User talk:RyanGerbil10/Archive 17
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. |
Please imagine a different catchy song:
- Believe it or not, this page is archived,
- Please leave a meesage at this page
- Scream all you want, but I'll never hear,
- 'cause I'm not here-
- Believe it or not, it's archived!
Thanks
Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 Chat 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you bunches!
 |
Thank you so much for suppporting my RfA. I was promoted with a total of (44/1/0) - a vote of confidence from the community that I find humbling and motivating. I will not abuse your trust. Look forward to working with you! (Esprit15d 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)) |
Tom O'Connor (stuntman)
Would you mind deleting this again, thanks! Tiptoety 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Tiptoety 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Willing to help if needed
I have nothing to do for the next 6 or so hours, I saw this thread and was wondering if that is something I can help with as a nonsysop. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't someone just have to go through and remove the template from each article? If not you may ignore this, but wanted to offer my assistance if I could help. Dureo 06:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
LOTD proposal
You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OhanaUnited's RfA
Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Pittsburgh Mayor 2007.PNG
Hello. Nice job on the map. It is confusing because it looks like Shadyside and Squirrel Hill North voted for Ryan Scott. Can you make his color green or something like that, unless of course, they did vote for him. --Theeuro 11:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
DYK
 |
On 11 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pittsburgh mayoral special election, 2007, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Carabinieri 23:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Jai Raj K
Hi RyanGerbil10. I am Jai Raj K. I am not a sock of anybody. If RS100 and I were same why would I vote Keep on AfD? I supported List of nontheists because I think we can add people on List of nontheists who we cannot add on List of atheists and List of agnostics. I cannot believe that Nick Graves, my old friend, has accused me of sockpuppetry. I do not know about the email discussion between RS100 and Nick Graves. I don't want to say anything negative about Nick Graves because of this misunderstanding. After all he is my old friend. I have made mistake in the past and this account is certainly not a 'throw-away account'. Nick Graves has told the name of my country[1]. This is not fair. If you want to block me, block me. But please remove the name of my country. What should I do? Should I simply retire this account and create another one? Please give me a good suggestion. Thank you. Jai Raj K 07:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
TFD
I'm glad that some admin would close TFD's but however there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus on delete in this TFD. There are only 3votes/opinions and all of them are contradictory. Could you explain to me about how this is enough of a consensus and not "Keep, no consensus"?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. I understand now. Thanks for explaining it to me.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 03:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
My (Remember the dot)'s RfA
I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.
Thanks again! —Remember the dot (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | 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 08:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
FAC template
I believe the "Template:FACnumber" was supposed to have been deleted by you after an AFD, but its still there. So there has been some sort of error. Operating 23:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, things things like that are easy to do. Thank you for the delete. Operating 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case closing
Thank you for your message. It appears that while User:Realsanpaku and the other was blocked (caught two puppetmasters for the filing of one report - neat-o!), the IP account, 24.168.17.212 is still unblocked. It might appear that it was blocked, as it appears as a redlink, but the account is still active. Also, should I archive the puppetry conversations between the puppets that occurred inthe article talk, or just identify the conversations as sock-puppets?
Another question I have is this; if the majority of these accounts were sockpuppets, would it not be more appropriate to list Realsanpaku and the IP as one os Sixstring1965's sock puppets? i think it would be better, and provide a better picture of the overall sockpuppetry. thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to add the Realsanpaku and others to the Sixstring1965 puppets, but the edit page appears to be a template, and I am not sure where to add...
- Thanks for the advice about how to handle the pages in the article discussion.
- Last question: when someone is a sockpuppet, why are the blocks not of an indef period? The puppetmaster, Sixstring is indef banned. Not making the socks indef as well allow the puppetmaster to use them after the duration of the block, right? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet block?
