User talk:Cyberjunkie/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

← Archive 14 |

Archive 15

| Archive 16 →

1 Removed links
2 ACOTF - NSWRFS
3 Thanks
4 Peter Debnam
5 Huh?
6 Stalking
7 RFA Thanks
8 Continental map
9 YGM
10 Gylfie
11 Page move vandalism
12 My RfA
13 MediaWiki:Blockipsuccesstext
14 Aust AfD notice board
15 Anon edits at my talk page

Removed links

Dear Cyberjunkie - can you please let me know why you systematically removed the external link I added to 4 pages (links to Indendent Crown of Australia Network) only a few hours after I added them? Have I broken some rule? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thungarra (talk • contribs) 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I actually did more than just remove your external link; I took the opportunity to trim the links to the most relevant/appropriate. My reason for removing your link is twofold: firstly, that it was added systematically to several articles was an indication of spam; and secondly, I believe the best and most balanced approach to avoid a slippery slope is to limit links to advocacy groups to the major players. The guideline is Wikipedia:External links.--cj | talk 08:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ACOTF - NSWRFS

Thanks for fixing that for me. I will try to be more careful and attentive in the future.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 04:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No problems :). The instructions weren't very clear.--cj | talk 05:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

That's exactly the way these things are supposed to work - the insulted party shows restraint, whilst an uninvolved party takes immediate and firm action to uphold standards. Hesperian 03:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Meatball:DefendEachOther :-)--cj | talk 03:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Right on! Hesperian 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Debnam

Don't you think you were being slightly pedantic changing the date back. I think most people would prefer the American date format anyway.CEP78 06:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't.--cj | talk 06:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Sorry but I do not understand why you gave me a warning. I didn't edit any articles! Disruption?! What the hell are you talking about?! Thelegendofrogi 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Cyberjunkie, you seem to be stalking my edits, removing my poor spelling, correcting my capitalisation, grammer and addiction to innapropriate apostrophes.....thank you. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just watching my watchlist ;-)--cj | talk 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support on my Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0. Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....(check my userpage).
cheers, Casliber \| talk \| contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Continental map

Hello. I based the animated map on the 7 continents model that was already part of the article. I can easily correct the map, just tell me what to correct and I'll do it. Do you want me to correct only the 7 continent model or also the 6?

In the 5 contients model the islands of the Pacific (north of Australia and NZ) are considered part of Oceania. "Australia" is not the name of the 5 continents. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I will do the changes. However, in the 5 continents model (mainly used in Latin America and parts of Europe like Spain and Italy) the continent Australia just doesn't exist. Instead it exists Oceania, but it does include the islands of the Pacific. Of course this only in this particular continental model. I'll do the changes in the others models. AlexCov

^{( Let's talk! )} 01:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! If you're able and comfortable, can you peruse and weigh in at Talk:Continent#Continuation when you get a moment? I really don't know what this editor is trying to prove; read the discussion and carefully review the article edits/reversions to see what I mean. Thanks. Corticopia 10:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems a pointless edit war. Fortunately, it seems to be coming to an end. Please just avoid commenting on the contributor.--cj | talk 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- I hope it ends soon. Do you have a preference for a proposed arrangement? Thanks for the input. Corticopia 15:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly. I would still like to see the map corrected (to show Australia's actual bounds), but that's rather a separate issue.--cj | talk 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I actually thought about including just a map (in the animated one or what have you) where the continental mainlands are highlighted only (e.g., excluding islands like British Isles, Japan, West Indies, Malay Archipelago, Tasmania etc.), and yet another (more complex) one which exhibits the lands and their continental shelves (which is also a geological criteria). I think these can still be fulfilled somehow and somewhere in that article without sacrificing anything. Merci! Corticopia 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

YGM

Scuse the insert - theres an email I would appreciate you looking at Satu Suro 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding.--cj | talk 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gylfie

