User talk:Only/Archive 14

Welcome to my talk page! I tend to reply to messages directly on here, so I suggest watching my page if you're looking for a reply. I watch user talk pages I comment on so we can keep conversations organized. I reserve the right to modify excessive signatures left here.

Archives
I − II − III − IV - V - VI - VII - VIII - IX - X - XI - XII - XIII

Hello[edit]

I really thinking White Digital Media should on here because they are one of the top major online magazine started in U.K. and they have 16 different brands on all kinds of industries. Lot of the place like Africa or India doesn't have much access to the internet so Business Review Africa/India are one of the major source for international business there.

Thank you

Hi there[edit]

I undid your revision at User talk:219.89.57.102. you are NEVER allowed to remove other user's unblock requests.--122.57.91.165 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in future, I would advise you to not bait other editors into becoming blockable. See WP:BAIT--122.57.91.165 ([[User talk:122.57. while the user may have needed to not feed the trolls when you intervened, there was no reason for you to bait him/her at all. Unacceptable.--122.57.91.165 (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are an Admin, and I am a lowly Rollbacker, so perhaps I shouldn't be sticking my nose in on this, but I happened upon this mini "controversy" while signing into Huggle and I'm concerned that this particular anon IP was blocked very hastily and with little regard for what seems to me a very high probability that he felt he was contributing positively. Granted, I know little of the history prior to his initial addition to ANI, which seemed a bit nutty (but arguably no less nutty than the preceding thread) but I can understand why he was upset over having it reverted away without explanation. I also note that he wasn't particularly obnoxious at any point. He even thanked you in his first post to your talk page. Perhaps his "contributions" seem less obnoxious to me because I am about to spend an hour or so reverting vandalism and next to guys blanking whole pages or replacing them with "FART" repeated 1,000 times, this individual seems less awful. But... regardless, just my opinion. I don't know that he necessarily deserved a block or, if he did, perhaps he deserved more leeway. The only place where he seems to actually go off-track was in how he phrased his protest of the block, but by then it almost seems like he's been driven to frustration and is venting. Just my two cents. Ginsengbomb (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, his initial "thanks" to you was also a personal attack on someone else. Just in looking through his contributions the anon just seems far more -misguided- than -willfully disruptive-. Ginsengbomb (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also, to be fair, you were an involved admin so it would've been better to have let a different admin handle the matter. Granted, the unblock request wasn't great but you weres till involved and therefore shouldn't have removed the unblock notice however "disruptive" you thought it was.--122.57.91.165 (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And even if you hand't been involved, a "please consider a more polite unblock request" would've done far more good than a blatant removal of the unblock request and a "If you continue like this, your talk page will be locked". As the saying goes, do you as you want others to do. If you want others to be polite, be polite yourself.--122.57.91.165 (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ginsengbomb, about IP probably being more misguided than intentionally disruptive. Seriously, the block was a bad idea. i also seriously disagree with your decision to give him a level 4 personal attacks warning/ Yes, he did make a personal attack but it would have been better to alert him to the WP:NPA policy first or at least give him a lower warning than level 4. WP:AGF and always assume that although some IPs such as myself know a lot about Wikipedia policies and guidleines many other Ip editors will not be as knowledgable and it seems rather weighty to slam a templated "only warning" message onto an editor who probably was misguided. --122.57.91.165 (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believed, and still believe, that the IP was not here to be productive. I stand by all my actions here. either way (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== FYI == this page has been vadilized and i saw u had created it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_David

SzrxhrdZRs[edit]

You should just indefinitely block this user. He's had no positive contributions in the article space (modifying sourced content to false information) and he's done nohing useful elsewhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jobaphiles[edit]

When you get a chance, can you look into the Jobaphiles article? It looks like the article was created by the site's owners (on their press page they link to the Wikipedia entry). The site has been mentioned in the press before but the site doesn't appear to have many users. Something just doesn't seem right. StuccoOne (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montana's Defender[edit]

Hi Either way,

I see from this user's talk page that you have first hand experience in dealing with them. Would you mind providing a neutral opinion on Talk:The Garfield Show and Talk:It Takes Two (1995 film)? I would be most appreciative.

Thanks, — Manti core 14:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it eye on the situation, but will stay out of the discussion(s) since it could be interpreted as me going against him since I've had experience with him in the past. I'll be monitoring his reverting, though. He might be headed to another block if he continues to revert like he has been. either way (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded[edit]

On my talk and users talk. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.[edit]

I'm that guy you called immature way back in '08. It was a crazy time back then, wasn't it? Anyway. Hi, just wanted to let you know I'm semi-retired now. I hope you'll be more mature than User:Daniel and actually reply to me. Ok. Bye then.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 11:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad article[edit]

Hi I was wondering if you could look through this article List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters and give some input I look at it and I think its horribly written asking question and making presumptions Im not sure what should be done with it but it asks questions to the reader making it very non-encyclopedic not all are like this just some and it has lines that are completely unecessary The Movie Master 1 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe white digital media should be on wikipedia because they are one of the first major online magazine aggregate. They have 16 of their own brands and some of the industries that the brands represent don't have a major publication at all. The CEO has also owned large media companies in the past as well.

