User talk:Rspeer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Talk page archives
- Part I (July 2004 – July 2005)
- In which I get a really heart-warming reply from a newbie I helped, manage to not mess up too many things in my first year editing Wikipedia, and end up in a content dispute
- Part II (August – November 2005)
- In which I resolve a content dispute, appear in the Wiktionary definition of "loser-fucker", and incidentally realize how deeply AfD sucks
- Part III (November 2005 – February 2006)
- In which a conflict is narrowly averted, much confusion arises from the letters "XD", and I get an article featured, but Henry Ford wrecks the party
- Part IV (February -- August 2006)
- In which I am given the ceremonial mop, and nothing interesting ensues except for the personal threats
Intermission
- Part V (December 2006 -- February 2007)
- One day we will all look back at this and laugh.
Current talk page
[edit] Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me
[edit] Just FYI
... what I found on AIV: User talk:Rspeer drinks the haterade (now indefblocked). Sandstein 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Saskatchewan
Sorry, I know it's a drag, but could you have another look at the edit warring (see WP:ANI - [1]). The 70.73.4.197 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 70.64.4.74 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) feud is still going on, worsening even, despite the many warnings and respective blocks. I think Doongarra (talk • contribs) may not be an independent contributor: very similar editing habits to 70.73.4.197, such as unexplained reverts and "revert vandal", mostly applied to 70.64.4.74 edits. Tearlach 01:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, 70.73.4.197 is at it again; see his recent edits to Brad Wall and Saskatchewan Liberal Party. --Hiddekel 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oh man. I have trouble keeping track of which 70.* is which. But I'll watch their talk pages and block them if it's necessary again. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Main page error
IMO you are online. Please see error (not exactly an error though). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like this has already been fixed the easier way (by making the DYK link point to the current article title, Ashoka the Great). I don't see a reason to rush this move through - just get consensus for it on the talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Game
I wanted to solicit an opinion of an admin, and given that you were involved in the article until it's demise, thought you might be a good choice. Do you feel as if The Game (game, meme, memory game, or whatever it's parenthetical title would be), in the state that it was most frequently in (that is, a short article almost entirely based from the newspaper article) would meet Attribution ("This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.") and Notability ("A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable.") with both those quotes taken directly from the first two paragraphs of their respective pages? Or is there a more serious problem with the newspaper article? (note: I prefer to do conversation on one talk page so the conversation thread is easy to follow, if you don't mind) Darquis 01:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The rule of thumb for inclusion right now is "multiple published sources", so the single newspaper article wouldn't be enough. Although I think that Wikipedia would benefit from having an article on The Game, I respect the community's decision to delete it according to the inclusion criteria. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Alright, I was afraid that was the case. It seems like a lot of folks have given up on it being in anyway, judging by the last AFD. Thanks! Darquis 09:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
