195.210.199.2 (talk) fuck you |
HagermanBot (talk | contribs) m 195.210.199.2 didn't sign: "fuck you" |
||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
==You're a fucking wanker== |
==You're a fucking wanker== |
||
fuck off <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/195.210.199.2|195.210.199.2]] ([[User talk:195.210.199.2|talk]]) 21:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
fuck off |
Revision as of 21:46, 19 March 2007
- /Archive 1: January 2006 – June 2006
- /Archive 2: July 2006
- /Archive 3: 1 August - 9 August
- /Archive 4: Rest of August 2006
- /Archive 5: September 2006
- /Archive 6: October 2006
- /Archive 7: November 2006
- /Archive 8: December 2006
- /Archive 9: January 2007
- /Archive 10: Messages from during Guinnog's break
Guinnog has been on a wiki-break and will be fairly restricted in his contributions for the next while. If you urgently require the assistance of an administrator, please see the list of administrators. If you wish to report a problem, please see the administrators incidents noticeboard, the administrator's noticeboard, 3RR noticeboard, vandalism intervention or the Community noticeboard.
Image:F16am-5z.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:F16am-5z.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Selket Talk 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted.--Guinnog 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back
Very glad to see you are back. Gwernol 17:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! It's very nice to be welcomed. What have I missed? --Guinnog 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh man. Well WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS have been replaced by WP:A; Essjay was a whole big thing; several other good admins have gone and we've got some new ones too; the vandals haven't stopped; the encyclopedia has grown. And many other things I've forgotten already. Best, Gwernol 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh. Yes I heard about Essjay. Otherwise par for the course. Thanks for the update, and thanks again for the welcome, that was appreciated. --Guinnog 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh man. Well WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS have been replaced by WP:A; Essjay was a whole big thing; several other good admins have gone and we've got some new ones too; the vandals haven't stopped; the encyclopedia has grown. And many other things I've forgotten already. Best, Gwernol 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The other thing you should check out are our shiny new user warning notices. Very shiny. Gwernol 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes that all looks quite different from what I remember. Are there warnings for leaving warnings which fail to comply with the guideline? :) --Guinnog 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- :-) Actually they're pretty easy to get used to. You might want to check out WP:TWINKLE - horrid name but very useful tools to leave user warnings. I'm using a variant of them I built myself. And thanks for the revert on my user page this evening. Gwernol 02:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Invitation
Belovedfreak 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Caretaking
No problem. Tyrenius 02:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
But I can find one if you want! Tyrenius 04:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! When u say "aircraft with transponders" it feels for me (non native speaker) like it should be "aircrafts with transponder", because: There might be multiple aircrafts around and each one has -AFAIK- just one relevant/active transponder... Btw.: What was bad about the link to the transponder article (should it be transponder (aviation))? Bye. --Homer Landskirty 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Aircraft is still written the same in the plural as in the singular in English.--Guinnog 19:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- cool... :-) --Homer Landskirty 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Re Vandal Report
Thank you very much for the information. Is it all the same user, do you think? Regards --Domer48 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Dieselrainbowvar01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dieselrainbowvar01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
bad image
dude, your image of the wtc sucks. centered caption "view from the east" implies the towers were much farther apart than they were. also, wtf is "H"?? it's not labeled nor a common abbreviation. Height? you gotta make that clear if you want a grown-up image. spell out, its only five extra letters that wont kill you. also, without the edit, it's simply a misleading graphic. no room for selfish napoleons
Squad templates
Hi Guinnog, welcome back. I just noticed you removed the WC/Euro Champ squad templates from Jim Leighton - you may be interested in this recent tfd. I'm not sure about anthonycfc's closing of it as a keep - seemed to be no concensus on balance of opinions, with several of the keep votes being on the proviso that a hiding option was implemented. See also the Football Project's talk on the subject. Caledonian Place 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the welcome, and for that bit of heads-up. These templates are a bloody eyesore. I wish people would spend the same amount of time and energy improving the (often very poor) articles, instead of templating them. --Guinnog 19:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was just a bit surprised that User:Anthony cfc closed it as a keep - is there not an established % level for what can be deemed a result and what is no concensus, or is a majority all that is required? It seemed a very weak mandate to keep. Caledonian Place 20:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I reviewed the TfD and was rather surprised too. The thing is, where there is no consensus, that is effectively a "keep" anyway. What we need is someone who can implement the suggestion that these templates should at least be collapsible, or else a concerted effort to remove them from articles where they add nothing, which I would say is most of the time. If I ever see an article like the Leighton one where a very short and fairly poor article is dwarfed by 5 or 6 templates, I always remove them. This is an encyclopedia we are building, not Panini trading cards. --Guinnog 20:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
South Africa
Hi Guinnog -- No, its not better, the lead in sentence is unreadable (try doing it out loud, only after several pints of guinness does it sound good) and it's not a full list of alternative names anyway -- if you have just one alternative name, you have to have them all. There's a perfectly good article listing all of them and all it needs is a link there. And, it's not the 'British' Commonwealth of Nations. Time for a drink. Rexparry sydney 23:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't agree, sorry. Take it to talk, maybe. --Guinnog 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back my friend
Hey Mr Guinnog, I am very pleased to see you active again. :) I hope you had a good break and that everything is going well in your neck of the woods. Take good care of yourself and best wishes to you and your family. Cheers, Sarah 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Sarah, and thanks for the welcome. It's good to be back! --Guinnog 07:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Botswana
Hi. I've moved the articles back to "Botswanan" as this is the correct term. If you don't believe me, see what Wiktionary or Dictionary.com have to say about Botswana (a noun only) or Botswanan (adjective). Number 57 10:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is the Oxford English Dictionary a good enough source? It includes dialects other than British, yet does not have Botswana as an adjective. Number 57 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- According to the OED the locally used adjective form is Tswana! Number 57 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I came across this as an option too, on the Bots government site. I would say this is used more often to describe cultural identity; political entities always use Botswana as the adjective, for example the army ("Botswana Defence Force"), and every single political party. It certainly isn't "Botswanan". That's just wrong. --Guinnog 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- According to the OED the locally used adjective form is Tswana! Number 57 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
David Tennant
Hi, Guinnog. I noticed that you removed David Tennant from Category:Irish-Scots, saying that there was "no evidence for cat". The evidence is in the "Personal life" section, which discusses his Ulster ancestry. You probably just missed it; I've restored the category to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Josiah. To be honest I had missed it, but the assertion is still unsourced and needs to be verifiable for the category to be valid. There should really be a consensus to include this category as well, but I would settle for a source for the TV show statement. Best wishes --Guinnog 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, she was born in Scotland to a family of Irish Catholic descent (per surname and the fact that she was educated at a convent school), the latter of which is noted in the reference source book.O'Donoghue 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
RE: Johan Cruijff and bad editors
For one see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy
For two, have a look at the edit that he made. It was a massive revert, removing all of my previous edits with no real explanation.
I have left the user a personal talk message explaining my position more clearly, but strong words, in my opinion, were needed. aLii 21:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- So I should have said "Dr.Sauerkraut appreciate your concern, but no blanket edits and rewrites please"? Note that he has only ever contributed half a sentence to the article, but for some weird reason likes to revert to a "random" badly-written, POV-ridden, poorly-referenced earlier version that he "apparently" had little to do with. aLii 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You're a fucking wanker
fuck off —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.210.199.2 (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC).