:::Nope, I'll be done in a minute or two. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk:Sean William|@]] 03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Nope, I'll be done in a minute or two. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk:Sean William|@]] 03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
*Okay. I'm going to start on the ''next'' update... [[User:Smee|Smee]] 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
*Okay. I'm going to start on the ''next'' update... [[User:Smee|Smee]] 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
== O rly? ==
I had no idea. I'm kind of like Wikipedia's spy on 4chan, really; I have my fun there, but vandalizing the only thing I go to for information kind of irks me, so I report it when I can. Thanks for locking [[ACK]] and setting the record straight. ^_^ [[User:Cernen|Cernen]] [[User Talk:Cernen|Xanthine]] [[Special:Contributions/Cernen|Katrena]] 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 05:16, 3 June 2007
My talk page
If you would like to leave a message, click the "+" button next to the "edit this page" tab. If you have a question regarding a block that I have enacted on your account or IP address, use the {{unblock}} template and an uninvolved administrator will review your request. When writing a message to me, please try to stay civil and don't be a dick. Cyde's essay also applies.
And there were no BLP issues. You really gotta get on the ball. Between petitioning for unjustified blocks and a complete lack of understanding of wiki policy, you're not doing well. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any quote you can give me would be taken out of context. Such is the nature of IRC. I know what my intentions were on that day. I shared those intentions with you shortly after the incident. We've been perfectly open with you. Is this what I get for apologizing? Assumptions of bad-faith cabalism, compounded with conspiracy theories? You're a nice person when you want to be, Jeff. We're just on opposite sides of a debate. One side's taking it personally, while the other side isn't. And because I'm on the opposite side of a debate, you immediately assume that I dislike you and and want you blocked just for proposing an opposing viewpoint? Sean William01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure how that page works, as this is my first time updating DYK. I only did so because it was behind schedule. I'm going to leave that one to the regulars. Cheers, Sean William@19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, congratulations on doing your first update. I trust it was not too painful? Assuming that the next update is ready to go, the process should be simply (!): check the articles are OK, protect the image, copy the update to the main page template and save a second copy to the archive, update the time template, and post the notification templates on the relevant talk pages. Always good to have someone else who can take a turn, if need be. -- ALoan(Talk)20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Timeline of pronouncements of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq
You deleted the article based on WP:SYN. However, that states:
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
As I clearly pointed out, a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Your invocation of the "original synthesis" argument is therefore invalid.
No problem. I'm not done yet, though; I still have to serve out all of the DYK thank-yous. If DYK ever gets that badly backlogged, drop me a line and I'll update it. Sean William@03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea. I'm kind of like Wikipedia's spy on 4chan, really; I have my fun there, but vandalizing the only thing I go to for information kind of irks me, so I report it when I can. Thanks for locking ACK and setting the record straight. ^_^ CernenXanthineKatrena05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]