Hi! You just deleted Gylfie under A7. I don't think it applies - the article is about a fictional character in a series we have an article on, A7 specifically says "real person". Perhaps the article shouldn't be merged into the article on the series, but I don't think it should be speedied. --Tango 14:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tango. I think it's clutching at straws to dispute the deletion on that basis. Regardless of whether it was a real person or a fictional character, the article failed to "assert the importance or significance of its subject".--cj | talk 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Being a character in a series is an assertion of significance. The character is clearly significant in the series, and the series is significant enough to have an article. I think that's enough to protect the article for being speedied. What kind of assertion would you expect for a fictional character? None of the assertions we use for real people are relevant. --Tango 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would expect something asserting the significance of the character to the game itself or external to it (say, in popular culture). You're welcome to reverse my action, of course, but I don't feel it was incorrect.--cj | talk 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

Thanks for trying to fix this mess. Given the talk page at Talk:Tourism in Thiruvananthapuram, it appears the article at Tourism in Thiruvananthapuram is missing. Gimmetrow 14:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Restored. Should be fixed now.--cj | talk 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you delete this edit where I screwed up? Gimmetrow 14:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'm still waiting for the devs to improve the interface for selective deletions, because it sucks...but I digress.--cj | talk 14:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Gimmetrow 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Far out, this guy could give us a break. – Riana ^talk 14:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Much work, much work :/ At least WoW was somewhat humorous...--cj | talk 14:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just a quick note to keep an eye out for any personal info this guy inserts (he's out to get Sir Nicholas de-Mimsy Porpington, inserted his details into an ANI post a few hours ago, only just got oversighted). I'm off to bed now, thanks for the help. Cheers, – Riana ^talk 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for voting in my RfA. I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockipsuccesstext

Oh have a sense of humour, its viewable by admins only! :P Viridae ^Talk 11:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of funny is not everyone else's, and it certainly isn't an excuse to vandalise.--cj | talk 11:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April fools day, its a wikipedia meme and its viewable by admins only. No harm done, just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean everyone doesn't (as evinced by a couple of reverts to that version apart from mine). Viridae ^Talk 11:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If even one participant finds your edit disruptive, you should cease immediately. I, and several others, do. To continue to disrupt behind the guise of April Fools day is unacceptable; your personal satisfaction is not that important. --cj | talk 11:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting take on events. Serious lack of a sense of humour here. So much so that not only do you avoid having fun yourself in the spirit of the day, you must stop others from doing the same. Viridae ^Talk 13:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to re-assess your priorities. If your devotion to April Fools day – which is not celebrated universally – drives you to be disruptive and generally uncivil, I would suggest that devotion is misplaced.--cj | talk 13:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In no way was my change disruptive, it simply changed the wording of a message that only an administrator that has just blocked someone will see. It did not affect the usability of the page and nor was it overly obtrusive. Far from devotion to the day, this is the only thing I have done . Finally, while not universal, it is largely universal to those countries where english is the primary language ie England, Australia, America and this IS the english wikipedia. Viridae ^Talk 13:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that the change was not disruptive (it caused an edit war) or obtrusive (it completely detracted from the established format). I would dispute further your conception of universality, but too much time has be wasted on this issue already.--cj | talk 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The above so closely mirrors conversations that I had yesterday that it's almost scary.
Anyway, Cyberjunkie, I just came here to thank you for helping to counter the April Fools' Day vandalism. I was labeled a humorless killjoy too, so I know how frustrating that is. —David Levy 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your predicament on the day too. I was just so amazed by the irrationality of many seemingly good contributors. Until next year...--cj | talk 11:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Aust AfD notice board

Cj do mind leaving the Ian King discussion up there for a day or so, I suspect my closing may be a little controversial have a read, since I applied commons sense and evaluated it based on the arguments presented not the number of "votes". Gnan garra 14:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. You did the right thing, in my view.--cj | talk 14:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon edits at my talk page

I appreciate your edits to remove the anonymous comments at my talk page, but you needn't have bothered. Comments, even misinformed ones, are welcome on my talk page as long as they're not abusive, obscene or totally off-topic. Rocksong 02:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I just viewed it as trolling, in light of the anon's other contributions.--cj | talk 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/y/b/User_talk%7ECyberjunkie_Archive_15_20bd.html"

Category: User archives