Loading AI tools
|
Below are my pre-Cluebot III archives.
Please do not edit these archives, instead leave a message on the current talk page. Thanks! Oct '06-Dec '06 December '06-Jan '07 Jan '07-March '07 March '07-May '07 May '07-June '07 June '07-August '07 August '07-September '07 September '07-November '07 November '07-January '08 January '08-February '08 February '08-April '08 April '08-May '08 May '08-August '08 August '08-April '09 |
 |
On 18 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Sabugal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Carabinieri 23:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering where could I get a Notebook holder like yours, I've been looking in some office stores and I have not find it. I work on rainy weather and low visibility places sometimes and a holder like that looks fine. By the way, my Username is ALHISR. Andres. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.132.192.145 (talk) 02:40:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
 |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
| Thanks for creating a stellar template to embrace all of the diverse phobias. Your simple approach to a complex task has been talked about and sought after, with nobody actually stepping up to doing something worthwhile. You did. Thanks! – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 21:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for letting me know. Much appreciated. I've responded on the talk page. Cheers, Sarah 04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If you made those via the Avatar generator at http://www.simpsonsmovie.com, then the copyright of those is held by Fox with all rights reserved. I'm pretty sure that you can't use them on Wikipedia. Flyguy649 talk contribs 09:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
~*Giggle*~. I've been really impressed and pleased with the way the STS-118 article came along. I'll clean it up over the next week or so, removing unnecessary information, but it is probably the best mission article yet, in my little ol' opinion. As for the other thing you mentioned, lol. Check my talk page, you're not the first one to mention that, oddly, and I've answered it there, so I will save some typing and just point you, lol. Squeeky mouse sneaks in here, and another little comment by Jmlk here. Basically I guess that I think it would get shot down because while I've lurked for two years, learning, I've only chosen to dive in during the last 2 months. Granted, I pick stuff up very very quickly, but I'll be the first to admit there are most likely areas of the stuff I don't even know about. Certainly there are areas I need to learn more about (sockpuppets, checkuser requests, etc.). I've started diving into the AfC pages, and actually completely cleared out one entire archive from 2006, closing all the cases, which was a cool thing, but a lot of work! lol. I guess the bottom line is that I've seen so many shot down (I read almost all the RfAs that go up) for so many lesser issues, I'm thinking it would get shot down and snowballed for lack of "time" being active. We'll see, but you and Chrislk02, and MousE, and Jmlk have all mentioned that to me, lol. 
How have you been? It has been a couple days since I popped in to bug you! 
Ariel♥Gold 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on my talk page, and hey if you have some free time tonight, drop me a line, I'd like your input on something if you feel up to it! Ariel♥Gold 22:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay if you have some time, be warned, it is a bit long, but I'd just like your input on this and the followed up post, here. I'd like input on how you think I handled it, and any suggestions you might have for me when that kind of thing comes up on talk pages. Thanks in advance! Ariel♥Gold 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, here is the truth, that's about as controversial as I'll get. I honestly really dislike discord, or controversy, and while a month or so ago, there was one issue, I realized after the other user resorted to personal attacks, and accusing me of meatpuppetry (LMAO I was on RC patrol, whose puppet was I, was my thought) I "walked away", so to speak, because I truly feel that you respond once, as clearly as you can, and if required, address other issues if they're brought up, but if that doesn't help make someone see the point you are trying to make, there honestly, I don't think it helps to continue. If it is a big issue, the community will add their voices, and the decision would not be yours anyway, but a consensus. However, all that being said, with the above discussion we had, I know that my people-skills will be scrutinized to the size of a needle, lol. So I just wanted feedback from someone not involved in the discussion, to know how you think I reacted, and what I could improve. As for the future, well, again I tend to stay away from controversy. I will chime in, occasionally, as I did here, (last comment on the thread) but usually it is to try to defuse the situation, (which that seems to have done) rather than to make it worse, or make my opinion heard. Also, I have my own personal "COI" policy: Anything that is truly, deeply important to me, I won't edit heavily, or really even watchlist the articles, because I know that it could be compromised by my personal feelings, and I would not be a neutral observer or editor. I don't have a problem with that, and I think it makes me a better editor, for it. (Although I could be way off base, who knows, lol) Ariel♥Gold 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. gimme your MSN name!
