Jump to content

User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2009/Dec

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Semi-prot

Don't forget to create a page like User talk:TreasuryTag/Anon and link it here for any IP/non-confirmed user who may wish to post you a message. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, completely slipped my mind earlier! ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 07:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It Can't Happen Here

This is a classic example of an alternate history novel, one in which history went in a very different direction than in our own: a well-recognized and valuable subgenre of science fiction. "Sci-fi" is a pejorative, and should not be applied to a well-written work such as this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I understood that "sci-fi" was an abbreviation of the phrase "science fiction" – and am still not 100% conversant with the distinction you appear to be attempting to draw. I was also under the impression that edit summaries were not delivered under oath, and did not have to conform to Wikipedia's content policies (as in, I see no harm in my "applying" a "perjorative" to something in an edit summary, not that I think I did in this case)... ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, while I appreciate your leaving me an explanation directive on my talkpage, the rollback tool should not generally be used for non-vandalism edits – a helpful summary should be provided instead. I quote from the policy: Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory, such as removing obvious vandalism, (emphasis is mine). This would have the added benefit of making the page-history clear, as well as my own mind! Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Good point! Thanks for reminding me. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

font

In case you'd given up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Font_ID_request ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I had noticed that, actually. Thanks!! ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 08:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

It's not "WhiteHouseTag", is it?

I notice your userpage has a picture of the White House instead of the U.S. Treasury. Shouldn't you have lots of pictures of the backs of $10 bills instead?

That's what the actual Treasury looks like. Just thought you might want to be aware :P —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was mainly named "TreasuryTag" after the item of stationery, and got a bit carried away editing the White House logo!! ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 09:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about sig

How do you make your signature change like every post? Is it some sort of script? --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It transcludes each time from User:TreasuryTag/sig. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 09:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh, clever! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He who questions a sig but has no voice

On a somewhat related note, if you hadn't seen yet at the ANI, the user has had the indef block reinstated. Also, on a more personal level, I want to thank you for taking the high road and backing out at a good time. It would have been depressing to see you end up with any sort of block on incivility or even a stern warning on your talk page and "on record" when you've done your best with this all and gone far above and beyond the tolerances more users would have. So yeah, glad it worked, I feel better knowing my advice actually helped someone for once, and it seems there's importance placed on actually solving the bi-polar nature encountered here. Best of luck in future matters... hopefully not on the nominating side of ANI, at least. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD

WP:AFD says that if a nominator feels that the template is needed, then it can be added. Please do not revert or change my comments again or you may be blocked from Wikipedia. WossOccurring (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Please give some instances where it's been needed in Doctor Who articles before, or otherwise explain why you "feel" it is needed. If not, it stays out. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 19:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion at WP:ANI means that it is needed. I also recommend that you read WP:CIVIL and keep a cool head. WossOccurring (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the discussion at ANI is just you saying that it's needed, without explaining your claim. You know perfectly well that what I'm doing isn't blockable, so stop misbehaving. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

FORUM

The material I removed was just drivel about what might prove right in next week's episode . In your opinion it is drivel And if we are going to quote rules then you seem to be forgetting The basic rule -- with some specific exceptions outlined below -- is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission .

A comment being "drivel" isn't one of those exceptions .Garda40 (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It was not related to improving the article, it was general speculation about what might happen in the program next week. And that is one of the specific exceptions mentioned in the policy. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
It was not related to improving the article, it was general speculation about what might happen in the program next week
Actually it wasn't .To quote it in full Just because she's wearing timelord robes doesn't mean she is a timelord, it's just speculation, and calling her one without citations is...whatever you say in wikipedia technobabble
It's pointing out that such material shouldn't be in the article without a RS therefore improving the article .Garda40 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Lonsdorf

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of this article as it makes credible assertions of importance, sufficient to pass the A7 criterion. Regards, Theleftorium 00:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the record, the version which I tagged probably didn't pass the criterion. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 11:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token bc915852685df7fe6c876092797a9414

