all the worse for your stupidity in this situation. ]] 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:41, 8 April 2009
Archives |
Eilley Bowers
FYI, I moved the footnotes into a separate section from the references. However, one of the references became orphaned when I did so, the one named "SmithDispute". If you could put a page number for that reference, that would be great. Also, you could add references into the footnote text as well. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 04:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed; I've added the page number directly into the footnote, rather than nesting a reference-in-a-reference, which IMO makes things unreasonably complicated for the reader. – iridescent 14:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on today's front page
I thought it was one of yours when I saw the title ;) EyeSerene 10:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I second that. Well done. --DavidCane (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more impressed that we're seeing you at FAC!! I'm glad we haven't scared you off ;) (and good luck dealing with the random vandalism today) Karanacs (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Me, too ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well done! — R 14:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks all of you – Noel Park's promotion at FAC with Hellingly on the front page makes today a rather fortuitous bit of timing. (Karanacs, you might be seeing Bruce Castle at FAC at some point as well. And maybe even Eilley if some of the rough edges can be knocked off.) – iridescent 20:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Further replies – David, I haven't forgotten to review the GNPBR article, I just haven't had time to read it top to toe; and Realist2, speaking of front pages, even though it's still four months off you might want to start looking at what should go on the main page on July 8; with the sole exception of the presidential election, this may be the first day in Misplaced Pages's history where it's possible to predict in advance what the lead news story worldwide will be, and you may well break the hits-per-day record. – iridescent 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Cracking! Kbthompson (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well done! — R 14:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Me, too ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more impressed that we're seeing you at FAC!! I'm glad we haven't scared you off ;) (and good luck dealing with the random vandalism today) Karanacs (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Noel Coward
Noel Coward has been promoted to FA. Thank you for all your help. Your efforts have really helped us improve it, and I must add that it was a pleasure to work with you on the article! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I meant what I said at the FAC – I think that's an absolute model of what a WP biography should be like. (With Noel Coward and Noel Park simultaneously promoted, there's a theme here – anyone want to nominate Noel Edmonds?) – iridescent 20:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyedit request
Any chance that you (or one of your talk-page stalkers) could look over the prose at Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford)? I've put it up for peer review here to see what comments I get about whether it's a potential FA, and given your skills with getting smaller articles to FA, you might be just the person. </crawl> Regards, and thanks for any help you can give. No rush. Bencherlite 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Will do; am going to be quite busy so it may not be for a couple of days. Something I can see straight off is that you might want to rename the subheads of the References section "References" and "Bibliography" and swap the order (see Noel Park for example) – "General references" and "Specific references" look odd to me. To someone like me who knows nothing about rowing, the lead seems a bit incomprehensible as well – I know every bit of jargon is linked to an explanation, but it makes it a bit choppy to read – would it be possible to reword it (for example, "Neither the men's nor the women's 1st VIIIs have ever been Head of the River during Eights Week, the main inter-college rowing competition…" → "Neither the men's or women's teams have ever won the main inter-college rowing competition…"), or would that distort the meaning too much? – iridescent 16:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I need a bot or tool...
Hey, over at Michael Jackson and Thriller (album), I want to make alterations to the formatting of references, which would take days to complete manually. I want to change the dates from the current format 11-11-05 to November 11, 2005. Can this be done using a tool of some description? Best. — R 19:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know if Citation bot could handle this; if not, I'd suggest asking at somewhere like WT:FAC (as both articles you're talking about are already FAs, you won't get a "how dare you step on our hallowed turf?" reaction) – someone there is bound to know.Iridescent 2 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- User:Lightmouse's script can handle date format conversion. I haven't used it, but it's at User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js. Maralia (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. — R 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Lightmouse's script is great, highly recommended, but it doesn't change the format of dates in citations, only in the article body. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've asked for assistance at WT:FAC, per Irids advice. Malleus, a few questions, if I can. Do you know of any methods (other than manually) and what is your preference when it comes to dates in the references? In recent months I've come to prefer the November 11, 2005 style, you? Does the style even matter to featured articles (at the time of the FAC's there was never an issue raised). Best :) — R 16:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction Malleus. Realist, when I need to change date formats in references myself, I use User:Dr pda/editrefs.js. It doesn't change date formats for you (which is why I didn't recommend this approach in the first place), but does let you edit only the references, which is much less painful than wading through the full text to get to refs. It's a handy tool for tweaking ref formats for any purpose. Maralia (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've asked for assistance at WT:FAC, per Irids advice. Malleus, a few questions, if I can. Do you know of any methods (other than manually) and what is your preference when it comes to dates in the references? In recent months I've come to prefer the November 11, 2005 style, you? Does the style even matter to featured articles (at the time of the FAC's there was never an issue raised). Best :) — R 16:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Lightmouse's script is great, highly recommended, but it doesn't change the format of dates in citations, only in the article body. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. — R 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- User:Lightmouse's script can handle date format conversion. I haven't used it, but it's at User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js. Maralia (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've always done it manually in the past, but it ought to be possible to use WP:AWB I'd have thought. I prefer either 11 November 2005 or November 11, 2005 to the ISO-style dates in citations, depending on the article's subject. At present FAC only demands that dates are formatted consistently in the article body and in the citations, but it does allow for the formatting to be different in both, mainly because the various citation templates have historically been pretty rubbish at handling dates. My strong preference is to have consistent date formatting throughout the entire article, and I've no doubt that'll become an FAC requirement in the future as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Gary King just created a specific tool and converted the dates for me, thanks all :) — R 18:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Tunnel Railway
Hi Iridescent. It was submitted to WP:GAN on 13 March 2009 and I read it in full on Friday evening (27th March 2009). I noticed from my watch list earlier this evening, when I was intending to do the review, that you had undertaken five edits this afternoon. As you say these are the first changes since 1 March 2009. I have no objections at all to you editing the article; but I don't see why I should review an article that is in the middle of being changed. It was flaged up as being under review when you started copyediting it. The criteria are here: WP:Good article criteria, but I'm happy to accept that (lack of) stability is not due to content dispute and/or edit wars. Let me know when you have finished editing it and I will restart the GAN review. P.S. I was particularly interested in the article; and you have a link to SubBrit's webpage (1984 & 1997) visits. I was there on the 1984 one.Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The only changes were ultra-cosmetic – splitting the "previous stations" into subheadings to stop it being so dominant, and reworing one sentence to avoid the problem-word "economical"; aside from that there was no substantive change at all. Sorry if I came across as snappy, but you can rest assured that the article is stable – as I said, aside from the initial creation, there's not a single change in the entire history that isn't cosmetic. (I don't suppose you have any photos from the SubBrit visit? At the moment, all the photos on there other than the seafront are fair-use; a picture of the inside of the tunnel would be great.) – iridescent 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- So far, I have found one box of colour transparencies labelled "Dover II, June '84", the last nine frames of which were taken in the railway / air raid shelters at "Folkstone". There must also be a box III (and possibly box IV) as a lot were taken over that weekend; which included Dover, Folkstone, Ramsgate and Margate. Whether I can scan any of the Ramsgate slides, when I find them, to produce usable images is another matter. They will not be not in the same league as Nick Catford's photos, who produces excellent images using multiple lighting sources. In those days I just used one large flash gun and the fastest transparency stock (sometimes/often 500 ASA) that I could get hold off.Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be a problem – as you say, Nick Catford's images are excellent quality, and I've included a link to the main SubBrit gallery at the end of the article for anyone who wants to know more. The current version includes two fair-use images, but I think they're clearly a legitimate use as (obviously) neither the railway in operation, nor the tunnel in use as a wartime shelter, can be replicated today. It would be nice to have at least one free use photo of some kind on there (there are a few free-use photos of the old Ramsgate Harbour station floating about, but none I can find of the Tunnel Railway in operation) – but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. (As you may have seen, I've now sent it to FAC, which generally triggers a trial-by-ordeal for any fair use images, so that will resolve the image issues one way or the other. Initially I didn't intend to take this one as far as FAC, but seeing as its near-twin Hellingly Hospital Railway passed recently, there's no reason this one shouldn't. Iridescent : Chat 19:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Any use? .Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely. If it's all right with you, I'm going to ask Durova – who's probably our best "image rescuer" – if she has any thoughts about cleaning it up and fixing the colour balance (it might actually work better in black and white). – iridescent 21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I saw this on my watchlist and figured I'd have a shot. Any better? — neuro 21:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good, although the color balance is still a bit funny. Incidentally, do you (Pyrotec) know exactly what it shows – is it the Hereson Road tunnel entrance? – iridescent 21:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- NB: Request here, so any suggestions are likely to appear there. – iridescent 22:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've had another shot, but Durova is right about how much work can be done. The new image is certainly sharper, but I don't think I've sorted the WB issue. — neuro 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I saw this on my watchlist and figured I'd have a shot. Any better? — neuro 21:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely. If it's all right with you, I'm going to ask Durova – who's probably our best "image rescuer" – if she has any thoughts about cleaning it up and fixing the colour balance (it might actually work better in black and white). – iridescent 21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Any use? .Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be a problem – as you say, Nick Catford's images are excellent quality, and I've included a link to the main SubBrit gallery at the end of the article for anyone who wants to know more. The current version includes two fair-use images, but I think they're clearly a legitimate use as (obviously) neither the railway in operation, nor the tunnel in use as a wartime shelter, can be replicated today. It would be nice to have at least one free use photo of some kind on there (there are a few free-use photos of the old Ramsgate Harbour station floating about, but none I can find of the Tunnel Railway in operation) – but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. (As you may have seen, I've now sent it to FAC, which generally triggers a trial-by-ordeal for any fair use images, so that will resolve the image issues one way or the other. Initially I didn't intend to take this one as far as FAC, but seeing as its near-twin Hellingly Hospital Railway passed recently, there's no reason this one shouldn't. Iridescent : Chat 19:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a PNG version at thumb. Sorry that was the first and only time that I had been to Ramsgate. I remember going in at road-level at a busy place. We went down some steps and explored the big tunnel, small tunnel and the air raid shelters. Interestingly, the public steps down to the air raid shelter were still in situ, but just covered by concrete beams. Through the joints, I could see and hear people working over the tops of the beams. When we came out I noticed the beams in the pavement. I will try and find a "surface" photograph - but I'm not sure if I took any.Pyrotec (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Having re-read the article to see what you are asking: it is a photograph taken underground, and it is (I believe) the junction between the original 1860s London, Chatham and Dover Railway railway tunnel and the new new-bore 1930s tunnel.Pyrotec (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nick has a better on here: , second one down.Pyrotec (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks to Durova
Many thanks to Durova for above-and-beyond work in cleaning the image up; this is exactly what the article needed to illustrate both the relative smallness of the tunnel and its post-closure condition. Thanks to you, of course, for providing the original image! – iridescent 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to announce...
...that I love you all. Super srs. GlassCobra 13:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ding!