I really don't have it open much, and the only other people on it are User:Chrislk02, my niece, and the site manager of a website I write for, lol. But hey, I need more people on my "friends" list! (feel free to email it to me if you'd prefer to do that) Ariel♥Gold 23:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- All very good points, and trust me, I can make myself heard in a non-aggressive way, if I choose to do so. I just feel that here, the community is more important than my one opinion. However, I'm also not above looking at things from both sides, like here for example. I honestly don't think that it is a good idea, and I said so, but I also see the reasoning behind it, and I support the WP:BOLD idea, so I actually designed an entirely new "box", as an example of the differences of impression, even though I don't think it has much chance of being put into effect. I compromise, but maybe that is because there are only a few things that I truly cannot see both sides of. The one thing I absolutely can't see another side of, is the silly moon landing "hoax" that some people believe, lol. However, you'll notice there isn't a chance in Dante's Inferno that I'll be editing that article, lmao. Ariel♥Gold 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- All very good points, and trust me, I can make myself heard in a non-aggressive way, if I choose to do so. I just feel that here, the community is more important than my one opinion. However, I'm also not above looking at things from both sides, like here for example. I honestly don't think that it is a good idea, and I said so, but I also see the reasoning behind it, and I support the WP:BOLD idea, so I actually designed an entirely new "box", as an example of the differences of impression, even though I don't think it has much chance of being put into effect. I compromise, but maybe that is because there are only a few things that I truly cannot see both sides of. The one thing I absolutely can't see another side of, is the silly moon landing "hoax" that some people believe, lol. However, you'll notice there isn't a chance in Dante's Inferno that I'll be editing that article, lmao.
Hahaha loved your email, but no worries, honestly I respect your opinion, and I'm not avoiding conflict with you, lol. Believe me, if I have something to say, I'll say it! lol. I probably do over-analyze my remarks, but it is mainly because I don't want to be misunderstood here, as people can't "hear" what I mean, so that makes me long-winded, and probably makes me take longer to reply to some things, but I'm okay with that. Ariel♥Gold 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Haha I actually hate the smilies on MSN because they aren't correlative with what I consider the right smilies, lol. Like it makes a kissy face when I do :D, instead of a big giant grin. But I really rarely run MSN anyway, so it isn't a big issue. Now I can bug you there though, so you better look out!
Nah, just kidding. I'll add you in a bit, and just pop you a note so you can know which ID is me. Ariel♥Gold 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well done on the article, it looks good. Women's cricket doesn't get much coverage so anything like this is always very welcome. Nick mallory 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you blocked my attempted creation of the above account - for the same purpose for my attempting to create it; to deny its use for WP:POINT and other abuses/violations. Just to let you know. LessHeard vanU 14:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, I don't need it and the block achieved the intended purpose - but I am pleased that something I did was considered sophisticated... ;~) LessHeard vanU 15:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for reviewing me :-) Regarding your comments, I believe my participation in the AfD you mentioned was alright; I was just proving that there was no canvassing and that the article should be kept. Sometimes you just have to fight to protect what you love. Regarding GothicChessInventor, he is a troll, and has been warned in the past. I made a comment to try and ease the tension between the parties in the dispute. The best way to do that is using sarcasm, which is encouraged in the Internet. He took it the wrong way; that's not my problem. He also insulted me and my religion. I think I handled him pretty well. Thank you for your comments! --Boricuaeddie 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Check email in a bit, dear 
Ariel♥Gold 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I'm brand new to Wikipedia and have created a new article (and my first!) on the New Jersey Transit Police Department. I've added a request for an assessment and peer review at the Law Enforcement Wikiproject portal for my article, but somehow I don't think that went through properly. Seeing how you are a veteran of Wikipedia and on the the administrators of the Law Enforment project, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to assess my article. Thank You
Rebel3986 12:21 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- A DYK would be pretty nice, I assume that means that part of the article would be listed under the main page "Did you know?" section? Rebel3986 13:04 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Another article redone
Hey, I've completely reworked the artice on the New York City Transit Police and I would appreciate it if you could give that a look and an assessment also. Thanks Rebel3986 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Link is this http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/query/14?uf=uia_MAmczW .This person is very, very angry with me. I will go to checkuser for looking if is somebody I know ?? He has made 30 - 40 vandals attacks under other IP address. --Rjecina 18:27 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- In last 2 days my edits are under attack from this 5 users (this is in reality 1 user): user:212.200.198.125 user:212.200.198.33 (reason I am sockppupet ??)user:212.200.192.153 user:212.200.198.105 user:212.200.199.125 (reason copyright). Reason is not important blocking is not important because I am sure that he will attack in next 24 again from new IP --Rjecina 18:45 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"Hey, just by the by, could you remember to use {{Userlinks|username}} to report users at UAA rather than just putting a link to their page? Makes it easier for admins to access contributions, talk pages and so on. Cheers :) SGGH speak! 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)"
No problem. I've made lots of AIV reports, but never a username vio. I tried a couple of times to get the format to work, but couldn't figure it out. What is the difference between "Userlinks" and "Username"? Thanks! Ward3001 22:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh well it's my first report, guess I didnt' read the instructions too well. Heh. T Rex | talk 01:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That whole Peeha thing just had me laughing, honestly when I typed that "it could mean", I had no idea that a "Peeha" was a real thing! You're right, probably, either way it should be blocked, but I just had to come laugh about this with you. Peeha! hee hee hee Ariel♥Gold 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. Any ideas why Marcus is using No.2 for the Sabres, but his usual 23 for the 4-day team? Could mean the 'squad number' tag becomes problematic, especially as most counties don't publish a full list!
