User talk:Picaroon9288/Archive3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
This archive shows comments for me on my user talk page from 17 October 2006 until ?? ???????? 200?. It is my second (number 2) archive.
Signpost updated for October 16th.
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 42 | 16 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Willy
Thanks for the note. I'll look into it. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Themindset/RFA
No, not off hand, I can not. I just remember seeing highly active users come on in a flurry of edits and then depart just as quick... But yeah, I didn't keep track of them unfortunately. I hope that doesn't affect the integrity of my opinion in your eyes. Themindset 03:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:VP2
I understand your concerns with WP:VP2, but the problem seems to come when two editors are quick to act (which is a good thing!). Since VP2 is still in early developement, there is no way to "shut off" the 'edit I have made' function and/or check to see if someone has reverted at the same time as me. This isn't the first time this has happened (once or twice with AntiVandalBot) and I really wish there was something that could be done to make sure that I was the one who made the edit before leaving the warning. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Userpage
Thanks for reverting my userpage! Darth Panda 02:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Ravi Belagere
Hi, I tagged the article Ravi Belagere as under construction just yesterday and I've noticed you've deleted the tag saying it's been there too long. Is one day too long for that tag to be in? I'll take few more days and complete that article. Gnanapiti 00:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks a lot for clearing my concerns. I'm going to remove the tag now. Gnanapiti 02:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 23rd.
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 43 | 23 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
| Report from the Finnish Wikipedia | News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
BLP
Hi, you reverted [1]. See WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. — Matt Crypto 08:49, 24 October 2006
Elonka RfA
Thank you for your question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka: Could you explain your conflict with Danny, as evidenced by this afd debate? Has it been resolved?.
- I have posted a detailed reply to this question, at User_talk:Guinnog#Question #2. If you have any additional concerns though, please let me know and I'll be happy to address them as best I can. :) --Elonka 12:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hiya, just following up... Did you have any additional questions? :) --Elonka 17:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, not really. If I was to !vote, It would most certainly be in the neutral section, but it wouldn't accomplish much at this point. Seeing as my thoughts and opinions on the rfa are stated several times over on the page, I just don't think it would be very helpful to say "Neutral per above." Picaroon9288 17:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks for letting me know. :) --Elonka 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, not really. If I was to !vote, It would most certainly be in the neutral section, but it wouldn't accomplish much at this point. Seeing as my thoughts and opinions on the rfa are stated several times over on the page, I just don't think it would be very helpful to say "Neutral per above." Picaroon9288 17:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hiya, just following up... Did you have any additional questions? :) --Elonka 17:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you again for expressing an interest in my recent RfA, and offering a question. As a followup, unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. I did, however, find the discussion valuable, and a useful tool to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 07:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Warnings
As a wikipedia user you are not entitled to hand out warnings. Only users with the title of administrator or higher may do this. I've noted several occasions where you have given warnings, as well as your use of the template at the head of your talk page, which is anappropriate and will not help your cause if you are an admin hopeful.
My suggestion is that you stay away from that kind of thing unless absolutely necessary (IE if you feel the situation would be helped by reminding people of the rules). If you really have to, either simply remind people of the rules, or caution them - but never "warn", as this can escalate into an argument to do with the fact that you have no power to enforce your warnings, which just exacerbates the problem by adding a whole new disagreement.
What I do is "community watch" - basically it's a non official role, I just keep an extra eye out for talk page problems - I either alert an admin or attempt to calm the situation myself. You might find you have more success with this yourself. --82.152.208.130 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, as a wikipedia user, I'm not only entitled to hand out warnings to vandals after I've reverted them, an official policy on wikipedia says that I should. As for your statement that warning vandals will not help me if I'm an admin hopeful, I'd recommend reading some requests for adminship; you might notice that people have been opposed for not giving vandals warnings. I'd also recommend taking a look at this section of the policy page Wikipedia:Vandalism. Picaroon9288 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Untitled comment from 70.186.206.17
"Accusing editors who are merely trying to follow Wikipedia's external link guidelines of vandalism, as you did in your edit summary of your edit to Scotch whisky, is highly inappropriate, and definitely incivil. I wouldn't recommend doing it again. Picaroon9288 01:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)"
Who are YOU to leave a message like this? --70.186.206.17 01:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Does it matter who I am? Not really. To put it simply, incivility won't be tolerated. It is obvious that neither of them were vandalizing the article, and, therefore, accusing them of it is wrong. Picaroon9288 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It doesn't take an admin to remind people to be civil. Now, if you agree, we can end this conversation. Picaroon9288 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Civility is fine. Calling the mass removal of links "vandalism" is appropriate. Wandering Wikipedia leaving Warnings when you are not empowered to do so is pathetic. --70.186.206.17 01:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- A. I am simply reverting the changes of people unqualified to make changes. B. I'm getting tired of you popping up and telling me what to do. Based on the other comments here, I'm not the first person to ask you where you think you get your authority. --70.186.206.17 02:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
Signpost updated for October 30th.
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 44 | 30 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
November Esperanza Newsletter
For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter (November '06 edition) can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. —Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello, 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: User:E@L / doppelganger
Thanks for the headsup. E@L has become my nickname (especially at Esperanza), but I originally created the page so I could redirect it to my account to shorten my sig. I intended to register accounts for alternate spellings, etc. but never got around to it. Thanks for reminding me! — Editor at Large(speak) 09:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just tried, and E@L is an invalid username (along with all alternate spellings of Editor at Large). However, there is an existing account titled "editoratlarge" (log here) created in September which has no contributions. What should I do to request it be blocked/changed? — Editor at Large(speak) 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Great, thank you! — Editor at Large(speak) 21:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Nelson Merek
You are way off base on Nelson Merek and your discussion should be held at the discussion page for that article. Tagging it for deletion is massive overkill and I will continue to remove your tag until I am told otherwise by an administrator.
