User talk:Hamster Sandwich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

v • d • e
Toolbox
Welcome
Warn
{{test0}} {{test}} {{test2}} {{test3}} {{test4}} {{bv}} {{spam}}
Check
{{subst:Copyvio|url=*source}} {{delete}} {{db|...}} {{no source}} {{no license}}
Dispute
Delete
{{afd}} {{cfd}} {{ifd}} {{tfd}} {{rfd}} {{mfd}} {{prod}}
Community
External
Stats
Main
The templates and their effects are shown in list of Boilerplate text.


Thanks for your note, and your contributions. Firstly, to answer your question, no, it's no longer simple to give you credit for an anonymous edit. Please read Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit; it has not been possible for a while, and may have been complicated by our recent software changes. You may leave your request there, but understand that it may not be implemented for a long time, if at all.

Secondly, it appears that your contribution may be duplicating the effort at Paul Williams (architect) -- please have a look there, and see if your work can be integrated into the existing article.

Thirdly, welcome to Wikipedia! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (Hunter 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (Hunter) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! — Catherine\talk 06:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ephemera

Archive 1(16/07/05)Archive 2(30/09/05) Archive 3(21/07/07)---

[edit] re:

hello Hamster Sandwich. do you believe the material inserted is not original research? who says the incident has anything to do with persecution of Jews, or with killing Jews because they're Jews? certainly not any academic sources. if reliable sources do not forward this claim: why are we? i am sure WP:V and WP:OR are clear cut on this: we relate precisely what sources say, in the context they say it, and nothing more. it isn't upon us as editors to decide what is and isn't persecution... don't you agree? regards, ITAQALLAH 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the situation is that is up to us as editors to arrive at some kind of concensus. Failing this, we must look to an impartial peer review for a decision which may be more or less binding on all parties involved in the dispute. I have read the repartee responses on the article's talk page and I feel rather unsettled by the ad hominum tone which it is taking. My sense of this is that the editors most currently active on that page may have reached the point of intractability and may need a third party to look at the issue. This should happen sooner rather than later in my opinion. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete re-write

Hi Hamster Sandwich,

This edit [1] completely replaces the whole article with another version?!! --Aminz 22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Was that meant? --Aminz 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it was a mistake I made while I was going through the history of the article. I was looking for the original VfD notice, since there has been mention on the talk page about bringing this article to a deletion discussion. I found a broken template and tried to repair it, but inadvertently restored a previous version of the article. I have restored to the version I found before my initial edits of 20/07/07. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 01:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Have nice times Hamster Sandwich, Cheers, --Aminz 07:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SEIU Local 1.on and User:UnionPride

Hi HS. I think you're right by going to the first level warning here. Unfortunately, it seems to be the direction this is headed. I left one last polite message on the off chance that it isn't. Cheers, --Bookandcoffee 17:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:67.165.246.163

That seems fine. I'm not surprised that article flares up from time to time. It seems like anything relating to religion on Wikipedia is always a constant battle. I suppose we're just a microcosm of the larger world. Natalie 23:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The vandal

Actually, it wasn't me: Luna Santin blocked them; I just put the template in. :) Acalamari 23:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it there; maybe it'll teach them to stop vandalizing, we'll see. Acalamari 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pie

Ha! Thanks for the laugh. A sense of humor is definitely needed here, isn't it. Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, more than a little. On the other hand, I have come into contact with many genuinely intelligent and erudite persons through the project. We take the bad along with the good (and sometimes great). Keep up the good work you do, noble wiki-warrior! Hamster Sandwich 20:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re The Sandwich of Errornous Erraticism

I obviously write thinner than I am, but I thank you all the same! LessHeard vanU 12:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Hope you had a nice vacation. Though I have to note I find your comment slightly odd considering that RfA closed over 24 hours ago. — Edokter • Talk • 00:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lemmy award

Hello, you once gave me the prestigious "Lemmy Kilmister Public Service Award", which as a young Wikipedia editor I was quite honored. Recently the image used for that award was deleted, which prompted me to resurrect the award in a more formal matter here User:DeadEyeArrow/LemmyAward. If you have any objections of restarting the award there I would gladly remove it. Thanks. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interview

I am trying to find a wikipedia administrator who would readily do an interview for a research project I am conducting from the perspective of a wikipedia insider. If you'd like to do this, please email me at goat77 (AT) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goat77 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)