User talk:Only/Archive 8

Welcome to my talk page! I tend to reply to messages directly on here, so I suggest watching my page if you're looking for a reply. I watch user talk pages I comment on so we can keep conversations organized.

Archives
I − II − III − IV - V - VI - VII

Template:Image talk commons

Sorry for this error, I asked people in IRC to adding CAT to this template, but noone answer me, So I add these CATs then asked them to see it, but no one answer me :), Sorry for this.--OsamaK 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Wild (Warriors)

I noted the edit you recently made. I've also noticed that User:ElectricTurahk has said that he has some proof on why the cat on the cover is Firepaw, and I suggest you talk it over with him. Bella Swan_(Talk!) 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this was ElectricTurahk's source, but would this (you have to click on 'meet the warrior cats' to get to the page) be enought to say that the shown cats are who they're labeled as, or do you need written proof? Bella Swan_(Talk!) 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Written proof. To say "this cat on the cover looks like this cat on this website" is considered original research on our part. Metros 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cats are exactly the same ^DAVID _CAT 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we're not getting into this again. You need to provide a reliable source that states this instead of simply saying "this looks like this, so therefore, this." Metros 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't just LOOK the same, they are EXACTLY the same right down to the pixels^DAVID _CAT 12:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the warriors cats link it has the pictures of the cats and their names under it; it that enough or would we have it written out? I would also like to point out to David Cat that even if the pictures are the same, nowhere does it say who the cats are, and therefore the cats cannot be named. Bella Swan_(Talk!) 23:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is the "proof" that User:ElectricTurahk used as he said here. Bella Swan_(Talk!) 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For The UserPage Revert

I had to place that comment on my talk page though . . . since it didn't point anyone out and was far too ridiculous to just be forgotten about. :) -WarthogDemon 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Why did you delete my last post at talk:Kris Weston? There is nothing offensive, it's just true, his former site is no longer active, and likely the girl in that pic is one of his relatives, I guess. How can it be that you can suspect that a user with more than 1800 good edits like me can vandalize a page? Very strange, please stop it, explain or I'll report you.Doktor Who 12:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did it have to do with the improvement of the article? Metros 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that obvious? The link should be deleted, and I was asking for approval.Doktor Who 12:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove it and reword your comments differently on the talk page. No where in there do you mention "let's remove the link." The way you worded it was more of a shot at Kris Weston than a suggestion on how to improve the article. In fact, I didn't even see the connection between the article and the website because I wasn't aware that the website was linked from the article. Metros 12:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply: it's hard to believe that you didn't see the connection.Doktor Who 12:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I have the links to every external link in all 3,000+ articles on my watchlist memorized? No. So when you come on to the talk page with a random link, how am I to know that that's what you're talking about if you don't explain "we should remove this link from the article"? The way you worded it seemed like you were simply taking a shot at Kris Weston by saying that he has nothing better to do than make fun of us. Metros 12:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, why didn't you check? I clearly referred to a link in the main article, why didn't yoy go there? Too busy? Too many vandals to fight?--Doktor Who 13:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did and was confused because the link you provided doesn't work. If you go to the website without the www. in front, it takes you to some hosting website (Fluxtech internet solutions). You provided the website without the www. in front in your comments on the talk page so I definitely didn't understand at that point how that connected to the article at all. Metros 13:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nevermind, peace.Doktor Who 13:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages...

I know. I normally request email to discuss these matters privately but most people prefer for me to ask them on talk pages instead. I didn't think anyone would mind. Responses are given at discretion. I just like to ask questions for my own education and possibly inform voters.

Jeremy221 00:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of which is the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. Please see WP:TALK. They are not to "inform voters" as you plan to use them; they are to develop articles and other aspects of Wikipedia. Thanks, Metros 00:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravel Post

I put up a the blog endorsement stuff on the talk page of gravel 08. I chose Oh,ShutUp.Net becuase campaigns Wika mentions the blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekattack10 (talk • contribs)

What happens at Wikia has no jurisdiction here. There is nothing anywhere to suggest that it is an "award-winning" blog so I don't see how it's endorsement matters at all. Metros 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One When did i write that OhShutUP.net was an award wining blog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekattack10 (talk • contribs)

This edit from an anonymous user which I presume to be you, or else it's really ironic that someone would be adding the blog in the same half hour. Metros 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked OhShutUp.Net won an award http://blogofthedayawards.blogspot.com/2007/01/2007-weblog-awards-oh-shut-up-why-you.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekattack10 (talk • contribs)

I hardly think that the blog of the day qualifies as a highly notable award, but whatever, that's not the point here. The point is that the reference to the blog isn't really appropriate within the Gravel article. Metros 21:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree its an endorsement of Gravel. Gravel put it on its own website http://gravel2008.us/?q=node/1384--Geekattack10 23:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on putting the blog endorsers on the external links of the Gravel 08 article. Would that be fine by you?--Geekattack10 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be inappropriate. Metros 15:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how it is inappropriate? A link to a blog endorse gravel? Also You recent edits i dont get why there should not be links to unoffical sites?--Geekattack10 23:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to create a separate section for unofficial links to sites that support is that ok if it is not remove it and give a reason thanks--Geekattack10 01:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not okay. See WP:EL for why. We're not a mere collection of external links. Metros 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand were you are comming from and i wont put it back up.

CSWA

I volunteer at CSWA the events that I Removed did not happen! Please do not change them back.--Geekattack10 01:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DisgruntledEditor

He has recently accused me of being a sockpuppet of some vandal...he wont leave me alone. --User:Atomic Religione

Megaman89 (talk · contribs)

I was just about to indef this editor after reviewing his edit history vs the contributions of FoolsRushIn (talk · contribs). Megaman89 is a fairly obvious sock of FoolsRushIn evading an indef (see Charles Manson edits, George Pendle, and Don Murphy trolling). You have an issue if I refactor that block to indef?--Isotope23 ^talk 15:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I indef'd per this. --Isotope23 ^talk 15:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't examine the contributions of both, but I have no problem with the indef. Metros 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Cary just confirmed that it is banned editor Col Scott (talk · contribs).--Isotope23 ^talk 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Vandalism

It seems that user: Forbesben has vandalized a two pages with humores phrases (Forbes + Noodling) I Served him a waring and told him that he should use uncyclopedia for edits like that. This is my first time handling vandalism and i wanted to ask you if i did a good job. --Geekattack10 05:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]