User talk:Tide rolls: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:20, 5 September 2009

My job is taking up more of my time than usual. As a consequence my response time to queries or comments may be delayed.

If you have reason to leave a comment, question or suggestion, please click here and start a new section.

Thanks for stopping by.

In case your interested

Are you going to sign up for this?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I don't think it's a bad idea, though. Since the aim of the project is pretty much all I do, it would seem redundant for me to commit to doing only that. Good seeing you on my page again, Sky Attacker, hope things are well with you. See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page while I was busy blocking that account. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, of course. See ya 'round Tiderolls 05:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Is it normal that I feel useless when you are logged into Huggle? And I see vandalism reverted by you before I can press on that "Q"? OK, I'm being selfish. Keep up the great work, 2help (message me) 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for hogging the button. You must've caught me on a good night. My comp is old and slow and using HG is like trying to put fog in a bucket. I promise not to be such a glutton in the future. I appreciate all the help that's available. See ya 'round Tiderolls 10:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon the pun on your username. I really need to start using the preview button. I know there's no way I can stand alone on RC's and I value every editor's contributions there. Keep up the good work. Tiderolls 10:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on my user page. The user who did this I think has gone from good to bad. Again, greatly appreciated. Chris (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Maybe there's hope for that editor...time and their contribs will tell. See ya 'round Tiderolls 01:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

I noticed that you were reverting a couple of my edits that you did not like. I apologize if you did not find these edits constructive, but, personally, I thought it added a nice touch to your user talk page. Anyway, I hope you accept my apology!--74.12.28.7 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Poland vandal

Why on earth have you not banned (or do you not have that power?) user 76.175.103.82 for his repeated vandalism in the "Invasion of Poland" article?Drichter53 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have that power. However, someone that does have that power has blocked the user. That should prevent more trouble in the short run. Regards Tiderolls 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMG BARNSTAR

		The Userpage Shield
		For beating me to reverting vandalism on my userpage. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How was my change to "Transgender" offensive? I believe the original, "Transsexual" is more appropriate. It's not an offensive term at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destroythebrainitstheonlyway (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the "offensiveness" of your edit. The article is titled "Transgender", not "Transsexual". I would advise you to contact the editors on the article discussion page to determine the consensus for making your change as there already exists an article on transsexuals. Regards Tiderolls 04:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Ok, makes sense. Thanks for your response to my quesiton. Have a great night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destroythebrainitstheonlyway (talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job on Glenn Beck

You obviously didn't read any of the article or its history, before making your revert. If you had you would at least know that this article can't be edited by new users. Maybe you can explain to me why its constructive to have a "Life Events" section in an article, but it's not constructive to list important life events in that section, such as a surgery that Beck had given numerous interviews about and claimed changed his life?

Anyone who actually read the history of the article would see my previous edit summaries, and it would not be difficult for them to guess what the edit was in regards to, so I hope that they lack of an edit summary wasn't your only rationale.

Paglew (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of an edit summary only served to catch my eye. I actually followed the link you provided and failed to see where Beck described the surgery as "botched" (your quotations). I may have missed it, I am capable of error. If I was wrong, I apologize. Your accusations and assumptions of bad faith do not go very far in convincing me of error, though. Regards Tiderolls 10:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how my assuming bad faith doesn't help, and you are right on the botched quote, but I think we can all agree that if you had said that the quote was unsourced that would have been more helpful than a generic post good editing practice. Cheers, Paglew (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you weren't in the wrong Tide. He's been reverted by 2 other editors... Soxwon (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

white tiger

The edits made by Bioextra make no sense. There is no point in adding general information on tigers which is available elsewhere on Wikipedia. Bioextra is confusing heterozygous tigers with golden tabby tigers. It makes no sense to have a section titled heterozygous tiger. 14:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)~I ex[plained all this on Cambridgebayweather's page.

Thanks for your message explaining your action. All I saw was the blanking of info that appeared relevant to the article. I apologize for interfering with your good faith contribution. Regards Tiderolls 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Tiger

Thank you.72.1.195.4 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you make such signatures?

