No edit summary |
→FURTHER REPLY. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.: new section |
||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
Thanks. |
Thanks. |
||
[[User:DanielTAR|DanielTAR]] ([[User talk:DanielTAR|talk]]) 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
[[User:DanielTAR|DanielTAR]] ([[User talk:DanielTAR|talk]]) 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
== FURTHER REPLY. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. == |
|||
----- |
|||
FIRST OF ALL GET THIS RIGHT... '''I DID NOT TYPE THIS:''' |
|||
''If you really think something like "everyone think(s) he is not wrong" and giving up everything after meeting an opposite view, then Wikipedia is not really the best place for you as you are refusing to accept the fact that consensus is a foundation that builds up Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a community that are being shared by more than one person.'' |
|||
''It will never be you lose, and everyone wins after you have decided to give up putting efforts. Everyone will lose coz I am thinking that your continuous efforts at the part of reverting vandalism and constructive editings must be thanked by a lot of users here. They can observe it without doubts. But the rule is there, we are less easily to remove things here than adding things. If the consensus turns out to be on your side, in my view, the other side shouldn't be considered a "lose" because at least the people involved have put their effort to figure out a consensus and they have tried to be their role in the community.'' |
|||
'''I DID NOT WRITE THE ABOVE. IT WAS NOT ME. IT WAS ANOTHER PERSON. STOP BLAMING ME FOR THIS.''' |
|||
Let me just quickly address the issues over here: |
|||
1) I cannot interfere with your conversations? It's on the TARA3 DISCUSSION page, open to everyone. If you wanna have a personal/private conversation, USE THE PERSON'S TALK PAGE. As far as I'm concerned, your discussion was about TAR. And I have every right to interfere and voice my opinion. AND... the ONLY part I commented was under YOUR SUB-SECTION asking what is the definition of a task. I said what I said and that's it. |
|||
2) It is not wrong to have page protection but it is wrong if it's over a personal feud over you and that other guy, that is prohibiting me from editing it CONSTRUCTIVELY. And I asked for the removal of protection because several people, including me, have already FORMALLY defined what an Additional Task was. |
|||
3) The discussion only got personal because of the actions you took. Don't deny it but you were the one who first started the "everyone doesn't appreciate me and I'm gonna leave. you go handle all the TAR issues yourself" in the first place. Who the fuck asked you to leave anyway? If you can't accept constructive criticism, then fine, leave. But don't try to make people feel guilty because it's disgusting. |
|||
I tried to make it right and explain the situation thoroughly. But either you can't understand what I wrote or you just blatantly want to stir up trouble. I don't have time for this. I have my O Levels right now and can't be bothered to deal with this. Stay to contribute on TAR wiki pages if you want. If you don't want to, then bye. |
|||
[[User:DanielTAR|DanielTAR]] ([[User talk:DanielTAR|talk]]) 07:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:30, 4 November 2008
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Team descriptions
Thanks a lot for giving CBS the idea of "Southern Belles" for a team relationship, when the teams were first released. It would have been "Best Friends" but your changing it to "Southern Belles" (not a relationship) ruined it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.102.61 (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
flags in airline destinations lists
People are useless adding flags to these lists making them look confusing and messed up please keep a check on this so far I have found Air India, Air India Regional, Nepal Airlines, Indian Airlines, Alitalia, Turkish Airlines, Aero Mexico, Aeromexico Connect, Mexicana and Click Mexicana there may be more.203.81.232.64 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, so much, i have to do it slowly later on. So, i know, flagicons is prohibited in Airlines Project, so if you wish to correct, please add
"remove flags based on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Flag icons]]"
in edit summary. Good luck. --Aleenf1 09:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)- Some has re-added flags to Turkish Airlines destinations despite you removing them and adding notice.116.71.44.175 (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Aleenf
Thanks for the compliment and for the work that you do on badminton topics. Best Regards! Badmintonhist (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Fars Qeshm Air article name correction
The airlines actual name as per their website is Qeshm Fars Air, please change to the correct name, Thank you.116.71.44.175 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, you might be wrong too, i found this page[1], which is the best reference, is Fars Air Qeshm, i will move it. --Aleenf1 08:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Rosiana and Resiana
Hello, Aleenf. I'm revising the articles on Indonesian badminton players and I'm wondering if you can help me. Would you know if Rosiana Tendean and Resiana Zelin (whose name is sometimes listed as Rosiana Zelin) are different people? Could they possibly be the same person (a married name)? If you can help me I'd appreciate it. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good work, Aleenf. Your research tells me that they are definitely two different ladies. It also gives me dates of birth for the article. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Amazing Race Asia 3. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
I'm sorry that I have to do this, but there is such a rule as a 3RR violation, so I have to mete this out on you as well. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I currently can't help you out on the what comprises the tasks on TARA3. I haven't seen the latest episode because the cable service at where I took my vacation doesn't carry AXN. I'm back home now, so I may help you on that later when I see the episode. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
If Massa wins the title, yes. If Hamilton wins, I probably won't want to visit that page for a few hours at least. D.M.N. (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
No.