Did you notice whether they just used 1 to 11 for the Pro40 side? Do they still print the numbers on the scorecard as well?
–MDCollins (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- p.s. remember that in the infobox "international = false" will still display the international banner (c.f. Luke Wright (cricketer)) - leave it blank if it is not 'true'.–MDCollins (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- It always used to be 23...Currently trying to trace the church for you (rather than 'the church adjacent to the County Ground)!–MDCollins (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's St. Mary Magdalene! –MDCollins (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the film list, my love. Should keep me busy for a while. :) Red Gown 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
|
On 4 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Novikov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Carabinieri 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If you have a moment, take a look at Talk:Security_guard#Why_remove_Article_from__Law_enforcement_.3F. We seem to be at an impasse and a fresh perspective might be helpful.--Jeff Johnston 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- The impasse continues. Can we get a final ruling based on the arguments presented? I'm putting way too much time into this! :-) --Jeff Johnston 02:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I've recently been greatly updating, and hopefully improving, the Battle of Barrosa article, and have noticed some conflicts in the details you have on the Siege of Cádiz article and what I've been able to find; do you think we can collaborate to some extent? I'm specifically concerned about the siege article saying:
- Soult was in command of the French forces for the Battle of Barrosa (intro, para. 2): Soult was busy at Badajoz at the time, Victor was in command of the French siege lines at that point;
- Graham was in command of the Anglo-Spanish force marching from Tarifa: La Pena was actually in overall command, with Graham only commanding the Anglo division;
- The capture of two eagles at the Battle of Barrosa: all the references I have only mention the one taken by Sergeant Masterman of the 87th Regiment of Foot (although I'm quite prepared to accept that two were taken, if you have the sources to back that up).
Similarly, if you have any thing that conflicts with my updates to the Barrosa article, please let me know. I'm sure that we can get the two articles to agree with a little bit of communication, and hopefully both up to GA status at least!
At the moment, I'm waiting for Amazon to deliver a load of new sources for the Battle of Barrosa article (Gates, Glover, Oman and Weller), at which point I'll be confirming all the entries and citations in that article, but I feel it would be good to get some consistency between the main Siege article and the battle's one.
Cheers. Carre 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt reply :). I'm pretty certain about the commanders - none of my literature disputes who was in charge on either side (although calling La Pena "in charge" is stretching it!) - so I'll go ahead and change them. I'm not sure about the Eagle just yet, hopefully I'll have better references once my new set of books arrives, and I'll be able to fix one or t'other of the articles. The web references in the Battle of Barrosa article are pretty good though, I think, if you don't have the books I cite. The Regimental eagle article, I hope, isn't the one you got the "two" from though, because that article isn't particularly good! (The eagle taken at Barrosa wasn't the first taken, just the first taken by the Brits; the Spanish had taken one at Bailen, 3 years earlier!) Carre 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh, you took the commanders from the 'old' Battle article :(. Unfortunately, that version was largely nonsense! Never mind, no harm done... and as for the cricket, never mind that either - Rugby this weekend ;). Carre 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
UAA sure is hoppin' busy this afternoon! Giving you a workout, eh? 
Ariel♥Gold 21:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on my talk page, and I just have to laugh at this:
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:1101530202_400.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you will have to create a new user account with a more suitable username.
Thanks. 99.5% of the time I am civil and cool. But occasionally I do lose my temper with idiot vandals particularly if I am in a bad mood. we can't all be perfect and I apologise for these rare occureneces. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I tell you though that blocking system is a damn marvellous way of blocking out would be vandals!!! If they continue to vandalise once the block has expired i'd imagine their IP would be blocked permantently and great way to protect the site. Its those less obvious more subtle edits that are the most difficult to identify though. Thanks anyway ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead ;) -- lucasbfr talk 16:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not bothered you in quite a few days! I hope you're doing well, and that life is treating you with fairness. I know you're very busy lately, so I have really tried not to bother you, but if you want to drop me a line at any time, feel free, and you know I'll write back in the "Ariel Fashion" of verbosity, to give you something to do as a "break" from a busy day! Ariel♥Gold 11:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged Image:ArmAdiffpic.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Arma33.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Feel like getting into an issue I have? Do you have some time? Ariel♥Gold 11:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, lol. I debated taking this to WP:RFPP, but I'm not sure if it qualifies, and as I've really had little experience there (only one request that was accepted, but still) I would like to run this by you.