Yooou've got mail. J.delanoy : Chat 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replied Iridescent : Chat 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Per request
User:Iridescent -- Avi (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Drat, my secret is out. Iridescent : Chat 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- INDEFBLOCK, REMOVING WARNING MESSAGES, GET OUT YE OLDDE BANNEHAMMER!!!!! :) -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Manchester Mummy's FAC
Thanks for your support. We writers of insignificant little articles need to stick together. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, mine's longer than yours. So to speak. Anyway, she's longer than plenty of the hurricanes and bishops. I suspect if/when I get round to my "bridges" series, I'll provoke Sandy into reviving the "minimum length" rule – I'm deliberately leaving the low-hanging fruit of bridges that actually have some history for others to do (although I may make an exception to clean up this mess since it's such a high-importance article), and concentrating on the much-ignored Battersea Railway Bridge and Elizabeth Way Bridge type, where there really isn't much to say except "It's a bridge over river foo in the town of bar". If I get enough of them done for a particular town, I might see if I can get them to FT status. Don't hold your breath, though. Iridescent : Chat 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hey now! Not ALL my bishops are short. I promise this is the last really short one for a bit. I just wanted to get this stupid FT done... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if you can best Hanging Bridge though? A medieval bridge that was was built, buried, uncovered, covered over again, excavated again ... over a river/stream that everyone's long forgotten .., some articles just scream out for attention. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hemming (monk). Top that! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- So much to do, so little time. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can always dust The Mall (Wood Green) off. Although half the sources seem to have broken in the last couple of years. – iridescent 00:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Michael Jackson
I recently put Michael Jackson on peer review if you would like to make suggestions on prose issues etc. Major alterations are better discussed on the article talk page where consensus can be gauged and archived. Best. — R 03:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll give it a look over, but I don't do much with biographies so may not be the best person to ask. It might be a good idea to ask someone who's never had any involvement with it but is more familiar than me with Misplaced Pages's biographical conventions to have a skim. Most of the "regular" readers of this page will probably choke on their coffee at these two suggestions, but Epbr123 and TonyTheTiger might actually be quite good ones to ask in this particular case. (Epbr is a nitpicker par excellence and nitpicking is what I assume you're looking for, plus he took Kate Bush through FAC so is familiar with the unique problems of music biographies; Tony is generally engaged in a permanent argument with SandyGeorgia but has churned out numerous BLPs, and although he usually only does Chicago-related articles Gary is only just over the border so might be close enough for him.)
- One thing I've done is change the references to {{reflist|colwidth=25em}} – this is one of those obscure bits of wiki-coding that comes in handy for very long articles, and means the references reformat themselves depending on screen width – so instead of the four-column references you had (which would be unreadably narrow on an iphone or palmtop, for example) the number of columns will be (screen width)/(25×em) – a fancy way of saying the number of columns adjusts itself according to your font settings and browser width. Try changing the size of your browser window to see what I mean. – iridescent 11:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll go around asking people. :) — R 13:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is going to be epic when finished. — R 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now that is getting on the front page one way or the other. – iridescent 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've told him to get it on DYK when he set's it up in article space. He will then take to GA. Some of it is hilarious, particularly the part about Bubbles being the ring holder at Elizabeth Taylor's (17th surely) marriage. — R 16:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now that is getting on the front page one way or the other. – iridescent 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is going to be epic when finished. — R 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll go around asking people. :) — R 13:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
He's going to nominate it very soon, but he's concerned it's not expanded enough. This might be interesting. — R 20:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Fountain of Time
I saw your talk page comment. Did you have any broader comments on the FAC than comments on the term you discussed. Comments on the Fountain of Time FAC are welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see any issues with it at all, but as it's on a subject about which I know absolutely nothing, I'll hold off on commenting on the FAC itself, unless it starts to look like it's going to be archived through lack of responses; I know so little about it that I can't judge the content side of things, while my relationship with the MOS is shaky to say the least. I generally avoid commenting at FAC unless it's either to raise very obvious issues (contradictory/untrue statements or glaring flaws), or on the early 20th century rail transport articles where I know enough about the subject to judge. (FWIW, I see no problem at all with linking "lagoon" and "canal" – I don't understand people who complain about overlinking, when the links do no harm and might be useful.) – iridescent 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
User:BotKung
Hi Iridescent. Sorry about the latest problem with BotKung. I have tracked down to the specific problem that caused the bot to malfunction. It was caused by specific case with pages that needs to resolve redirection and it got the old revision id it pulled up earlier when loading the text of the redirected page. This problem is now fixed in the latest version of BotKung and this problem should not happen again. Please unblock it so it can continue to operate properly as it should be. Thanks! --Jutiphan | Talk - 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unblocked; obviously, if it starts causing problems again it will have to be re-blocked. That's not a criticism of you, but purely a protective measure to stop it causing problems. – iridescent 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Please block and let me know if you notice any problems come up with the bot again. --Jutiphan | Talk - 13:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Tunnel Railway
As requested, I will have a look at this shortly. --DavidCane (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks – no rush at all. – iridescent 12:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Your pic
Did some work on it yesterday, saved under a new name. Not sure if you saw the link at my user talk. Best, Durova 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much – that's exactly what was needed! (If you haven't seen it already, this is the thread discussing the use of the image, while this is the FAC in question.) – iridescent 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Uncontroversial mass deletions
Could i ask you to delete a load of pages at WP:MOTD (saves me having to tag them all)? How this works is that every day a new motto appears and after that day has finished, the motto has expired. At the end of every month, all the mottos are substed from the days to keep a record of the approved ones in the schedule.