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dean cassidy

Hi, I've removed the db tag from Dean cassidy, there are claims of notability, though the article is more about the movie than the person. I'm going to ask the original editor to provide more information, or we may need to redirect the article to an article on the film. Woogee (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Edit-war at Amy Pond

It takes two to edit war. There is no need for you to constantly revert to re-add the image back in. The world will not end if it remains out whilst dispute resolution is ongoing. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I may agree with part of your assessment, but other admins may not see it that way. I will not act as an admin in this capacity as I have worked to improve the quality of the article's content - but you risk being blocked yourself if you continue to engage the other user in the edit warring. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] - Please do not merge this into the prior subsection. Your prior presentation of this is not NPOV. The subsection notice I gave about the RFC is NPOV. Cirt (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I just thought it was completely un-necessary to devote two sections of that page to precisely the same issue (silly of me...) – also note that I did not edit your comment, or make it any less POV. I simply merged the sections without deleting any substantive content, first ensuring that the other section header ("Input requested") was neutral. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 14:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
You removed my subsection header. That is editing my comments. Your comment under your subsection calling something quote "ridiculous" is not an NPOV framing of your dispute. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I contend that subject-headings are not part of another users' comments, and are frequently edited for tidiness and other reasons; however, I sense that we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Secondly, and as I said just above, I just thought it was completely un-necessary to devote two sections of that page to precisely the same issue. Thirdly, and as I said just above, I ensured that the other, original, section header ("Input requested") was neutral. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
No, to all points. Your presentation of the dispute was most certainly not NPOV. Please do not do this again. Cirt (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I never said it was. I said, quite clearly, that the section-header ("Input reqeusted") was neutral. Or do you disagree with that assessment? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
While the header itself may not have been problematic, your wording underneath it most certainly was not NPOV. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I never said that my wording beneath was neutral; in fact, I repeatedly noted that it wasn't. See my contributions above. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 08:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I never said the heading was problematic - the wording beneath it was. By combining my NPOV notice with your POV notice, this was the inappropriate action. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are one cheeky person

I did not "take it upon myself to delete another editor's comments", and neither would I ever do that. If they were accidentally lost during an edit conflict then that is of course regrettable, but still accidental nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me if I was mistaken; I did check, but an edit-conflict seemed unlikely to me, given that there was a three-minute interval, and your "comment" was so short that I didn't think it would have taken that long to write. However, I apologise if I was wrong. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 10:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
What seems unlikely to you is of no interest to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you're going to be like that, I withdraw my apology. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Oook, when coming by to thank TreasuryTag for restoring me, I didn't think I'd run into this. ...was just to leave leave a link to this[2] I wrote for Phantomsteve echoing thanks and my total agreement for AGF on this. On that note, thanks for spotting it! ...with no actual harm done, and my just ignoring the edit summary as a one-off from an experienced editor. This kind of kills my high on the silliness, though. Eh. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at Julian's RfB

I've reposted them at Malleus talk page. I don't think that kind of heated discussion is at all helpful on RfX pages. Please be more careful. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To be absolutely fair, I took part in no heated discussion. I left one (disapproving) comment in response to his outrageously unpleasant !vote, and in return got sworn at and abused. I took no further part in the debate on the RfB page. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair comment. But I'd maintain that your singular comment would have been far better placed at the user's talk page than on the RfB. Particularly so, given that you addressed his tone and not the substance of the argument. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Dismissive and impersonal attitude