- Here's the problem: on Elisha Cuthbert, constant edit-warring over the placement of the small "Canada" flag in the infobox. Discussions on article's talk page here and here have gotten nowhere, and two editors (User:Wiikipedian and User:Jtres21 continue to do daily revert wars, with edit summaries such as "I won't stop", and "I won't either". shows both parties and their summaries. With the most recent one this morning Both users are careful not to violate the WP:3RR rule, but since September 2, (at least, maybe longer) this issue has been going on back and forth and the two refuse to come to an agreement. This borders on WP:LAME, and the only page that comes close to addressing the issue is WP:FLAG which is neither a policy, nor a guideline. Look at the page history to see this ongoing issue, it is really just disruptive at this point, not allowing anyone else to contribute because they've all just gotten sick of the fighting and bickering over such a silly issue. What do you think should be done? Ariel♥Gold 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Saw your note on the talk page, but neither one of them really goes there unless someone threatens to take action, like Timotab did in the past, and User:Wiikipedian refuses to archive his talk page, instead simply blanks any and all messages left there, rarely even responding. Still, do you think it may be helpful for you to leave a note on both users' talk pages? Also, thank you for looking into this! Ariel♥Gold 11:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you dear, this has been going on for a while now, weeks at least, and it is just silly, both Timotab and I tried to get them to come to an agreement (with other editors of the article) and it seems that did not help, so I would rather have an administrator step in and explain the reasons. Thanks so much for taking care of this! And here's your sugar, don't have a cow!
Ariel♥Gold 11:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you dear, this has been going on for a while now, weeks at least, and it is just silly, both Timotab and I tried to get them to come to an agreement (with other editors of the article) and it seems that did not help, so I would rather have an administrator step in and explain the reasons. Thanks so much for taking care of this! And here's your sugar, don't have a cow!
- Saw your note on the talk page, but neither one of them really goes there unless someone threatens to take action, like Timotab did in the past, and User:Wiikipedian refuses to archive his talk page, instead simply blanks any and all messages left there, rarely even responding. Still, do you think it may be helpful for you to leave a note on both users' talk pages? Also, thank you for looking into this! Ariel♥Gold 11:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ohhhh I see now, sheesh wonder why I didn't realize that's what it was, lmao. ~*Bonks head*~. Again, I honestly want to thank you for getting into this, I know you're busy and I really felt guilty bugging you, but if you check my talk page, Timotab and I have been discussing this for a week or so now, with both of us trying to help defuse the situation and/or reach a solution, to no avail. I hope your intervention will solve the issue, the truth is I don't even know who this Elisha person is, I only got involved because Timothy asked me to look into it, and I tried to assist, but it just didn't seem to matter. And it is really frustrating when someone constantly blanks their talk page and won't archive anything, to see what has already been discussed. I understand that is within their rights, but it doesn't make for easy communication at all. So, thank you very much, I hope you know how much I appreciate you! Ariel♥Gold 11:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Thankyouthankyouthankyou. Thank you. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 14:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- One little thing. You said on Talk:Elisha Cuthbert: This does not mean that the user who has been removing the flag has one - that should be "won". Didn't want to change your words though. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 14:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding - I don't like "request accepted," because (1) it removes the unblock request reason, which I think people will often want to look at, and (2) it's pointless if you've already let the user know you've unblocked them. So I don't use the "request accepted" thingy. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Mangojuicetalk 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Saw you protected the article. Please take a look at this section that I added to the talk page. I honestly have no desire to get involved in the debates, but I thought it would be helpful to lay out the issues in separate areas, citing MoS or guidelines/policy when they were available, to help things go along. What do you think? Do you think that was a good idea? Feel free to nuke that if you disagree. Ariel♥Gold 11:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more clear to new users if you indicated WP:RFCN. Such an edit summary is of no use to those who are unfamiliar with the process. Just a suggestion. Also, garçon is "boy" in French, so it may not be as clear cut as if it were a name. That may not change your opinion, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Leebo T/C 18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
PLease block the IP address of User: Blofeld of SPECTRE is chinese imdb copyvio users block plese. i have no idea who he is or what he is talking about I have done very little work on Chinese films except create lists. I suspect it is a vandal who has assumed many identities and has attacked pages and editors in the past. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I have a suspicion it is the same person who has also vandalised the Tibet pages I work on with countless disturbances mostly the Tibet article under many different identities. I think he has some kind of Chinese vendetta for some reason or other. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I know you blocked in good faith, but based on Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#Names_ending_in_.22porn.22, I have unblocked two names you blocked as they are legit, non-English names.Rlevse 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 |
The Photographer's Barnstar | |
| Excellent addition to Wikipedia and the police duty belt article. We always need more photographs like these for articles. Also, congrats on your new job on the force. --Aude (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading Image:Nuremberg party rallies main.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, those of some good pictures. Loving the kit! =D Sorry I haven't been around, been busy with real life and work, which is a bu**er sometimes. But I have been around 'lurking' a little bit. I am slowly now re-entering myself into my wiki life and should be back to my normal routine soon! Have you familiarised yourself with the use of the handcuffs yet?