I'm new to looking at blocks, but I was wondering if the indefinite block of Jeff Schweitzer (Suspected sock puppets/Jeff Schweitzer) for sock puppetry might be a little harsh. It's a first time problem and he seems to me primarily a newbie who seems quite a bit overzealous in protecting his own (self-authored) article from AfD. I would think that a block just for the duration of the AfD would be enough to prevent further damage to Wikipedia and the community. (For the record, I've argued for Delete on the AfD). Thanks for considering the request. And also for acting so fast on the SSP page. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realize that the block of an account meant that he could later create another account and edit. (I thought it was like a ban). In that case it doesn't seem so serious. I guess my only comparisons were to people who had done massive edit waring, already had 4 or 5 24-hour blocks, and finally got one-year bans after ArbCon; those cases seemed to take a lot more time away from improving WP than the easily dismissed arguments he made at AfD did. Thanks again! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers
I replied on my talk page. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Elric assist
He's reverted your reversion off, but I guess he's entitled, as it is his own Talk Page. Anyway, reverting it indicates he's acknowledging having seen it. If he reverts the cn tags again, I might need to go to RfC or AN/I for it. maybe I could trouble you to watchlist the page for a day or two? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Actually, shortly after I posted it, I reconsidered the bit about suggesting you watchlist, since I could just drop you a line if it re-occured. In the interim, it did, and I was preparing the 3RR, when I saw your message that he had been blocked. Should I file the 3RR anyway, or do you think your block covers it? Would it be advisable to note the block is for both 3RR, vandalism and edit-warring, or is that too much? lastly, I stopped by his page, and it doesn't appear that he's blocked unless someone looks at the block log. Is that typical for IP blocks, or should it show up in talk too? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Gah, sorry for all the quesitons. lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | 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 (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
TfD
Hi there. I believe you missed one of the templates that were up for deletion here. – PeeJay 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't, but thank you for wishing me a happy one. Happy Thanksgiving to you too, if you celebrate it. – PeeJay 05:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
TfD for Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted
I'm not sure I understand the reasons you give in the closure for this Tfd.
- You suggest that {{Infobox Criminal}} is not appropriate, however no-one was arguing that this infobox is inappropriate for convicted criminals. In fact the only user who offered more than "it's useful", was happy with the criminal box being applied (albeit with some corrections) in the case of Warren Jeffs.[2].
- You also say that "we can't use no infobox". Why not? There are lots of biographical articles without infoboxes, and this appropriate. There's always {{Infobox Person}} to fall back on, anyway. This doesn't stop us from discussing the FBI listing in the biographical article. How on earth can we define a person by their place on that list?
-- Mark Chovain 04:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
TfD for Db-csd-notice
Hey Ryan. Per your post of October 30 to my talk page, it appears that the template is now no longer in use. I asked here to make sure. As you can see from that discussion (see near bottom of page; a direct link was not possible because of the section header I used), though it appears fully redundant, a suggestion was made to redirect which I just did. I leave it in your hands as to whether any further action is necessary. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sly templates
Just out of curiosity, why did you remove the Sly templates from most or all of the Sly articles? BlueCanary9999 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
RE: Oh, okay. Thank you. But then why did you remove the characters template? The discussion was for the series template. BlueCanary9999 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
RERE: Okay then. I'll get to it tomorrow. BlueCanary9999 (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | 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 (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
DRV notice: Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Message from LDEJRuff
Dude, why did you have to delete the character allusions from the Imaginationland trilogy articles? You do know that the character allusions are part of the articles' histories, don't you? I don't know if Matt and Trey would go for that. Not only does it tick me off when things get removed from the internet, it dissappoints me.
However, I have a few things to say about myself. I enjoy playing handheld games (including some for my Game Boy systems), I watch TV, I'm a cartoon fanatic, I regestered onto a few forums (and got kicked out of one by Cynthia "Sparky" Read, who I'll never forgive for, for posting inappropriate material, seeing is how Sparky owns a supposedly child-friendly forum, but it technically isn't because of profanity), and I have autism. I'm also a fan of Eduardo Valerosa from Foster's.
~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2007 (EDT)
South Park trivia
As you thought: the trivia/clutter section on the South Park episode was re-added by a fanatic. They even went as far to add a warning not to remove it. What else is there to do about this? I posted a little more on the ANI section on this as well. RobJ1981 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words
 |
Dear Ryan,
Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC) |
