Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 30 December 2009

TreasuryTag is currently, or is going to be, away from Misplaced Pages, between April 14 and April 19, 2009, and may not be able to respond immediately to queries. He may, however, edit a little unless he's using the splendid Wikibreak enforcer.

User talk:TreasuryTag/Talkheader

Archives

Index • edit List of archives by month December 2006 to March 2007 March 2007 to early May 2007 Early May 2007 to mid-June 2007 End of June 2007 All archives beyond this point are done automatically by bot. Any threads that are five days old will be archived to the appropriate one of the following exciting subpages, for your enjoyment: July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 Threads only need be two days old from this point on to be archived. November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March (and end of Feb.) 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 + the end of May July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May and the end of April 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011

Just to fix the formatting...

Picture of the day Benjamin Franklin Painting credit: Joseph Duplessis

• Archive
• More featured pictures

Edit-war at Amy Pond

It takes two to edit war. There is no need for you to constantly revert to re-add the image back in. The world will not end if it remains out whilst dispute resolution is ongoing. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I may agree with part of your assessment, but other admins may not see it that way. I will not act as an admin in this capacity as I have worked to improve the quality of the article's content - but you risk being blocked yourself if you continue to engage the other user in the edit warring. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

- Please do not merge this into the prior subsection. Your prior presentation of this is not NPOV. The subsection notice I gave about the RFC is NPOV. Cirt (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I just thought it was completely un-necessary to devote two sections of that page to precisely the same issue (silly of me...) – also note that I did not edit your comment, or make it any less POV. I simply merged the sections without deleting any substantive content, first ensuring that the other section header ("Input requested") was neutral. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 14:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You removed my subsection header. That is editing my comments. Your comment under your subsection calling something quote "ridiculous" is not an NPOV framing of your dispute. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I contend that subject-headings are not part of another users' comments, and are frequently edited for tidiness and other reasons; however, I sense that we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Secondly, and as I said just above, I just thought it was completely un-necessary to devote two sections of that page to precisely the same issue. Thirdly, and as I said just above, I ensured that the other, original, section header ("Input requested") was neutral. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, to all points. Your presentation of the dispute was most certainly not NPOV. Please do not do this again. Cirt (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was. I said, quite clearly, that the section-header ("Input reqeusted") was neutral. Or do you disagree with that assessment? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While the header itself may not have been problematic, your wording underneath it most certainly was not NPOV. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said that my wording beneath was neutral; in fact, I repeatedly noted that it wasn't. See my contributions above. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 08:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said the heading was problematic - the wording beneath it was. By combining my NPOV notice with your POV notice, this was the inappropriate action. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token bc915852685df7fe6c876092797a9414

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dean cassidy

Hi, I've removed the db tag from Dean cassidy, there are claims of notability, though the article is more about the movie than the person. I'm going to ask the original editor to provide more information, or we may need to redirect the article to an article on the film. Woogee (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

You are one cheeky person

I did not "take it upon myself to delete another editor's comments", and neither would I ever do that. If they were accidentally lost during an edit conflict then that is of course regrettable, but still accidental nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me if I was mistaken; I did check, but an edit-conflict seemed unlikely to me, given that there was a three-minute interval, and your "comment" was so short that I didn't think it would have taken that long to write. However, I apologise if I was wrong. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 10:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What seems unlikely to you is of no interest to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to be like that, I withdraw my apology. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oook, when coming by to thank TreasuryTag for restoring me, I didn't think I'd run into this. ...was just to leave leave a link to this I wrote for Phantomsteve echoing thanks and my total agreement for AGF on this. On that note, thanks for spotting it! ...with no actual harm done, and my just ignoring the edit summary as a one-off from an experienced editor. This kind of kills my high on the silliness, though. Eh. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at Julian's RfB

I've reposted them at Malleus talk page. I don't think that kind of heated discussion is at all helpful on RfX pages. Please be more careful. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To be absolutely fair, I took part in no heated discussion. I left one (disapproving) comment in response to his outrageously unpleasant !vote, and in return got sworn at and abused. I took no further part in the debate on the RfB page. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment. But I'd maintain that your singular comment would have been far better placed at the user's talk page than on the RfB. Particularly so, given that you addressed his tone and not the substance of the argument. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair? To call this comment "outrageously unpleasant" seems not only unfair, but dishonest. Nev1 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant that TT's reply to me here was fair comment. --Dweller (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It was dishonest and despicable, but apparently allowed because I'm fair game for any kiddie-clot to take a pop at. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)