Yo. How did you make your current signature. I mean, how did you make such boxed signatures like that? Tell me!--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ^{Contact Jakarta Center at 121.965} 09:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I borrowed the mark-up from another user's signature. If you click any of the "edit" buttons to the right, you will be able to see the mark-up. Oh yeah....it's the 24th here but it's probably the 25th in Jakarta. Happy birthday. Regards Tiderolls 10:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but in Jakarta, it's still August the 24th :).--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ^{Contact Jakarta Center at 121.965} 10:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thank you for reverting a personal attack on my talk page. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I appreciate the hard work you do on the recent changes. See ya 'round Tiderolls 01:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. That IP was still mad that I was being mean to him in the sandbox. Thanks AndrewEnns (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you letting me know you didn't mind me butting in. I'm sure you're capable of maintaining your own page, but I never know how often users log in. See ya 'round Tiderolls 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pultost

Pultost: I supplied the correct translation, it was no joke, you reverted it to something that is not at all the actual meaning of the word... If the actual meaning is too hard for you to stomache, then it should instead be explained that the meaning is sexually explicit, and leave it at that. Not the stupid translation that is currently being shown... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.29.198 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I made an error I apologize. I will not revert you again. That is, until I can confirm what you put forth is in error. Regards Tiderolls 03:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tide rolls. You have new messages at WP:RD/L.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

decltype (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pultost: here is a link to the verb "pule": http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pule - Seems I've gotten a reputation as a vandal, because my second attempt was reverted as well. So perhaps you could do the honour this time? ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.29.198 (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really give the urban dictionary a lot of credit. However, I have confirmed your position and will blank my messaage on your page. I'll also leave a note on the other editor's talk directing him to this message. Regards Tiderolls 04:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, :-) cflm (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tide rolls. You have new messages at Until It Sleeps's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 00:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! Vipin Hari || talk 00:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the most unique "thank you"s I've seen. You're welcome, of course Tiderolls 00:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some advice?

Hey Tide, if you can pull yourself away from vandal-fighting for a moment, do you think that Lolita Lopez is speediable? I think there is no claim to notability, but admins might differ. Drop me a line when you can. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna check some notability guidelines. The link listed on the article appears broken, but I have found this and this on the first page of a Google search. She may be notable enough. I'll advise further. See ya 'round Tiderolls 01:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, thanks! I appreciate the help. Careful now--before you know it you're writing content. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scary, huh? :) Tiderolls 01:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--Well...Looking at the "Creative Professionals" section of the notability guideline her notability would be difficult to justify. However, I think the two sites I found were legit and that should count for something. As in most cases there exists such a gray area that more opinions would be optimum. I would weigh in as a very weak !support for notability. I wouldn't have very firm arguments against any one who opposed, though. Wishy-washy enough for ya? :) Tiderolls 02:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, plenty wishy-washy. But I note that you didn't answer the original question. Let's say you hadn't found those sources: does the article claim notability or can it be speedied? That's the line I'm trying to define a little bit. No worries: just speak your mind, as a future admin (haha). BTW, a colleague of mine just got a job at UA, and I'm jealous! Drmies (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't speedy it. AfD might be a better avenue. Someone may come up with better sources that would help establish notability. Don't forget....Saturday night...Roll Tide :) Tiderolls 02:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not forgetting--I've already made my significant other cancel a camping trip that she was planning for us that weekend. At least I think I did. I need to make sure! Drmies (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...lol...you'd better make sure. Tiderolls 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK...now which Lolita Lopez is so notable...this one or this one? Drmies (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--Um...apples and oranges :) Tiderolls 04:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're a good man, Tide. Have a good night fighting the good fight. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vaya con dios, amigo Tiderolls 04:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Tide rolls! The first week of each monthly cycle of "Wikipedian of the..." will consist of repeats from the previous month; the repeats did not received WOTW last month.
For your further kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user since the last time you were Wikipedian of the Day, you have been named "Wikipedian of the Day" once again, for today, September 4, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You now have another chance to be Wikipedian of the Week!

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:18, 5 September 2009 edit 90.197.126.227 (talk) No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:20, 5 September 2009 edit undo J.delanoy (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 310,263 edits m Reverted edits by 90.197.126.227 to last revision by Tide rolls (HG) Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<span style="color: DarkRed">'''My job is ~~being~~ a ~~wanker~~. As a consequence my response time to queries or comments may be delayed.'''</span>		<span style="color: DarkRed">'''My job is taking up more of my time than usual. As a consequence my response time to queries or comments may be delayed.'''</span>