User talk:Nsaa: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Thank you: new section
Line 200: Line 200:


Hi there. I noticed you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amsterdam_Airport_Schiphol&diff=280905424&oldid=280905363 did this revert] using Huggle. Please remember that reverts/rollback are only for vandalism/bad-faith edits and not good faith edits. If the editor in question has given a good-faith reason for their actions, you should always use [[WP:UNDO|undo]] instead. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 06:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amsterdam_Airport_Schiphol&diff=280905424&oldid=280905363 did this revert] using Huggle. Please remember that reverts/rollback are only for vandalism/bad-faith edits and not good faith edits. If the editor in question has given a good-faith reason for their actions, you should always use [[WP:UNDO|undo]] instead. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 06:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

{| class="messagebox" style="width: 260px; border-color: #4482B3"
|-
|align="center"|[[Image:WikiDefender Barnstar.png|100px]]
|align="left" width="100%"|
<div align="center">
'''Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user pages''' [[User:Madhero88|Maen. K. A.]] ([[User talk:Madhero88|talk]])
</div>
|align="center"|
|}

Revision as of 19:26, 1 April 2009

Status: Offline




IP

Tanks.--190.173.200.220 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing! Nsaa (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

Hi there, Please see the download page for the new release of huggle. It should work and should be the only version to work. Thank Xclamation point and if you have any questions please get to me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. --·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great job! It now works again. Nsaa (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Festus

you sent me a message about the page I emptied, article about Stanley Festus. I am trying to delete the article (I wrote it), because most of the information is invalid, as has come to my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riikamaria (talk • contribs) 2009-02-22T20:39:27 (UTC)

Please use the articles talk page discussing a deletion. You may also request a deletion by adding {{db-author}} to the top of the Stanley Festus article (since you created the article and added most of the content, per 7. in Wikipedia:CSD#General). Nsaa (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get it right control freaks.

I'm stating correct fact.

As an FP Member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrist Instability (talk • contribs) 08:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from going after users by calling them things like "control freaks". You have been warned by many people again and again. Please try to read what people say. It may be that some of the information you want to add is correct. I propose that you use the articles talk page and propose changes to the article there (and take one thing at a time) after your short block is over. Remember to add references so its possible to verify the new info. If some information on the current page is not verifiable, please add a {{fact}} after the sentence in question and give a reason in the edit summary. Nsaa (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ER

Hello Nsaa, your current ER has been open for over 60 days, it has gotten one review. Is it okay if I archive it, or would you like extra time?--₮RUCӨ 20:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive it. Thanks for the review! Nsaa (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. Sorry for the lack of reviews. Feel free to nominate it another review in the future if needed. Best, --₮RUCӨ 23:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie!

download has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!



-download | sign! 02:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nam, nam! Nsaa (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the note. Ignore the question on my talk page. I think I figured out what I did. I just needed to spend a minute with the way Wikipedia formats things. I saw the note that I had a message literally a second after I broke a redirect on Bordered and I thought I was in hot water. I am going through the links you gave me, and they are very helpful! Thanks! Guaranamania (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. I will respond on your talk page :-) Nsaa (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your welcome! Ballon845 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hi. I appreciate that you and I seem to be in agreement on this birth/death date template issue. I also know I tend to post rambling responses on it. When I first ran across Messerly, he downplayed what he was doing to such a degree, I was not aware of the ongoing discussion at MOSNUM about the actual templates. Like I outlined, he sort of had agreement from two people about a moratorium on "conversion" to the old templates, although there certainly was no effort to convert anything going on at the time. That made no sense. I have read the discussion they had in February many times, and there was never even a direct discussion about birth/death templates and also from what I can see, there was no consensus to change the MOS to include Messerly's templates. Yet, Messerly submitted the template for change based on consensus and it is already implemented in the MOS and he has put it into the infoboxes for biographies based on "recommended by the MOSNUM". He just did this, no one gave approval for the change and he's lied about having never changed to the template in the article. He has. I'm just reiterating this because when I disagreed with Messerly on [[Talk:WP:BIography]] and asked arbcom about it, he kept insisting it be taken back to MOSNUM. Now that it has, he's kept the discussion focused off what he did to get it in MOS, ignored addressing my direct questions about it, and has muddied the talk with discussion about why his template is superior. I knew this would happen. There is no agreement on the merits of his template, much less consensus, and yet, his endrun around the proper process for changing it isn't being mentioned, except by me. I'm just writing to ask you to notice this way too important detail. I think the first thing that needs to happen is that the template be removed from the MOS because it was never approved by community consensus to be put in. Thanks for your support on the rest of the issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request for changing the section back at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Change_the_MOSNUM_section_regarding_this. I've a feeling that people try to force non standard template parameters on the world. It's a bit like going for Pints and not liter (0.001 m3, a standard SI Unit) Nsaa (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added an endorsement of your editprotect request based on the false claim of consensus by J JMesserly to change it when it was made. I'm not sure where to take this next if that is denied, but I strongly feel it it has to go somewhere. I'm tired of trying to discuss the lack of consensus and a couple others refusing to discuss that. That's why I originally didn't want to bring it back to MOSNUM. The bottomline bad faith change would be ignored. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nsaa. You have new messages at Garion96's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

do you have a life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.0.118 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOSNUM

Yay!! Finally. I wonder where Messerly disappeared to? In any event, thanks for sticking in there with me. I realize this isn't the last we'll hear of it, but hopefully, whatever happens in the future will be easier to discuss!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was good that the administrator who did the change in the first place restored back to an acceptable form. Hopefully arguments like [1] [2] will not let them press it through again like this. But we all should address the other parts consern on how to make Wikipedia easier to edit and contributing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability. Nsaa (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMS

The reason that I have removed it that it was decided at WP:AIRPORTS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region) that "Destinations by Region" are to be removed. Charmedaddict (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! Also remove the header then. Nsaa (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Charmedaddict (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's an good idea to take it on the talk page, since not very many has voiced at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region. Nsaa (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes but however many editors have removed the section based on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region. It would be a good idea to let the editors who were involved in the discussion know. Cheers! Charmedaddict (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. An advise would be to add this sentence to your edit summary like "Removed per [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region]]" and remove the hole section including the header. I'm a bit worried that for some big airports at least this removal should have been discussed before on the airport talk page, so more people can voice their opinion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Destinations_by_Region. Nsaa (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with rollback/revert

Hi there. I noticed you did this revert using Huggle. Please remember that reverts/rollback are only for vandalism/bad-faith edits and not good faith edits. If the editor in question has given a good-faith reason for their actions, you should always use undo instead. Regards SoWhy 06:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user pages Maen. K. A. (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nsaa&oldid=281134743"