The Purple Star |
71.100.6.26 (talk) <i>BLP violation indeed...</i> |
||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
There is no excuse for the sort of condescending bullshit directed at you just for nominating a clearly controversial page. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
There is no excuse for the sort of condescending bullshit directed at you just for nominating a clearly controversial page. ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
== <i>BLP violation indeed...</i> == |
|||
Your efforts to discourage fact finding only lends credibility to the effort. Only Britney's claim to the title of anti-Christ keeps you and your outlaw buddy Stern from also claiming that. [[User:71.100.171.80|71.100.171.80]] 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:18, 7 March 2007
|
Lisa Nowak
Hobbies are cited, and common for other astronaut articles. She's notable as a person overall so it's fine to include those. - Denny 19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on my page for you... - Denny 20:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Daryl B. Lund article
Thank you bringing the link of Lund up. I have included information on him that should help in this DYK nomination. Chris 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Part 2: It earned a DYK today thanks to your suggestion. I owe you one! Chris 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Your block
Hello, tell me more about this, who blocked you, we need to clean up wikipedia, get rid of some PATHETIC administrators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yuser31415/Archive_16#My_Talk_page You have no idea what happened to a certain guy i am trying to clear, wow, i can write a book. Good luck, if they block you, simply walk away, or create account and log on from different computer, otherwise, ip check, they will catch you and accuse you even more of "vandalism"! good luck man! If they block you, try to get some things resolved, but if you can not, don't let them get the best of you. Wikipedia is for those who have time on their hands and for time wasters.
DYK
Laïka 13:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you
Per this admin's request, I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts
--GordonWatts 07:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies to [1]
- I see your concerns just now on this ArbCom page, and I shall try to answer:
- "I have no idea why I am involved in this. I made one comment..." I am not such how much involvement is necessary before I must notify a party, and I was being on the safe side. My main beef was not mainly with you (even though your comment was not supported by any logical explanation: "If all of Gordon Watts's claims on yesterday's edit which Frederick day listed above are true, then he is in violation of WP:COI. Corvus cornix 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)" Of course my claims were true, but I have not violated COI -at least not in the last several years; That one edit many years ago, before I understood the policy MAY have been a COI violation -but that was years ago -let it go already.) -My beef was mainly with the admin who claimed falsely that some consensus existed for this, that, or the other, when -not even a slim majority existed. In short, I was required by the rules to notify you. (I notified all parties -even those who did not disagree with me -the majority, by the way.)
- "In addition, there was zero attempt to resolve any dispute Mr. Watts may have had with me prior to dragging me here." If my main dispute was with the admin who executed an illegal action (one not backed by actual consensus: A consensus can not be a minority -hey, Remember, folks - I CAN count), then it would be improper (if not rude) to pick at every single editor who disagreed with me. I would, then, be guilty of scamming aka canvassing! I DID, however, try to resolve the dispute with you -by my posts on the community notice board- my replies were directed at ALL users -you included.--GordonWatts 04:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Conservapedia
New sources have been brought up in the DRV. If you could take a second look it would be appreciated.JoshuaZ 19:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
History of Colonial Hong Kong (1800s - 1930s)
Is it safe to say the page is properly locked now? The average user with account can still cause vandalism right? Benjwong 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Template
Sorry about that! It should work now. I substituted it on the pages, so will I have to go back and fix them? --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm the one that should be sorry! Thanks for telling me about the problem! --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Finally done! There were about thirty users that had the template. Without your help, it probably would have been about seventy-five before someone told me the problem. Thank you so much! --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! I kinda copied my user page, but with a slightly different color scheme. --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 23:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Check out this link. It helped me design my page! --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 23:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
References
It's cool. There was a reference in the cast content that you removed that another part of the article was referencing to. That way, the reference doesn't show up twice in the References section. Just a matter of checking to see if the ref tag has a name, and if it is, it's likely to be linked elsewhere. I've removed it accidentally myself on a few occasions; no biggie. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You can still stop...
....but what you are about to do, or may already have done by the time you see the orange bar, is a very foolish thing to do. Think through the consequences carefully. They will echo into your future here. 137.222.189.198 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's ok. I have saved you from yourself. 137.222.189.198 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Foolish
You're not going to stop the discussion by MfDing it. Don't. FCYTravis 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The Purple Star
There is no excuse for the sort of condescending bullshit directed at you just for nominating a clearly controversial page. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
BLP violation indeed...
Your efforts to discourage fact finding only lends credibility to the effort. Only Britney's claim to the title of anti-Christ keeps you and your outlaw buddy Stern from also claiming that. 71.100.171.80 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)