Jim Joyce - Koman Coulibaly[edit]

Although I see your point and will not add in the "see also" link, I still strongly disagree with you. Many other reputable news sources (such as Sports Illustrated, Time, daily newspapers, and others) elicited comparisons between the two. Consider the following:

Obviously, although you personally hold that there is "not a clear enough connection for a see also" between the two, many other reliable sources and commentators are able to draw a connection. I will respect your demands on my talk page and not re-add in the link, even though obvious evidence hints to the contrary. Regards, UniversitySchool08 (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate username?[edit]

Is "College of Toronto" a valid name? Please see [[1]] Gerardw (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fetchcomms/Miscellany[edit]

Hello, Either way. I wanted to know why you considered my edit "unnecessary" since I was merely trying to abide by this rule: Wikipedia:UP#Simulation_and_disruption_of_the_MediaWiki_interface and attempt to stop the fakeness on Fetchcomms page; it doesn't look like he will need it anyway. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then talk to him about it. Don't go into his personal space and edit it as you see fit based on a guideline that "strongly discourages" it. It does not say "you may never, ever do this because it is policy" it says "we really would prefer it if you didn't." Again, talk to him rather than doing that to his space. either way (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 16:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A pool cue?[edit]

File:Paulinskill.jpg is about to be deleted. Can you help resolve this since I'm not certain what happened to that user. « ₣M₣ » 22:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Radio Wikipedia Delivery[edit]

Template:Radio Wikipedia Delivery has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...[edit]

Alright, I'd like you to take a look at my stats. I'm part of WIKIPROJECT TEMPLATES! Well, at least on my Ezekiel63745 account. It's no fair how I can't show off anything there! D: Please, I think you should reconsider. Let's just leave them. Ezekiel! ^{Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'.} 20:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Ezekiel53746_vandalism_warnings[edit]

Next time, please put the MFD templates in noinclude tags. LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a additional note, I noticed you never tried using a alternative to deleting. LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, nor am I required to. However, several other people did discuss it with him and his reply was simply that he likes them because they reflect his "overly humorous" personality. Alternative was tried but he had no desire to change. either way (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but because you didn't, he is now in tears. He also is saying that it is chaos, and it eventually will lead to him being blocked because of that. You do realise the "approved" templates are boring, bland, etc., right? I mean, c'mon! Even ClueBot NG has his own warning templates, over those crappy default warning templates! LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the default templates are "crappy," you are more than welcome to propose changes. And comparing the warning templates that ClueBot gives out to the ones presented here is apples and oranges. The templates given by the bot are professionally crafted and appropriate for use on wiki. His are not. either way (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you weigh in on the Judy Chu page?[edit]

Hi,

It seems there is a dispute about what should be included in the page regarding her views on racial preferences. Would you mind looking into it? It was my understanding that you could quote newspaper articles if they had fact checkers.

Thanks Starbucksian (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really investigate this one too deeply, but glancing at the edits in question, the talk page, and the discussion at BLP/N, I tend to agree with keeping the information out of the article. It does seem like UNDUE weight given to this using one op-ed piece. either way (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok[edit]

67.1.62.124 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing rollback[edit]

Just removing my rollback permission, but not removing it from the other user involved in the edit war in my opinion is really shortsighted. Especially considering they used the rollback tool during the war as well and have a history of using it inappropriately. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 02:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me an instance of someone else using the rollback tool during the revert war at that article. I do not see any reverts made through rollback other than yours. either way (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2],

and [3]. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle is not the same as rollback. either way (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They both have the same edit summary. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 02:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they clearly don't. Compare your rollback summary to theirs:

Yours: m (Reverted edits by Ryulong (talk) to last version by Intoronto1125

Masem: Reverted good faith edits by Intoronto1125 (talk): As Ryulong said, there's no point in addition non-function hidden text that we will not likely use. (TW))

Ryulong:(Reverted 1 edit by Intoronto1125 (talk): STOP ADDING THIS HIDDEN INFORMATION. (TW)

These are clearly not the same edit summary. Yours is one that comes from rollbacks, theirs are ones that can be produced through Twinkle. Both of them added actual edit summaries to go along with the word "revert." either way (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

I am an administrator on Wikia, so of course I would know rollback. – $Spidey665 | Talk |$ 23:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't consider edits at Wikia to be an indicator of how well you know Wikipedia policies. Additionally, as I said at your rollback request, you demonstrate here that you do not fully understand the policies yourself. YOu know how to rollback based on your Wikia experience, but you don't know why and when to rollback according to Wikipedia policy. Thank you, though, for fixing your signature based on mine and MJ94's requests. either way (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]