This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UC Bill (talk | contribs) at 23:03, 4 November 2008 (→Just ignore Tony: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:03, 4 November 2008 by UC Bill (talk | contribs) (→Just ignore Tony: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Re:Intel Core i7 Extreme image
There must have been an exact duplicate of the image in question on Misplaced Pages at the time, with the one you linked me to not in use. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, I delete a lot of images and I don't remember this one specifically, so I can't show you the other, identical one. I do remember a lot of these logos being uploaded at once- is it possible you accidentally uploaded the same file multiple times while uploading several similar images? J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
AN/I
Given the history, your restraint and even supportive comments in the Pigsonthewing thread are very laudable. I've been consistently impressed for a long time now. I hope to be able to support (or nom if you want) you for adminship some day. A long way from where we started. --CBD 14:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. =) While I appreciate the sentiment, I think you'll agree that given how RFA operates it's highly unlikely I'd ever be given a fair chance. Hopefully the situation with Andy is resolved now and he can get back to doing good things for the encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know it could be tough... but don't rule it out. The ability to be fair to and make peace with your 'enemies' ought to be the baseline for adminship, and in that regard you're well ahead of the curve. Other stuff tends to fall away over time. --CBD 12:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
date cleansing
Try this for starters, gathered only at the very beginning. Tony (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Just ignore Tony
As somebody who has unfortunately let Tony get him riled up on more than one occasion, I would recommend to you that you simply ignore him and his comments. Nobody takes him seriously, everybody knows he's full of it, and it does you no good to argue with him. Let him scream into the wind and you should continue fleshing out your ideas with the people who actually feel like listening.
As for the edits by Lightmouse, Greg, et al. you should feel free to revert them. There was never any consensus for removing the date links (despite what some claim) and your opinions on the matter are just as valid as anyone else's. If you have the time, it would be better to re-link the dates they've unlinked but to make sure the date format remains consistent throughout the article (I believe they're "fixing" both, although only the consistency fixes are actually fixes, IMHO.)
There is a bugzilla ticket that should (hopefully) resolve this issue with a technical fix soon, and from there we can proceed with improving date autoformatting to eliminate the same concerns that Tony (et al.) have.. which really makes you wonder why they fight us so.. but whatever. --UC_Bill (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)