I am genuinely trying to help out on the topic of Doctor Who. I helped to improve the article Amy Pond when the article was facing a deletion discussion. The closing note when the AFD was closed as "Keep" cited my work on the article. I have worked through multiple email communications to obtain free-use images for the topic. I must admit I am a bit put off by the abrasive demeanor of yourself, and the edit-warring by another user to remove the free-use image. Not the best way to for someone committed to the topic to show appreciation for a newcomer to the topic who is trying to help out and add quality improvements to content, and work hard to obtain free-use images for the topic. Cirt (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your use of template messages to admins and experienced users such as myself shows a disregard for basic decency and a collaborative attitude. All that drivel above about my "editing your comment" is a complete waste of time in which you merely repeat yourself several times and force me to do likewise. Your leaving a complaint with diffs about my mistaken placement of a comment on the RfC, addressing me in the third person, is not the right attitude.
You can't blame me for "the edit-warring by another user to remove the free-use image" (although I take their viewpoint), because it's not me. Your actions, however, are entirely you. I know you're trying to help out, and you did sterling work at Amy Pond (though I'm not sure it was necessary to save it from deletion!), but that doesn't constitute a supreme sacrifice so great that it grants you immunity from the basic standards of co-operation which are necessary on Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 09:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
A little more of a welcoming attitude would have been appreciated, is all I am saying. It feels like an attempt to drive me off of working on the topic - which is quite odd considering you acknowledge I have done "sterling work" on one of the articles in the topic. Cirt (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of things which are "quite odd", could you please explain [this isn't rhetorical] to me why you left the complaint, in the third person, with diffs on the RfC page, rather than leaving a note on my talkpage (or even at Talk:Eleventh Doctor) saying, "Hi, TreasuryTag... I don't know if it was a mistake or not, but you probably don't count as an uninvolved editor for that RfC, would you consider moving your comments?" That would have been the polite and correct thing to do. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw you had reverted that, I think more than once at the talk page. I thought it best to lay out the issue matter-of-factly. I did not want to get into another back-and-forth and back-and-forth with you, because as you noted above the last time that went in circles and accomplished nothing. :( Cirt (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. You saw that I had reverted what more than once?
  2. I disagree entirely, and I think you acted inappropriately. I would expect people to come to me first with problems (particularly where it's very plausible that, with all the edit-conflicts and complicated section structure, a simple mistake was likely) rather than gripe about them elsewhere. I think that that is an accepted Wiki standard. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 09:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I shall endeavor to take your advice and come to you with issues I have with you in the future, okay? Cirt (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that now is a good time to accept mistakes were made, and now to move on. Focus on making an excellent encyclopaedia, rather than battling it out over petty things. NJA (t/c) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We all want to improve content on the topic of Doctor Who. Hopefully in the future we can all do so in a less abrasive manner. :) Cirt (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Overusage of italics

Hi TreasuryTag, I hope you are doing well. I am coming to you with an issue regarding a comment you made at Talk:Eleventh Doctor. I saw there that you used italics a bit profusely. I am coming to you here on your talk page to talk about the issue and perhaps hopefully find out a way that the two of us can interact more congenially, politely, and positively on the topic of Doctor Who. I am coming here to your talk page because of your prior comments above on this page asking me to do so, and I hope you can appreciate that. Perhaps I am mistaken, but your overusage of italics brings across the connotation of shouting at me. :( Perhaps this was not the case, but maybe there is some way you could bring down your tone a bit more, and think of how it appears from my perspective? Truly, I really am trying to help as a newcomer contributor to this topic area. :) Yours, Cirt (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Point taken on board. Here's one for you: the passages, "Hi TreasuryTag, I hope you are doing well" "I am coming to you with an issue" "I am coming to you here on your talk page to talk about the issue and perhaps hopefully find out a way that the two of us can interact more congenially, politely, and positively" seem to denote sarcasm. This may be unintentional, but if you could avoid such protracted pleasantries in a manner which seems to mimic my "model" request above, that'd be good. Ta. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It was unintentional. It was a genuine attempt to reach out. It was an attempt to take into account the advice you gave to me, above on this page. That attempt was apparently misconstrued. I apologize if you have read it the wrong way. That was not my intention. Cirt (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2009/Dec&oldid=1089838404"