Basically now all the pages that need to be deleted (per WP:CSD#G6) are in both February and March. So from Misplaced Pages:Motto of the day/February 1, 2009 to Misplaced Pages:Motto of the day/February 28, 2009 and Misplaced Pages:Motto of the day/March 1, 2009 to Misplaced Pages:Motto of the day/March 31, 2009.
To see what i mean, look at the days in January for example or from previous years. Simply south (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I just did February, if I get ten minutes, I'll do March - tedious job. Any reason you can't just cycle through 31 pages, and reuse them? HTH Kbthompson (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- There the one's for 2009 and the way the process has been set up (not by me, before i arrived at MOTD) they seem to be once only. Oh and don't do April as the mottos have not been substed yet and most have not expired either. Simply south (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Enter WP:TW/DOC#Batch deletion. I've deleted the rest of March. Cheers, Amalthea 12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks ... I had to take delivery of a garden shed! Kbthompson (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
April Metro
The Metropolitan | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Please also could you see my request above this.
Simply south (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo's talk page
Jimbo deleted the section and Larry just added it again. Check the history. I will revert any edits that add the section unless Jimbo changes his mind. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- And if you do it three times I will block you for edit warring. You are not the censor of Misplaced Pages, and Jimmy Wales is perfectly capable of removing a post himself if he objects to it. – iridescent 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You might be interested in this note Griffinofwales left for David Shankbone. Majorly talk 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You keep making the same statement, but you should be blocking Sanger for 3RR, as Jimbo has removed the message twice. Making Jimbo dance is not the way we're going to do things; he's seen the message, removed it twice. It doesn't belong. You're not applying your supposed principles--including 3RR--evenly as Sanger would already be blocked. --David Shankbone 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- David, I see Jimbo removing the post once – his other "decline to participate" removal was the removal of a completely different thread posted by GTD. Do you really not realize that every revert your tag-team is making provides another round of ammunition for Misplaced Pages's critics? – iridescent 18:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- He's deleted two threads about the same topic. That's enough. He doesn't want it on his User Talk page. That's enough. Meanwhile Sanger has restored with SPAs another two . If you're going to go around threatening 3RR to people, you need to be a little more even-handed. --David Shankbone 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Larry posted once and restored it once. Quit lying. – iridescent 18:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Shankbone, pull it together. When the shit hits the media fan, it's going to be all the worse for your stupidity in this situation. لennavecia 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- He's deleted two threads about the same topic. That's enough. He doesn't want it on his User Talk page. That's enough. Meanwhile Sanger has restored with SPAs another two . If you're going to go around threatening 3RR to people, you need to be a little more even-handed. --David Shankbone 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- David, I see Jimbo removing the post once – his other "decline to participate" removal was the removal of a completely different thread posted by GTD. Do you really not realize that every revert your tag-team is making provides another round of ammunition for Misplaced Pages's critics? – iridescent 18:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You keep making the same statement, but you should be blocking Sanger for 3RR, as Jimbo has removed the message twice. Making Jimbo dance is not the way we're going to do things; he's seen the message, removed it twice. It doesn't belong. You're not applying your supposed principles--including 3RR--evenly as Sanger would already be blocked. --David Shankbone 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You might be interested in this note Griffinofwales left for David Shankbone. Majorly talk 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)