User talk:Redvers: Difference between revisions
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 48h) to User talk:Redvers/Archive35. |
Koolkittie (talk | contribs) →Did you msg me: new section |
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
<small>Delivered at 04:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by <font color="green">[[User:ShepBot|'''§hepBot''']]</font>''' <small>(<font color="red">[[User talk:ShepBot|Disable]]</font>)'''</small></small> |
<small>Delivered at 04:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by <font color="green">[[User:ShepBot|'''§hepBot''']]</font>''' <small>(<font color="red">[[User talk:ShepBot|Disable]]</font>)'''</small></small> |
||
== Did you msg me == |
|||
I did not mean it as a personal attack, just fell sorry for him more than anything. The blog site I regularly visit are talking about him cause a Wikipedia user also on that site said Rodhullandemu wrote this. |
|||
As an admin who is only here for about 4380 of the 8760 hours there are in a year, and whose watchlist consists of mostly WP:BLP articles, I welcome this move with open arms. If I were not reverting, warning and blocking vandals, I could be creating new content, and just occasionaly I am able to do that. This example diff, which covers 96 edits over 10 days, shows what we are up against without this option. It's clear that whereas most of those edits may have been in good faith, few persisted. The Washington Post have, as usual for the media, picked upon an isolated glitch or two, and not, if I read the replies to their article correctly, entirely to their credit; and this is the paper of Woodward & Bernstein! --Rodhullandemu 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I don't know where he wrote it. |
Revision as of 09:01, 28 January 2009
Redvers is male • gay • married • a socialist • a vegetarian • Welsh • an atheist • and I'm throwing my arms around Paris
|
Recreated I'm afraid, seems to be by a vandalism only account. Thanks. Paste Let’s have a chat. 14:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked by someone else for 55 hours; article redeleted and I've salted it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 15:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Jacob D. Hyden 19, JAN
May I ask why you deleted my chapters summary for Redcoats and Rebels?
- You'll need to give me a clue, as psychic powers are only handed out to every third admin. Who are you and what article are you talking about (provide links or diffs). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 08:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution through British Eyes, Chapter Summary, 12:38, 19 January 2009 Redvers (Talk | contribs) (500 bytes) (rm "summary of chapters" - nor required) (undo).
- No, I need an actual link or a diff and your username as a clickable link (created by signing your posts). I really really can't read your mind. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 21:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm new to this, I think this is what you want.
- Is it inappropriate to create a chapter summary, or was it the way in which I did it?
- Ah ha! Right, yes, a summary of chapters is original research, which we don't allow. It's also much more Amazon than encyclopedia - a sales tactic rather than useful information. And it was unreferenced, but that's because it was original research so third party, reliable references don't exist, and unreferenced material can be removed at anytime by anybody. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 08:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Biggie Murder Suspect
My man, it's not libelous to have a discussion about what might have happened. I'm trying to harness the power of group thought to have a discussion. I'll rephrase my post so that it is no longer an accusation. PeterCrapsody2 (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it is. And Wikipedia is still not the place to have the discussion anyway. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that you have previously removed copyvio text from Ian Gomm posted by User:Gommsteruk . It's back, this time posted by User:Timgomm(Hmm, same person? I think so. Also 172.188.227.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has done exactly the same thing!), who will replace it each time it is moved. Being unsure how to proceed with this (I think it is both a conflict of interest and a copyright violation) I've asked for advice here, but no news so far. Fancy weighing in? pablo :: ... hablo ... 21:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Did you msg me
I did not mean it as a personal attack, just fell sorry for him more than anything. The blog site I regularly visit are talking about him cause a Wikipedia user also on that site said Rodhullandemu wrote this. As an admin who is only here for about 4380 of the 8760 hours there are in a year, and whose watchlist consists of mostly WP:BLP articles, I welcome this move with open arms. If I were not reverting, warning and blocking vandals, I could be creating new content, and just occasionaly I am able to do that. This example diff, which covers 96 edits over 10 days, shows what we are up against without this option. It's clear that whereas most of those edits may have been in good faith, few persisted. The Washington Post have, as usual for the media, picked upon an isolated glitch or two, and not, if I read the replies to their article correctly, entirely to their credit; and this is the paper of Woodward & Bernstein! --Rodhullandemu 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC) I don't know where he wrote it.