| Revision as of 18:48, 27 January 2013 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 48h) to User talk:TParis/Archive 9.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:17, 27 January 2013 edit undoClaudeReigns (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,203 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| Hi TP. I'm just letting you know out of courtesy that you have been mentioned in a discussion on my talk page. Regards, ] (]) 17:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | Hi TP. I'm just letting you know out of courtesy that you have been mentioned in a discussion on my talk page. Regards, ] (]) 17:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm sure you'll be fair.--v/r - ]] 17:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | :I'm sure you'll be fair.--v/r - ]] 17:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ==Mention at AN/I== | |||
| I have mentioned you at AN/I with regards to a request to block User:Danjel. ] (]) 20:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:17, 27 January 2013
| This is TParis's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
| If you have come here to change my opinion, be ready to also change yours. |
| USER PAGE | TALK PAGE | CONTRIBUTIONS | AWARDS | DASHBOARD | RECALL | MOTIVES | POLITICS | RTRC |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this
...Unless you consider CIR... I admit I was tempted, but it's not worth the drama... Salvio 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree about the drama.--v/r - TP 15:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yo, TP, I think you put your response in the wrong place (Kosh screwed up the indentation a little bit, so it got pretty confusing). I moved it for you; here's the diff, in case it's not what you meant. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's alright, he wouldn't get it anyway. The guy was using unrelated comments from 5 years ago to support his case today. I finally figured out whom he was quoting and I'm tempted to point John (talk · contribs) to this so he knows what he is being quoted for. I understand now why Beeblebrox said what he said now. Kosh keeps dodging the clue stick and doesn't know how to drop the one he's beating the dead horse with.--v/r - TP 19:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've had a run-in with Kosh (forget the context, but I remember the impression I got of him, aye, remember it very well.). I know the feeling. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's alright, he wouldn't get it anyway. The guy was using unrelated comments from 5 years ago to support his case today. I finally figured out whom he was quoting and I'm tempted to point John (talk · contribs) to this so he knows what he is being quoted for. I understand now why Beeblebrox said what he said now. Kosh keeps dodging the clue stick and doesn't know how to drop the one he's beating the dead horse with.--v/r - TP 19:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yo, TP, I think you put your response in the wrong place (Kosh screwed up the indentation a little bit, so it got pretty confusing). I moved it for you; here's the diff, in case it's not what you meant. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see this discussion...
... Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Remove_deleted_edit_count_from_everywhere related to your edit count tool! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Your actions/comments at RFC/U
(1) you're acting as a clearly WP:INVOLVED admin; and (2) your commentS was patronising; (3) that you are repeating the point that I have explained out to you above and repeatedly says that you are having WP:IDHT issues. That you acted without even trying to discuss the issue with me is deplorable for an admin. I am within my rights to respond to WP:POINTiness and allegations of bad faith. I suggest that you self-revert. ˜danjel 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Your're right, I am acting as an involved admin which is why I haven't used my tools. I reject your idea that factual statements are patronizing. I further suggest that I am not the one ignoring consensus at ANI to further my point; so you might want to review whom has WP:IDHT behavior.--v/r - TP 16:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- You moved commentary from an RFC/U. While that's not strictly speaking using your tools, as almost anyone else wouldn't get away with that, and then shortly after posted a thinly veiled threat. Or would you, as a user, not an admin, now accept my moving that thread back, per WP:BRD?
- You then asked, after it should have been pretty clear that I was making the effort to respond to an allegation, "I'm sorry, did you not know that the motivations and factual actions of the nominators was also in review?" which is definitively NOT a "factual statement". Then you went on to repeat a misinterpretation that is now getting to the point of looking deliberate. You again and again return to the ANI, but even you admitted that it wasn't clear cut. Since then, Epeefleche has continued, and it seems that the general feeling in other quarters is that his actions aren't OK. Including Graham87, another admin by the way, and others. ˜danjel 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- 1) Move whatever you want. There was no "almost using tools." The action could be done by anyone, no tool use required. If you move it back, you're doing it against RFC/U guidelines and that's on you. 2) Yes, it is a factual statement that everyone involved in a dispute is for review. The idea that only the subject can be discussed assumes guilt from the start. Other subjects can be discussed if they explain, mitigate, or defend the subject's behavior. In this case, your reverting Epeefleche's removal of content to reintroduce blatant copyright clearly demonstrates the exact same careless behavior you blame him of. 3) I most certainly did not say that the ANI wasn't clear cut. What I said was "No evidence of a policy violation." That's clear. The only thing that was vague is in saying that googling is easy. And that was vague because it was not enforceable. You're ignoring it.--v/r - TP 16:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- At this point, you need to leave my talk page. Your opening remarks were groundless and I reject all three points. I'll not continue two conversations with you. Further comments may be directed at me at the RFC/U.--v/r - TP 16:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- 1) Move whatever you want. There was no "almost using tools." The action could be done by anyone, no tool use required. If you move it back, you're doing it against RFC/U guidelines and that's on you. 2) Yes, it is a factual statement that everyone involved in a dispute is for review. The idea that only the subject can be discussed assumes guilt from the start. Other subjects can be discussed if they explain, mitigate, or defend the subject's behavior. In this case, your reverting Epeefleche's removal of content to reintroduce blatant copyright clearly demonstrates the exact same careless behavior you blame him of. 3) I most certainly did not say that the ANI wasn't clear cut. What I said was "No evidence of a policy violation." That's clear. The only thing that was vague is in saying that googling is easy. And that was vague because it was not enforceable. You're ignoring it.--v/r - TP 16:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI
Hi TP. I'm just letting you know out of courtesy that you have been mentioned in a discussion on my talk page. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure you'll be fair.--v/r - TP 17:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Mention at AN/I
I have mentioned you at AN/I with regards to a request to block User:Danjel. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)