User talk:Teh Rote
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Uncyclopedia FA Nom
Raising the status of this article rewards Wikipedia vandals because it shows those who come from Uncyclopedia that their work, on Uncyclopedia and off, will lead to recognition on Wikipedia. My work as a vandal fighter will be ruined because this violates the spirit of WP:DENY, in that we are giving attention and recognition to these vandals. I did not launch an attack against Uncyclopedia editors in general, only those who vandalizes here. Unless you count yourself as a vandal here on Wikipedia (in that case, I will have no choice but to report you), I did not attack you. The example you quoted is an apples and oranges scenario, and I will not answer such a fallacious question.
I have stated my position, and I did not attack you. But you DID attack me, and engaged in uncivil behaviors, so...
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
And don't you even dare say I violated AGF. I have exhausted my GF already on those Uncyclopedia editors who vandalize Wikipedia.
Arbiteroftruth (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Warning
This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Your assertions that I have repeatedly nominated Uncyclopedia for deletion is absolutely baseless, in addition to being slanderous. I have nominated it only once. While I agree that that situation could have been handled perfectly, that incident alone does not mean I have nominated it many times. Check the AFD archives if you want to.
Secondly, your assertions that I believe every single Uncyclopedia editors are vandals are libelous. It was very clear I was referring to Uncyclopedia editors who vandalize Wikipedia. I reiterate my position that unless you consider yourself as a vandal here on Wikipedia, I did not attack you.
Finally, I have never, ever, said we should follow the spirit of WP:DENY completely. I follow it on a case-by-case basis, and this is a case where I believe we should follow it.
I hereby seriously warn you that if you continue to travel down this path of slander and lies, I will report you to the proper Wikipedia authorities.
[edit] Note
I am not sure exactly which comments there is a dispute over. I would encourage you and Arbiteroftruth to both step back and take a breath. I am going to leave Arbiteroftruth the same basic message encouraging him/her to take relax a little as well. Remember, be civil. KnightLago (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Luck, North Carolina
Luck, North Carolina is a real place. I was able to verify this at http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/ and http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:1021305 --Eastmain (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My Apology
The incident that occurred earlier today was unfortunate, and for that, I apologize. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 1809 in France
Hi, user IngerAlhao merged the data from that article into 1809, forgot to mention that. Cheers. Mion (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- It gets better, the merge was opposed on Talk:1809 and for that correct reverted, didn't see that before. Mion (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Teh Rote - see below:
[edit] Opposed to merging all Years by Country into Year
Hi BozMo - no objection to making each year consistent (as per 1850), but do not see why Years by County have to be merged into the year (eg 1809 in France) and the many hundreds of other years by country articles. A lot of us have spent substantial time ensuring we have Years by country articles (eg Ireland is very comprehensive) and these articles form a vital part of History by country.
Support 1850 format, but not merging of Years by country articles which stand very much in their own right. Ardfern (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 1809
Have had to restore 1809 in France as it had been merged befiore any discussion completed. If this goes on many hundreds of articles will be lost that are part of History by country. Ardfern (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Mion - You cannot pull down people's articles without any discussion - this is not what Wikipedia is about. This article is part of a series and should not be destroyed. Ardfern (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA review
I reviewed Astrobiology, but did not feel it met the GA criteria. Please contact me with any questions or comments.Mjamja (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Portal:Featured portals
Amusing, certainly, but this is a Wikipedia-space page, not really appropriate for WP:FPOC discussion. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
Thanks! These are never too late. KnightLago (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
