Misplaced Pages

User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/May: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:TreasuryTag Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:46, 8 May 2010 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,386,105 editsm Archiving 1 discussion from User talk:TreasuryTag. (BOT)← Previous edit Revision as of 11:27, 9 May 2010 edit undoKnowIG (talk | contribs)8,526 edits Dont' abuse your power: new sectionNext edit →
Line 66: Line 66:
::Again, it was a duplicate warning; FYI, given the user had no previous blocks, it would have been better to for you to use a level one or level two warning instead of jumping straight to level three. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 09:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC) ::Again, it was a duplicate warning; FYI, given the user had no previous blocks, it would have been better to for you to use a level one or level two warning instead of jumping straight to level three. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 09:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:::OK, fine. But you ]. <font color="#FFB911">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 10:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC) :::OK, fine. But you ]. <font color="#FFB911">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 10:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== Dont' abuse your power ==

Do as you preach and talk to me

Revision as of 11:27, 9 May 2010

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TreasuryTag. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


My Doctor Who wibble

Just a note to let you know I agree completely that I was out of order to insert a heap of silly wibble into that talk page of an article about a recent Doctor Who episode. I regret especially that your level-headed and very polite reminder led to a personal attack on you by an editor who does not speak for me or any other editor.

For technical reasons my editing ability on Misplaced Pages is often limited, otherwise I would have gotten around to removing my wibble by now. Please feel free to do so yourself. This comment on your user talk page explicitly authorises you to do so. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response—I shall remove it now. (I don't blame you in any way for the IP's personal attack, of course, nor for the fact that I can never spell 'opportunity' right!) ╟─TreasuryTagNot-content─╢ 14:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor Who articles on Misplaced Pages are, I have it on good authority (Phil Sandifer) of rather superior quality. The work you and other editors do in keeping us on topic is an essential part of our evolved mechanism for maintaining that excellence. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment

Saw this edit, and I would suggest backing off on the copyright language; the use of the image with the reduced caption (before the change) would certainly qualify within US fair use laws and would be a far cry from copyright violation; it's our NFC policy that would be violated, as there would be (and arguably still isn't, but that's not the issue here) any relevance to the image per NFCC#8. The rerevert was correct of course, just that the edit comment was a bit harsher than it needed to be. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You Die in a fire

I see your ANI comments. Some say to unblock saying blocks are not punitive. You point out a vile comment, possibly even a threat.

I say that we need to behave better in Misplaced Pages and we need more even standards. The novice user need not worry about the details. It is the admins that should agree on and abide by the details. Such details could be standard length blocks, standard ways of handling threats and rudeness, etc. Otherwise, some people get away with murder and some are indefinitely blocked for nearly harmless stuff. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as threatening to kill by fire, the excuse of it being used on the internet is just an excuse. Try saying bomb in an airplane or a knife to school and there will be zero tolerance. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

re: Section editing

I think you mean that I edit the entire page as opposed to the section? You're right I do, largely because when I edit conflict it goes to the whole page. However your suggestion makes good sense, I shall do my best. :) SGGH 17:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to do it with this edit but it still avoided the section. WtF? SGGH 23:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 3 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary

On the contrary, disruptive content can and should be removed from the Reference Desk. We should not tolerate WP:BITEs. I'd suggest, by the way, that you discuss rather than threaten. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

1. The comment should never have been posted, I think you might agree with that. 2. Removal of the comment was therefore the right thing to do. It was a negative to the Reference Desk. 3. The rules you keep quoting at me are article talk page rules, and the Reference Desk is not an article talk page. It has aspects of an article talk page, but it is not one. 4. Take a step back from this disagreement, and look at whether the comment should exist on the Reference Desk. Clearly, it should not. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, you are the one who started the Wikilawyering by quoting policies at me. I am merely pointing out that you are quoting incorrect policies to try to cow me into submission, which will not work. You linked to WP:TALK for me several times. The very first sentence of that article links to Help:Talk page to define what a talk page is. If you'll trouble to read the first three paragraphs of Help:Talk page, you'll see that "Talk page" means the discussion pages for articles and user pages. The Reference Desk is not a talk page. It is a resource for querents. Does that help? If you want to quote the rules at me, please find a relevant one. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Shokuwarrior

Yes ... I get the impression, though, that he's trying to do it correctly (at least he included a FUR this time) but doesn't quite understand why when he uploads non-free screenshots they get deleted, when lots of other articles have screenshots; I wonder if it might be worth at least having a go at explaining NFCC to him? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but that was a case where he was trying to replace an image that passed NFCC with one that didn't. This time, he's seen an article that doesn't have an image at all, and thinks "what would be a good screenshot"? OK, he's still failed, but at least he tried. Tell you what, I'll warn him again, keep an eye on his uploads and if he carries on I'll just WP:IAR delete them to save people the hassle and block him. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re MfD question

Re MfD question - I am feeling stupid about one point - I was searching around to figure out how to find the size, and there is is right in the history. I hope my response doesn't come across as argumentative - I like to cut contributing editors a fair amount of slack in user pages. --SPhilbrickT 15:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of your warning to CalendarWatcher

May I enquire why anyone can come along and revert an admin action that was pursuant to a civility complain at ANI? I see no discussion by the reverter on this page, who I see was recently blocked for saying "Die in a fire, the lot of you".

Are you going to do anything about this? Tony (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually an admin, but I've undone the removal anyway. ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 06:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; perhaps you should become one. Tony (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

TT, that wasn't vandalism; the user in question had already been warned/notified of the AN/I proceeding. We generally try to avoid multiple warnings for the same incident. --Ckatzspy 06:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine. But you still don't remove others' comments. ╟─TreasuryTagassemblyman─╢ 08:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, it was a duplicate warning; FYI, given the user had no previous blocks, it would have been better to for you to use a level one or level two warning instead of jumping straight to level three. --Ckatzspy 09:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, fine. But you still don't remove others' comments. ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 10:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dont' abuse your power

Do as you preach and talk to me

User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/May: Difference between revisions Add topic