- Aleen, you are not annoying. Part of editing is bad editors thinking you are annoying. You are easly one of TAR's most valuable contributors, and I really don't want to see you go. Sam Blab 13:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Some oen has uselessly created seprate article and that too in table format, when destinations are already listed in main article in collapsible table style which is more suited since only few places are served.inspector 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspector123 (talk • contribs)
Response to "Some comments..."
Please get this right. Some of the comments you read were NOT by me. Look carefully. The comment about Wiki not suitable for you was written by the unregistered guy. Do realize that there were 2 main sub-sections in the discussion page. The one on top was by that guy. I had no participation in that. The one below was mine. I even signed off everytime I posted. So please don't blame me. And I never did say you were childish. Please read carefully. I said THE FIGHTING over this was childish, not you. BUT, you have to admit that some of your faults in this conflict were that:t
1) you refused to give in to another person's opinion who might be right (and honestly, I felt he/she was right as well) and kept on reverting edits rather than start a discussion, and hence causing PAGE-PROTECTION.
2) you kept on saying that people were attacking you when there wasn't any attacking to begin with!
3) you DID try to to play up sympathy and/or threaten to leave helping TAR pages just to get what you want and for people to agree with you.
I'm just trying to clarify the definition of "task" and also try to let you see that sometimes, you should consider what others are thinking as well. Yes, you are more experienced but spare a thought for the rest who also want to contribute. There is no intention to hurt anyone's feelings and the term "childish", I feel is not a strong enough term for an insult, nor was it meant to be as it wasn't even directed at you in the first place.
And FYI, no one is chasing you away. PLEASE stay and help on the TAR articles. The only thing is I hope you can show more compassion when you want to revert NON-VANDALISM edits.
Thanks. DanielTAR (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
FURTHER REPLY. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.
FIRST OF ALL GET THIS RIGHT... I DID NOT TYPE THIS:
If you really think something like "everyone think(s) he is not wrong" and giving up everything after meeting an opposite view, then Wikipedia is not really the best place for you as you are refusing to accept the fact that consensus is a foundation that builds up Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a community that are being shared by more than one person.
It will never be you lose, and everyone wins after you have decided to give up putting efforts. Everyone will lose coz I am thinking that your continuous efforts at the part of reverting vandalism and constructive editings must be thanked by a lot of users here. They can observe it without doubts. But the rule is there, we are less easily to remove things here than adding things. If the consensus turns out to be on your side, in my view, the other side shouldn't be considered a "lose" because at least the people involved have put their effort to figure out a consensus and they have tried to be their role in the community.
I DID NOT WRITE THE ABOVE. IT WAS NOT ME. IT WAS ANOTHER PERSON. STOP BLAMING ME FOR THIS.
Let me just quickly address the issues over here:
1) I cannot interfere with your conversations? It's on the TARA3 DISCUSSION page, open to everyone. If you wanna have a personal/private conversation, USE THE PERSON'S TALK PAGE. As far as I'm concerned, your discussion was about TAR. And I have every right to interfere and voice my opinion. AND... the ONLY part I commented was under YOUR SUB-SECTION asking what is the definition of a task. I said what I said and that's it.
2) It is not wrong to have page protection but it is wrong if it's over a personal feud over you and that other guy, that is prohibiting me from editing it CONSTRUCTIVELY. And I asked for the removal of protection because several people, including me, have already FORMALLY defined what an Additional Task was. 3) The discussion only got personal because of the actions you took. Don't deny it but you were the one who first started the "everyone doesn't appreciate me and I'm gonna leave. you go handle all the TAR issues yourself" in the first place. Who the fuck asked you to leave anyway? If you can't accept constructive criticism, then fine, leave. But don't try to make people feel guilty because it's disgusting.
I tried to make it right and explain the situation thoroughly. But either you can't understand what I wrote or you just blatantly want to stir up trouble. I don't have time for this. I have my O Levels right now and can't be bothered to deal with this. Stay to contribute on TAR wiki pages if you want. If you don't want to, then bye.