User:Ernestvoice/Talk Archive/2009
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Re: Template Help
Well, it seems to be working for me. I noticed that you were trying to change the status page manually, though - the template is set up so all you have to do is click one of those colored links at the bottom of the template, and that will automagically edit the page for you. Try using one of those and see what happens. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. That IS odd. It looks as though you've followed the directions correctly, and I can't seem to find any sort of problem with the template, as it is working for me, and I can't find any errors in the template code. What should happen is this: when you click on one of the colored links (On, Busy, Off), it should bring up an edit box for the status page you created. It will remove whatever the contents of that box were and replace it with the appropriate message (online, Recently online, or offline; respectively). It will also fill in the edit summary box and automatically save the page. All of this *should* take about two to three seconds. Since none of your edit summaries are of the automatic sort, I can tell this isn't happening; exactly how far do you get when you click those links? You ought to get the edit box regardless, but does it do anything of what I described above? Also, if you don't mind, what browser and operating system are you using? The script should work correctly in Firefox regardless of OS, and appears to work in Internet Explorer 6 (so I'd assume it works in 7 as well). Sorry I'm not able to just fix this, but it doesn't look like the problem is on Wikipedia's end. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm using firefox and when i click one of the links, it does take me to the edit window for 'status'. It just doesn't do anything. I've even tried 'tricking' the system to think that it is updated by adding the same content as is on YOUR Status page, and that didn't work either.. -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Flagged Revs
Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhoneGnome
I added some references to PhoneGnome. You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhoneGnome -- Eastmain (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Thanks for pointing this out for me, I didn't know that :(, but I wonder why my account is in the edge of being deleted? what did I do? please if you can get me out of this accusation, leave me a reply in my talk page if you please, I need your help, take a look at this page where there is a link of it to delete or block my profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Megahmad thanks in advance Megahmad (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your account is not on the verge of being deleted. I submitted for a sockpuppet investigation after the User:Lighteroflife left a suspicious vote on a deletion page. The investigation was inconclusive and your account is safe. In the future, do not move pages to hide things. Especially Wikipedia administrative pages. Also, preview your edits before submitting them, there will be less history if you do this first. -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 17:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- What is the other user's vote to do with me? Thanks. sorry for my lack of info but I don't get it. and also I wasn't hiding anything, I was defending myself. Thanks for your understanding Megahmad (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some users create other accounts to attempt to sway the voting process. This is called a sockpuppet. Please do not move pages or delete content to defend yourself. IT can be interpreted as vandalism and THAT can get you banned, really quickly. -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 17:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- What is the other user's vote to do with me? Thanks. sorry for my lack of info but I don't get it. and also I wasn't hiding anything, I was defending myself. Thanks for your understanding Megahmad (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
OK one last question, is my account really safe now or you just say it :) because I really don't want to lose it, I have it since really long, and if you can, revert or remove the Sockpuppet you put me in PLEASE because I think it is dangerous for my account, Thanks for your quick replies and sorry for taking your time. Megahmad (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am not an admin. Please read the result of the investigation if you are concerned about your account -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 17:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks. have a good day Megahmad (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Well
Hello, you are going to show yourself just to be an administrator, u follow me and put incorrect evidences at me by saying about the vote, please do what ever you want, I don't care because you will not get what u want, but telling lies is not a good thing to show urself really, anyway I reported your incorrect evidence(s) to 3 Administrators.Don't say things you are not sure of (or to show that u work hard for wikipedia regardless if what u say is correct or not) Have fun and don't interfere with me again. check this out if you have time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Megahmad Megahmad (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- For your information, reporting suspicious is not a bad thing. I flagged your account as a possible sockpuppet because it seemed that it could have been. The investigation proved otherwise and no harm has been done. In fact, your account reputation should increase now that your account has been cleared. Please note that I will continue to place suspected accounts in for investigations. If you wish to report me for doing so, then go ahead. -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 13:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply: I have nothing against you to report you mate, but I can't take what wrong or incorrect things others do for me even if it is not for purpose, I am sorry for the way I talked to you, I was just excited, but please next time when you report an account, do so but only if you are 100% sure, because it's not a joke to get someone's account banned for nothing. Continue your good job and good luck. Megahmad (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Your detailed maintenance work
Hey Ernestvoice,
Your wikignoming is laudable; I hope you continue to support WP in this and other ways. On a related matter, I notice that you participated in an RFC late last year on date autoformatting. Many editors—friends of mine—have been gnoming their way through the date mess caused by the autoformatting system, which has been deprecated since last September.
However, I'm afraid this issue is the subject of another RFC which proposes among other things the addition of long template strings to dates. Now there's even a temporary ArbCom injunction against the removal of the square brackets around dates. (Apparently it’s still OK to delink on an occasional basis, for example, in featured articles that you nominate, but caution may be the best approach for the moment.) The injunction will be in force until the matter is finally resolved at a current RFC. You may wish to make your views known again on this same issue, whatever your opinion now. It's open until Monday, I think. WP:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll. Tony (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
???
Can you tell me why you added this to my talk page? Frehley 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I used Twinkle to flag a user talk page for SD (advert) and since you were the first person to do something on their talk page, it notified you automatically. It is an error, i will just delete it -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 19:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Truphone & Android.
It should actually be in the article too. It is on the Android. [1] CaribDigita (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that it can be used, it's just a superfluous external link (since there is no mention of it in the article) -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 22:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Clearwire "Cite" template
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I deleted a "cite" template you placed on 7 April 2009 on the Clearwire article. Reasons given here. I'll try to find sources for the two remaining tagged citations within the next few days, if I can find the time, or will delete the questioned assertions if no supporting source can be found. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Used reliable sources
Please note that the information I added is purely factual and I have cited the company's official website. There is no call-to-action language or claims regarding the quality of the services offered. I simply posted the services offered and their dictionary-style definitions, as accepted by the telecommunications industry. Please see other cable company sites, like Time Warner, Comcast,etc. and you will see they contain the same info, minus the flags added to Suddenlink for doing the same. Thank you.
- My edits were based on the fact that the references used were of little value to the statements or the article in general. Linking to the root domain of a company as a reference provides little support for a claim being made on any article. References are suppose to be of a 3rd party nature and are typically scrutinized by other editors when they are not. Furthermore, some of the statements, for example: "A DVR allows viewers to pause and resume live TV shows and to record television content for future viewing" Does not require a reference, as it is considered common knowledge and will be supported by the article on DVR's. -- ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)