User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2008/Feb

Apology

I apologize for offending you and promise to be kinder in the future.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

C'mon... you like Porcupines... I like pugs.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Prickle Me

Just a note to say I love your "Prickle Me" talk link. I get it with your screen name but what it makes me think of is Shel Silverstein's Ickle Me Pickle Me Tickle Me Too. :) Travellingcari (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure :D Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Icons & AFD

I, for one, would prefer if you did not use the icons in your AFD comments. AFD is a discussion, not a vote (!vote), and it makes your individual !vote look more prominent than others, as well as giving the appearance that only the vote has weight, and not the commentary. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 17:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually using {{User:Misza13/vote}}, which I presumed was designed for use in deletion discussions, due to its "delete" option?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There are actually venues where they're widely used like WP:FPC. But they're jarring to see on AFD, that's all. You're not the first one to come to AFD after getting used to using them elsewhere. But AFD is supposed to be decided on the weight of arguments or consensus, so vote-counting by closing admins is deprecated, and merely voting (e.g. "Delete, --me" is especially deprecated. --Dhartung | Talk 21:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop; please note that I have always provided a rationale on AfD, and have never simply said "Delete, --me"!! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Delete --me 21:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't mean to suggest you weren't offering rationales, just that the icons seem to stress the vote more than the rationale. See you around! --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: ref

Looked like normal Scottevans speculation that you only half-caught. Will ^(talk) 18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

afd format

It would be much appreciated if you';d stop using symbols on the afds--it slows down the reading--Bold face is what is expected, and that's the purpose of formating conventions.DGG (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see - could I ask what this template is for, then? I never use the symbols for "delete" or "keep", anyway; just "comment". Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They have been used at some of the other XfDs, where things are generally disposed of it short order, but even there they are going out of use. They are used sometimes in polls, on the rare occasion that an actual poll takes place on a talk page. They are also used to keep track on some of the maintenance pages. In fact, some of them are so rarely used that I wasn't sure what they meant till I checked the page here--including the one for comment! DGG (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 7	11 February 2008	About the Signpost

Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad	Foundation's FY2007 audit released
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope	Best of WikiWorld: "W"
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution	Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple of reversions

Hello... Just to let you know - I re-reverted a couple of your reversions... This one because "licence" is correct for a permit (noun) in UK English ("license" is only used as a verb) and this one because RTD is now writing five epsiodes (and the source says this - the first one and the last four). For the latter, I suggest you might like to apologise to User:Vivaone since you gave him/her an unnecessary warning. Stephenb (Talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - pardon my grammar! As I'm sure you'll appreciate, I unded V...'s edit because it appeared to be changing something which I reasonably guessed was correct to start with. I'll look into apologies, etc. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Userblank

A tag has been placed on Template:Userblank requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship ending soon

Hi. I take things as I see them and saw in you a genuine desire to be constructive. In fact, that's what led me to offer to help you from the word go. I think you've undoubtedly benefited from the experience and are an almost completely different contributor to the one you once were.

A change of username is a good way of indicating a line drawn under behaviour, and I'd recommend a fairly "vanilla" signature too, but that's up to you. I'll recommend approval of your use of AWB, though I'm not going to bulldoze it if there's well-founded opposition.

I think adminship is not beyond hope, by any means. Most users will disregard bad behaviour done in early edit history if a substantial period of time has gone by without signs of return to it. I'd suggest you wait at least 6 months from the end of mentorship, which'll sound an age, but I think your newly mature approach will handle it fine. During that period, do the kind of things RfA looks for and avoid the things it hates. If you don't know what they are, (and even if you do) participating in a lot of RfAs will help. But more than anything, the best thing you can do is without impersonating an admin, behave like an admin. Report things appropriately at AN and ANI. Refrain from too much silliness (a little is fine, where appropriate). Caution others gently when they behave poorly. Follow policies and guidelines and get involved with consensus discussions where you disagree with them. I think you can do it. It'd give me a lot of pleasure if you did. Oh... and if I thought you were ready, I'd nominate you myself. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your sig would be fine for a user with an unblemished history. You need to work hard to show you're a whole different proposition to what you were. The change of username does that - the sig will help. Re AWB, I suggest that when you do apply, you do so with a note asking someone to contact me in case of doubt of your suitability. How does that sound? --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)