Kind Regards
Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 10:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, because there is more than meets the eye. I responded on my talk page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As a previous contributor to this article, I'd like to invite you to express your opinion. There have been a number of issues recently, and we have reached consensus on all but one of them: whether or not a Canadian flagicon should be included in the infobox. Please express your opinion, along with your reasons, at Talk:Elisha Cuthbert#Good work. Thank you. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that, but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on the matter :) — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
hI sorry to bother but I am having difficulty in setting my User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/monobook.js. I'd like the set the main page to "executive" altertative by default which is [] but it isn't working. How can I do this? If you don't know please tell me somebody who can sort it asap thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Top man thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reports. However, we really want the user to be notified of the concern before you make a report, and if they respond, you to try and work it out. You should only report to RFCN if the user has not reponded after a reasonable amount of time, or has refused to change their name. I notice that for the past few reports you have made, you have not notified the user in question. Would you mind doing this, and waiting a day or so without reply before requesting comment, or if they are willing to discuss, discuss? You can use {{subst:uw-username}} for this, or your own personal message. Thanks! i said 00:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I saw your comments on WT:RFCN. I suggest that when you bring them from UAA, you post a comment in the parameter of the aforementioned template that you do not neccesarily have an opinion, but that they were deferred from UAA. Or you could do your own note, or we could make a template specifically for this. We'll see what others think. i said 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Re "rebel bitch", see just above your comment: "Comment this username was at UAA but another admin removed it. See logs around 19 Sep.Rlevse 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)" Rlevse 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SGGH. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Thank you, for all your help with the Elisha Cuthbert issue. I've got my fingers crossed, but I think that both parties realize that it wasn't productive, and have seen how a system of discussion can help. At least I hope it helped, lol. Anyway, thank you my dear! Ariel♥Gold 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Additions are being made to the discussion page in the same vein as the previous controversy, which I believe violate WP:BLP. I was hoping you might have a moment to weigh in on the subject again, as a couple of the editors would like an official opinion. I've currently removed the link/accusations pending your final say. In an additional note, one of the users attempting to add these accusations without any WP:V sources has also left a fairly rude message on my talk page with cursing involved, suggesting I have no right to revert his edits. Any assistance in the matter would be appreciated.Thrindel 07:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- At the risk of wandering in here and annoying people, I have concerns surrounding Thrindel's objectivity on this subject. While I understand the risk of liability for Wiki, and am not seeking to put Wikipedia in legal battle, I am also fairly sure that this allegation should be dug at, perhapses with someone with more experience on the subject then myself. Discusing the mater and waiting for someone with more authority on the subject is one thing, but, simply deleting other users talk comments that are made in good faith while attempting to obtain verification to bring the information to WP:V of allegations is wholly another. His repeated deletions may be in good faith, however I am somewhat dubious of this, as he has repeatedly deleted information before there has been any opportunity to obtain verification. And also by his (to me, percieved) threats of libel for what I posted. Now, I will admit that I am not a legal expert, however, I do not believe that anything I wrote on the talk page falls into that category, the linked blog may, or may not, but as I said at the time, it is not a viable information source for inclusion. If I had information that was a WP:V source, I would have posted it directly to the article.
- I agree wholesale that if no evidence can be found, the data should be stricken from the talk page, but at present, there has been no opportunity to obtain such information, due to Thrindel's repeated attempts to delete this information.
- Yes, I do understand what a cluster f--- this is turning into and applogize in advance for the headaches that are probably about to ensue. (a mildly irritated StarkeRealm 08:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC))
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
