User talk:Fennessy/Archive 3

Just to avoid any confusion: if you leave a message here, I will get back to you here. If I have left you a message on your talk page, just reply to me there and I will carry on the discussion there.

Gallowglass image

Noticed you put up a request template on Talk:Gallowglass a while ago. I think i found the image, just letting you know. Dunno if Dürer made others though.--Celtus (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's the one I was referring to. I looked everywhere online for it, thanks for going to the trouble of scanning/uploading it. And I'm pretty sure he didn't make any more similar. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Template:Administrative divisions of Georgia

Hi Fennessy. Belarus has not yet recognized them in spite of a strong Russian pressure. Best wishes, --Kober^Talk 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Repoted

Your violation of consensus has been reported.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good luck with that. If you want to go about things on wikipedia, that's not the way to do them. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Unionist

Hey, drop me a line if this user continues to edit war regarding the userbox, we can talk about protecting your page. L'Aquatique[chitchat] 21:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot that's helpful. What was the deal with him removing the resolved marker on the incidents noticeboard? I didn't think people were allowed to just do that... ʄ!•¿talk? 23:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're allowed to do it. Traditionally it's other admins that will remove it if they don't believe the matter is closed, or anyone will remove it if new information comes to light. However as far as I know there is no rule against removing it, unless you continue to do it when everyone else says it is resolved, to the point of being disruptive. Here, there was definitely a problem with WP:POINT and some soapboxing, hence I was somewhat ticked off when the tag was removed. However, the editor has apparently let it go so hopefully that is the last we will hear of that. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Being away from a computer for a few days does not equate to letting it go. This was not WP:POINT, it was enforcing consensus. Some people seem to have trouble seeing the wood for the trees on that score though. I removed the resolved tag because no one had actually addressed the point at hand, they had just been dismissive. Since then there were some comments that did adequately address the MFD from last year, they were wrong, but they at least addressed the issue, so from the point of view the matter is resolved. For now.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. The thing with you is that no matter how wrong you are, you would never actually admit to being wrong in a million years. And there is no "for now" about it; the userbox is staying there, end of story. ʄ!•¿talk? 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If consensus is against you, it's going, end of story. That's the rules of the gameTraditional unionist (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But consensus isn't against me and you're deluded. If you want to pursue this matter further, be my guest. But don't bother me about it because I'm not intrested and nothing is going to happen. Surely you're time on wikipedia could be spent more productively than this.ʄ!•¿talk? 19:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. As I say, the matter is resolved, for now. As for my delusion, remain civil or you will be reported and blocked.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And never, ever, interfere with one of my comments again. That is bad form of the highest order.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For you to try and tell anybody about being civil or bad form is the highest form of irony. And I added the brackets with a question mark because I was hoping(if I had to deal with you here again) that you'd correct it by making grammatical sense. To assume that was a malicious act is typical of your bad faith. As for saying you're deluded that is in no way an insult, rather a statement of fact in this case. Everyone on the admin board told you that you were in the wrong place and needed to drop it. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I omitted a comma and misinterpreted your alteration.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, can you both agree that further discussion of this would be pointless, so we can all get back to more important matters? L'Aquatique[talk] 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I said "don't bother me about it[anymore]". I don't think I could have made myself any clearer. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's a good use of time to discuss an MFD on a userbox, its worth extending that MFD to its intended effect in a fair handed manner. That is my goal.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's anything like a request for mediation, then I decline to take part. Enough already. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would they delete it? It doesn't go against anything on WP:UP#NOT. As for the only issues that even come close, I might as well address them now; the userbox is directly related to wikipedia & it doesn't attack anybody. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the MFD discussion, you will see the community came to a decision based on more than policy. That is the consensus which stands.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a similar userbox and I removed it as part of a compromise when this all kicked off originally. BigDunc^Talk 22:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Traditional Unionist: start a new MfD if this is bothering you so much. The old one simply doesn't apply here, you've been told this multiple times. Besides, consensus changes over time, even if the userbox had been closer to the one deleted I still might have advised you to request a new MfD. But continuing to post here is tendacious editing and borderline harassment- put simply it's disruptive. I have already warned you about this, I suggest you listen before an admin who is not so hesitant with the block button comes around. L'Aquatique[talk] 22:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of harassment. I have responded to direct questions and points each time. That is not tendacious.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

TU she's right. I'm not going to remove the userbox unless a specfic policy comes about that would require me to, and as it stands that's just not going to happen, nor is it ever likely to. And the year old Mfd is barely related to this userbox at this point so this whole arugment of yours is tenuous as well as tendentious. If I were you I'd be asking myself the question, "do you find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people". Well do you? (I ask that rhetorically — no answer is necessary) ʄ!•¿talk? 23:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And hopefully, none will come. I would very much like to see this discussion end, so I would strongly suggest you [Fennessy] just stop replying. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Magibon

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Magibon meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pedofenion (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You friend of pedofenion you must not delete magi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forryga (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Magibon

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magibon_(3rd_nomination) Hetelllies (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Fennessy. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in WQA. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. -t BMW c- 16:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete FAR

Please complete the FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Growth of the Old Swiss Confederacy, per the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User:NIR-Warrior: beyond Albania

I would appreciate it if you could examine the contributions record and the behavior pattern of User:NIR-Warrior beyond Albania (e.g., Cyprus) and tell me what you think. Best, --Zlerman (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt he is being unhelpful to say the least. In terms of his contributions to the Cyprus article, he doesn't seem to be communicating or leaving clear edit summaries (if any).
All I know is he called my edit on the Albania article "spam", which I would consider uncivil due to the fact that it clearly isn't spam. Surely spam would be adding unnecessary information rather than moving/reducing material that is given undue weight? ʄ!•¿talk? 03:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)