SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) m Talkback (Talk:Johann Tetzel) |
Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
{{talkback|Talk:Johann Tetzel|ts=14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)}} |
{{talkback|Talk:Johann Tetzel|ts=14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)}} |
||
We've both chimed in with our perspectives: ready for you now. [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
We've both chimed in with our perspectives: ready for you now. [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ctjf83 2]] == |
|||
Hi. I hope you don't mind a friendly comment. You seem to be keen on supporting Ctjf83 at RfA, which is admirable. But if you are too enthusiastic in challenging Oppose and Neutral !votes, I think you are more likely to just annoy people than achieve anything positive. People taking part in the RfA are interested in evaluating Ctjf83's responses, not yours - so I'd politely suggest you back off a bit and leave Ctjf83 to handle their own RfA their own way. Regards -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:39, 14 January 2011
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
(Manual archive list) |
Roman and Williams entry
Dear Dusti: Regarding our declined submission on Roman and Williams- we edited this entry with respect to neutrality. We are familiar with and have written wikipedia entries in the past, and believe it reads similarly to other wikipedia entries on architectural design firms. The writing is quite spare now, would you please provide us with more detail is to how (or where) it reads like an advertisement, and what we can do rectify this? Your help is most appreciated. Thank you. Ekubany (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"We," as in two people, wrote the entry collaboratively. We work with Roman and Williams. Would you please provide us with more detail as to how (or where) it reads like an advertisement, and what we can do rectify this? Your help is most appreciated. Thank you. Ekubany (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Rollback
Hi, I just wanted to drop a note that this edit [1] shouldn't have been rollbacked, because it was definitely not vandalism (and not unconstructive in any way). A quick Google search shows that an "Appalachian College of Optometry" is in the works for Buchanan County ([2]), but since it doesn't exist yet (and the name isn't even official), I agree that we shouldn't have that info in the article until there are more official details. But anyway, I removed your vandalism warning from the user's page; try to be a little more careful when huggling in the future. Thanks, SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
SPAs for SPI
If you're referring to the Mossad shark AfD, I'd check User:Akinoame, though it's not clear who that may be. I don't know enough about this (Wikipedia:SPI#NoCal100) to make an accurate connection. Nonetheless, both User:Two for the show and User:Akinoame are somebody's sock. I feel that checkusers are going to come up empty though, because I doubt these people are dumb enough to not use open proxies. Bulldog123 07:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Shit. Sorry. I meant to put "two for the show" Bulldog123 07:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Relists
Have I been flubbing something up with my relists? I'm the new guy, and keep messing up relatively simple actions - any pointers would be gratefully received. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I use the script AFD helper (or something like that), but when you relist, after you note that it's being relisted, you can either hide it <! blah> or remove it from that day's log, and then add it to the current day's AFD log, which today would be 12 January 2011. :) No problems :) Dusti*poke* 07:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
We've both chimed in with our perspectives: ready for you now. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you don't mind a friendly comment. You seem to be keen on supporting Ctjf83 at RfA, which is admirable. But if you are too enthusiastic in challenging Oppose and Neutral !votes, I think you are more likely to just annoy people than achieve anything positive. People taking part in the RfA are interested in evaluating Ctjf83's responses, not yours - so I'd politely suggest you back off a bit and leave Ctjf83 to handle their own RfA their own way. Regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)