User talk:Timotheus Canens: Difference between revisions
Fetchcomms (talk | contribs) →Thanks!: new section |
→Kudos for restoring Talend: new section |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
<div class="user-block"> [[File:Applications-ristretto.svg|65px|left|link=]] '''Many thanks, {{BASEPAGENAME}}!''' Your work '''at AfC''' has not been ignored (at least, not by me). You should take a (short) coffee break after all that hard work—see, I even brought you the coffee! <br /><small>If you feel that this message was received in error, you may want to consider taking a short wikibreak before becoming wikibonked.</small> <span style="border:1px solid;">[[User:Fetchcomms|'''<span style="color:black;"> fetch</span>''']][[User talk:Fetchcomms|'''<span style="color:black;">comms</span>''']][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:black;">☛</span>]]</span> 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)</div> |
<div class="user-block"> [[File:Applications-ristretto.svg|65px|left|link=]] '''Many thanks, {{BASEPAGENAME}}!''' Your work '''at AfC''' has not been ignored (at least, not by me). You should take a (short) coffee break after all that hard work—see, I even brought you the coffee! <br /><small>If you feel that this message was received in error, you may want to consider taking a short wikibreak before becoming wikibonked.</small> <span style="border:1px solid;">[[User:Fetchcomms|'''<span style="color:black;"> fetch</span>''']][[User talk:Fetchcomms|'''<span style="color:black;">comms</span>''']][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:black;">☛</span>]]</span> 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)</div> |
||
== Kudos for restoring Talend == |
|||
I wonder if you could do the same for [[Expressor]]? Looks like a couple of editors agreed with my comments about Talend and notability -- but I was not able to generate a more rigorous discussion to arrive at consensus before the expressor page was deleted. Btw, it's highly likely that Talend was marked AfD because I noted that my last edits to the expressor page after it was tagged AfD were modeled after the Talend page, a company that competes with expressor and had not then been tagged AfD, so I assumed it's model was successful. Of course I also read up extensively before editing the expressor page in response to the AfD tag. You can see my comments on the expressor AfD page, my own talk page and on the talk page for secret. Thanks in advance for your consideration. ([[User:Sccasey|Sccasey]] ([[User talk:Sccasey|talk]]) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)) |
|||
Revision as of 22:33, 16 December 2009
 | This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/Tim Song (2). |
|
Archives
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
| AfC submissions Random submission |
| ~5 weeks |
| to update |
Notes to self
Yo ho ho
ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.
CSDs on Sockpuppet Redirects
Please stop removing the CSD tags from this redirects. They are not "useful" as they never existed before, and only one is an even somewhat plausible search term, and admins have already chosen to delete it three times for the same reason. Further, policy on this is clear. Let an admin review them rather than continuing to encourage an inappropriate editors actions by sanctioning them in such a fashion. It is really not appropriate for you to remove this kind of CSD tag. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BAN is clear that an established editor in good standing can take responsibility for the contributions by a banned editor. If you have questions about the redirects' usefulness, WP:RFD is that way. A character's name is certainly a plausible search term. Tim Song (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- A character name with a disambig is not a plausible search term. It is also clear that new pages should be deleted. Ban says you can, at your own risk, not that it means you can remove CSDs from articles (which is the next paragraph). If you want to take responsibility and ownership, either let them get deleted and recreate in their useless status, or tag with a hang on. But let an actual administrator review it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well observed
Indeed your right. I was distracted by food and the phone so i made a number of mistakes on the close. I shall have to be more careful in future. Many Thanks for the heads up. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 03:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
If you feel that this message was received in error, you may want to consider taking a short wikibreak before becoming wikibonked. fetchcomms☛ 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Kudos for restoring Talend
I wonder if you could do the same for Expressor? Looks like a couple of editors agreed with my comments about Talend and notability -- but I was not able to generate a more rigorous discussion to arrive at consensus before the expressor page was deleted. Btw, it's highly likely that Talend was marked AfD because I noted that my last edits to the expressor page after it was tagged AfD were modeled after the Talend page, a company that competes with expressor and had not then been tagged AfD, so I assumed it's model was successful. Of course I also read up extensively before editing the expressor page in response to the AfD tag. You can see my comments on the expressor AfD page, my own talk page and on the talk page for secret. Thanks in advance for your consideration. (Sccasey (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC))