| Revision as of 01:24, 27 June 2007 editSethie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,043 edits 3rd person← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:04, 27 June 2007 edit undoKen Arromdee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,259 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| :) Maybe it is just part of the "non-spoiler" movement. Sethie has done hundreds of edits from the 3rd person, however you are the 2nd anti-spoiler to not like the 3rd person.... interesting. :) ] 01:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | :) Maybe it is just part of the "non-spoiler" movement. Sethie has done hundreds of edits from the 3rd person, however you are the 2nd anti-spoiler to not like the 3rd person.... interesting. :) ] 01:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| I have opened a about the spoiler warning issue, in which I've listed you as one of the involved users. ] 17:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:04, 27 June 2007
NOTE: You may want to glance at my userpage before leaving me a message, especially if the message has something to do with policy.
Hi!
Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
RE: Matthew Fenton
Hey, just wanted to warn you that fighting with Matthew Fenton may be hazardous to your health. The admins around here tend to take his side, especially when he's in the wrong, simply because he's only 14 or 15 years old. He's also been known to have good Wikians blocked permanently because they refuse to jump whenever he or his pal Will "Sceptre" Nobel yell "frog". I suggest checking out the history of Sixty Six's talk page - you have to look at the history and see the last few changes, as Scepter and one of his other admin buddies purged and locked the pages out of spite. I'm not saying you should give up the fight, but make sure you've got admins that will back you up when the time comes. Nobody knows why they keep defending them as if they've done nothing wrong, but if you go through their talk page archives, it's pretty obvious they're causing far more harm to Misplaced Pages than they should be allowed to. Good luck! 24.173.10.197 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tags
Please note that spoiler-season has been redirected to spoiler as a result of a TfD. As part of the close all existing instances of "spoiler-season" have been replaced with "spoiler", so whatlinkshere for spoiler will have about 50 links.
This mostly affects one class of article: Stargate.
Please handle removal of spoiler tags from these articles with special sensitivity. --Tony Sidaway 06:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Fan-cr*p
I replied to your most irritating comment here.--Rambutan (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why did you remove my reply?--Rambutan (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I've replaced it and replied to your reply, if you follow that.--Rambutan (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
On this subject, you changed the protection date for TSoD; could we have it 24hrs later? It would stop a lot of s*it being rammed onto WP!--Rambutan (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but I honestly think that the article will be much better if we don't let IPs at it.--Rambutan (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Agent Bishop
The reason that page was protected was to encourage the IP user to discuss removing the spoiler tag instead of edit warring over it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Your comments
Hi, WP:NOT outlaws any discussion which does not relate to article content, so it logically follows that these should be removed. Twinkle gives three types of revert function: good faith, normal and vandalism. One assumes that the AGF and normal reverts are to be used for non-vandalism?--Rambutan (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well?--Rambutan (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
What was the purpose of your message? I've not done anything more than three times in the last 24hrs, and it arguably is protected, since the person reverting them back is in clear breach of policy.--Rambutan (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually I'm not. According to the definition of revert and partial revert at Help:Reverting, simple deletion of material is not a revert: and logically, how could it be? Anyway, it's clearly enforcing policy, and if I got blocked then {{unblock}} would work, since most admins aren't biased against me.--Rambutan (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a violation of policy to enforce policy - how can it be? WP:TALK, WP:NOT and WP:FORUM together mandate the removal of irrelevant drivel from talkpages. Anyway, I have no desire to continue this absurd altercation.--Rambutan (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Spidey
- Why did you delete my article,"Spidey and the Mini Marvels"? I worked for an hour typing that. And before that it took me a while to find the comic. How would you like it if I deleted your articles which took YOU AN HOUR?!--User:Venom124
Head's up
Don't know if you've seen, or are interested in a rewrite of WP:FICT. It's at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction), with discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Rewrite_proposed. I'm in two minds, personally, but I think it'll fracture the community. Again. Steve block Talk 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
3rd person
Heya Phil.
Sethie appreciates you asking for what you want "Sethie to not write in 3rd person." He doesn't feel particularly open to doing so... maybe if you offer a reason why, especially since it is a part of Sethie's spiritual practice and way of life.
- ) Maybe it is just part of the "non-spoiler" movement. Sethie has done hundreds of edits from the 3rd person, however you are the 2nd anti-spoiler to not like the 3rd person.... interesting. :) Sethie 01:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I have opened a about the spoiler warning issue, in which I've listed you as one of the involved users. Ken Arromdee 17:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)