Kevin Murray 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
AFD
I tried to list High And Dry not High and Dry. Same name but different meanings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DCman (talk • contribs) 03:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, I've tagged the artice, formatted your afd, and listed the correct afd debate on today's page. Picaroon9288 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 6th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 45 | 6 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
RFD Nominations
I moved your Sean Rinehart RFD nomination to the correct day[2] [3]. Today's still the 5th in UTC. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Woah, sorry about that. I could've sworn it was the sixth already. Thanks for the catch. Picaroon9288 19:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. Myself, I got tired of always converting time. I set my time preferences to 0hrs from UTC and implemented Voice of All's UTC Clock. Now, everything I do on Wikipedia is in UTC and it's much easier comparing times. It's probably not to to everyone's taste, but it made it simpler for me. -- JLaTondre 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Eeek, I forgot to say thanks for the tip about VoA's clock - its been very helpful! Now only if I could stop clicking contribs when I'm looking for my watchlist... Picaroon9288 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. Myself, I got tired of always converting time. I set my time preferences to 0hrs from UTC and implemented Voice of All's UTC Clock. Now, everything I do on Wikipedia is in UTC and it's much easier comparing times. It's probably not to to everyone's taste, but it made it simpler for me. -- JLaTondre 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
 |
Thank you so much, Picaroon9288, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
RfA Thanks
 |
Mike's RfA Thanks | |
| Picaroon9288: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/5. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for November 13th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 46 | 13 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza MFD
Thanks for participating in the MFD and reminding me that I was acting somewhat uncivilly. As for what you said about losing confidence in me for calling Wikipedians "geeks," I didn't say that. Quote: "Not every user is some geek who spends all their time on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of editing articles." I apologize if you were offended, and bear no ill will. bibliomaniac15 Review? 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but what you said implies that there is something wrong with being a geek who spends their time only editing articles. Far from deserving something bordering on derision, these exopedians deserve praise for knowing that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that Wikipedia is not a social networking website. Picaroon9288 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Editing Other People's Comments
Please do not edit other people's comments[4]. It is poor etiquette to change someone's comment. A signed comment indicates that it is that editor's words. If you change someone's comment, it is no longer their words. Also, when applying the {{rt}} & {{rend}} tags, please be sure to subst them[5]. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 04:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about that - it never really occured to me that something like that was actually considered to be a comment as much as it was a note about the closing (which, as I viewed them, are usually not even user specific enough to even warrant a signature.) But your point is noted. Picaroon9288 19:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support!
 |
A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting or not being helpful, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 19:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
Diamond City
You are gravely mistaken. As one who currently lives and works in Japan I assert most strongly that the Diamond City article relates directly to the comminity I live in. these centers are a mark of a change in Japanese society. If you check the first post date you will realise that this article is newly constructed as such please give sufficiant time for information to be added. Multi tagging an article in a belligerant manner is not acceptable behaviour. Let us maintain a note of civility towards fellow editors rather than thrashing out deconstructive criticism for whatever motivation may have possessed you to do so. As shopping centers are landmarks it is in keeping with all other articles about such centers. In future, please remember wikipedias golden rule that we should all "Assume good faith" in our fellow editors motivations.--Scottmcmaster 12:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Where did I assume bad faith? You're the one who is accusing me of being incivil ({{prod}} and {{advertisement}} aren't actually considered incivil, just so you know) and acting in a "buligerant manner" (aww, thanks.) I tagged the article with a proposed deletion notice that stated "Article barely asserts notability; reads somewhat like an advertisement" (I'm not sure what deconstructive criticism is, but that isn't it) and also tagged with {{advertisement}} because, well, it read like an advertisement. (Sentences like "Diamond City has defined, contributing to the sustainable developement of of local communities, to be their corporate social responsability" don't really belong in an encyclopedia, now do they?). If you'd like to find any Wikipedia policies that I've actually violated, feel free. Picaroon9288 20:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
A consructive comment would include detailed information as to the cause for the criticism. Since you have admitted to being incapable of grasping what beligerent behaviour is, I would ask you to look up the word and refrain from potentially insulting comments. You tagged the article twice with comments such as "Barely...". Multitagging an article with belligerent comments is inappropriate and clearly uncivil behaviour. If you have a concern worthy of a tag, be certain it is also worthy of a detailed discription of your concerns in the talk page. If you are unwilling to spend proper and due time to address the problem at hand, then do not tag it. As for the sentence in question it is a quote of a corporate information release from the company itself and as such is accurate and irrefutable. You obviously have some rather deep seeded issues regarding corporate articles, there are many other articles out there in far worse shape, once again list your concerns if you have them, but dont waste time on beligerence.--Scottmcmaster 04:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Yemen
Merhaba and Welcome to WikiProject Yemen. We are happy that you joined us. If you have any questions, need help on something, or suggestions, then please don't hesitate to tell us. To identify yourself as a member of this project, you can add this template to your user page:
{{User WikiProject Yemen}}
Cheers, Jidan 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Single-party state
Hello. Since you've made an edit to the article regarding Singapore [6] [7], guess you'd be interested to join the discussion at talk:single-party state. — Instantnood 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
