Jump to content

User talk:Rjd0060: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Rjd0060 (talk | contribs)
Line 76: Line 76:


::: I am aware of concensus. There are only a few editors involved in this article and they will understand the reasoning of my edit. If not, they will object, I'll put it back then discuss. [[User:KabuliTajik|KabuliTajik]] ([[User talk:KabuliTajik|talk]]) 04:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
::: I am aware of concensus. There are only a few editors involved in this article and they will understand the reasoning of my edit. If not, they will object, I'll put it back then discuss. [[User:KabuliTajik|KabuliTajik]] ([[User talk:KabuliTajik|talk]]) 04:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You are already aware that the image is up for deletion, so you should understand that it might as well be removed. Again, I was right about the image and you can read on up on her, do a Google search and you'll realize she is not famous. I was once a senior editor, so please have more faith in me. [[User:KabuliTajik|KabuliTajik]] ([[User talk:KabuliTajik|talk]]) 04:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:58, 23 December 2007

Template:Busy2

Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page, or you can E-Mail me .
I will reply to messages left here on your talk page.



New Pages Patrol

In the future, can you mark pages you patrol as patrolled? It is helpful in reducing the amount of redundancy. ffm 18:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied but....

Since my signature seems to be an issue, I thought I'd try and sign here too. If you could clarify. KellyAna (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-en

The short answer is that I don't know. It's usually fast. I'd take care of it, but I'm on vacation with my laptop and don't have the list moderation password with me, and I can't remember it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd try asking one of the other moderators. They can probably help you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with talk page archive

thanks for helping me with the archieve thing.Would have done it myself, but this is the first I've been on this week. Seth71 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user?

Just curious - which banned user was this? Videmus Omnia Talk 05:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello! Thank you very much for the revert of the vandalism on the Iranian peoples article. This IP has been all over several articles removing sourced content. I keep reverting, but I do not want to be banned for 3RR and also this IP keeps changing so I can't get him blocked. He is also vandalizing the following articles (removing referenced content):

If you could please step in and take care of this vandal that would be great. Thanks in advance! Quebecer (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{prod2}}

you can add the above template to the article. it might get rid of it faster. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thesnugglies1

Indeed, quite annoying—thanks for your help dealing with them. -KurtRaschke (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Actually, there is a Wikipedia page which says that one isn't to refer to user's past blocks to try to gain the upper hand. Since you like to stick to the rules so much, please stop trying to use rather unoriginal tactics to goad me into an argument. If you wish to lecture on "civility", then feel free to refrain from making comments like "You should try it sometime". This is the pot calling the kettle black, but if you don't like the truth then you're talking to the wrong person. This specific user has been causing nothing but hassle on Wikipedia, and more to the point been giving me hassle. Then, I have to put up with you accusing me of being the one causing hassle. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record here, the user has removed a message I put here. They can refer to the edit history to see that message. In response to "I am not going to argue with you", I feel these are the words of someone who tried being argumentative but is now backing down. If you wish to be civil to people in future, do not leave short comments on their page. Even though to you your message was civil, to me it was extremely uncivil and the use of the word "please" rather patronising. As far as I am concerned, Rock Soldier is a sockpuppet. I even reported his disruptive edits to ANI, only to have administrators accuse me of actually being disruptive. My experience of admins is that most of them aren't that good in their job, and that's why I refrain from such places as the ones you named. I do not even know how to use them, or how they work. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Edwards

Looks like I was wrong about Mika Edwards; she apparently does exist. The claim that she worked for the TV station was removed by an IP address, so that info might have been false. But the rest of the article might be legit. I kept and updated the prod tag because, in my opinion, she still isn't notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Revert; no consensus to remove. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am from Afghanistan myself and very familiar with the community in America. I know that Fariba Nawa is barely known, she is notable, but not known. If anyone disagrees, they would complain, but so far have not. If anyone disagrees, I will discuss it further with them on the talk page. KabuliTajik (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that image is not PD, it is fair use and this usage is not fair use, it can only be used in her article. KabuliTajik (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and wrongfully so. I know what I'm doing and I am more familiar with these people and how famous they are than you are, with all due respect. KabuliTajik (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of concensus. There are only a few editors involved in this article and they will understand the reasoning of my edit. If not, they will object, I'll put it back then discuss. KabuliTajik (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are already aware that the image is up for deletion, so you should understand that it might as well be removed. Again, I was right about the image and you can read on up on her, do a Google search and you'll realize she is not famous. I was once a senior editor, so please have more faith in me. KabuliTajik (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]