User talk:Digwuren/Archive 2

Archive

1. User talk:Digwuren/Archive 1

Bulgaria vote

Might I ask you to put in the word Oppose, just so there's no confusion for the deciding administrator as to how you're voting? Thank you. Biruitorul 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out; somehow, I missed that standard voting customs apply in RMs, even though they're held on talk pages. Digwuren 22:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, great. Also, sorry for removing the Ceauşescu information rather abruptly, but it is indeed the case that the Romanian Orthodox Church uses the Revised Julian calendar, on which Christmas is December 25th. I suppose that's not so well-known, and you and K. Lastochka certainly didn't deserve Anonimu's customary personal attacks. Biruitorul 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon —SlamDiego_←T 07:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Socks and Feet

If you are a centipede, then you need many socks and are to be feared, but if you are a millipede then you need even more socks but are innocuous. —SlamDiego_←T 12:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Taken into account. Digwuren 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Pip Utton

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Pip Utton, by Hu (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pip Utton seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pip Utton, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't do that

Digwuren, please don't make any further edits like this. Users are within their rights to remove posts on their talkpages. If they do, it counts as evidence that he/she has read the messge, which is what it's for. Putting it back is not your business, whether or not it came from an administrator. Altogether, be careful and considerate when editing other people's user talk pages, please. Make sure you avoid user space harassment. Ask yourself: am I adding information that the user wants or needs? Because the only single legitimate use of the user talk page is constructive communication with the user. It's not a noticeboard for displaying stuff that you think other people need to see. WP:NOT a battleground. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

Estophilia

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Estophilia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ChrisLamb 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren, your creation of Estophilia seems to be a clear example of employing WP:Point tactics. I am certain the article will be deleted, as in English such term is almost never used (11 Google hits).

Making WP:Point edits can be fun, but in the end it is quite counterproductive, and it negatively impacts your credibility as a serious Wikipedian. Most people can see right through it, and they don't appreciate it much. Take my friendly advice, and never do things like this in the future. Balcer 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren, I did not understand your edit summary when you removed my prod of Estophilia. If I understand your summary correctly, it seems you are dismissing the WP:POINT guideline as being fundamentally incorrect. WP:POINT is very much accepted by the Wikipedia community. If you feel that the creation of Estophilia was not an example of WP:POINT, please clarify, because I did not get that interpretation from your edit summary.

I have created a section on the talk page to discuss this matter. Also note I will probably nominated the article for an AfD discussion soon. --Jaysweet 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm implying that you're reading into Estophilia ideas that are not there. Digwuren 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of National Merit

The Barnstar of National Merit

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For excelent contributions related to Estonia ChrisLamb 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Noe

Hi. Please avoid commenting at User talk:RJ CG at the time being. Let admins deal w/ that. Otherwise you'd be blocked according to WP:HARASS. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean 'Note'. :-) Digwuren 17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for your tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Digwuren (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}