User talk:49TL/Archive-9

InformationThis is the FireFox talk page archive 9.

If you want to leave me a message, please see my current talk page.

Tomf688 RFA vote[edit]

I'm trying to make sure that I take the time to thank everyone who voted in my RfA, and verify that they don't have any concerns over my experience, neutrality, etc. If you have a problem, please drop a line on my talk page and I will answer it as best as I can. Again, thank you. --tomf688^{talk} 14:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CBW RfA[edit]

A quick word of thanks for voting on my RfA. If you have any concerns over my actions please let me know. CambridgeBayWeather 23:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

personal message / confusing[edit]

"Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed or reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks."

that's the message i got from you. i have no idea what it means, or what it refers to, or if i am even the correct recipient. you have a strangely self-assured tone for somebody who hasn't made it clear what in god's name you're talking about, so maybe i am not the intended recipient.

i've never performed any "tests." recently i've added comments to a few DISCUSSION pages, about critical issues relating to whatever subject at hand. i added to the DISCUSSION pages, not the main articles, because of the problem that i described: certain individuals erase content not based on its merit or its relevance for an encyclopedic entry, but based on their own taste or distaste with the facts presented. in this case, i didn't think i'd be "treading" on even the most neurotic wiki-stewards, since i was.... discussing..... on the discussion page.

so with that in mind, i have to assume that your message is nothing but a trumpeting of the fact that you disapprove of my additions to the "discussions" and rather than confront those elements on their own terms, you've deleted them altogether.

this might surprise you, but the last time i actually edited an ARTICLE, a moderator messaged me to compliment my contributions and suggested that i make a registered account.

so with that in mind, i think you're out of line, and i'd like to know what you deleted and why you did it. (on another note, your use of the term "our" in "our encyclopedia" seems to have excluded me, and seems to miss-- or maybe malign-- the fact that it's as much mine as it is yours.)

i don't have a static IP, so you should say what you have to say here. (preceding unsigned comment by 128.119.232.206 (talk • contribs) )

I replied here. Fir e Fo x 13:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the mixup[edit]

"Sferrier"s link to the talk-page definitely pointed to your page. Sorry for the mixup. I don't know if he intentionally misdirected his link or not. When I saw that Sferrier's link pointed to "FireFox" (your page), I figured that he had two accounts, one named Sferrier and one named Firefox. So I went ahead with my communique.

Thank you for replying yourself, and for not deleting my (rather large) addition to your page, thereby allowing me to easily recover my text and send it to a more appropriate place or at least send it in a new direction.

You can see Sferrier's link to you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sferrier

Although that link at the bottom isn't the actual link that led me here. In his private message to me, he linked to you.

I have replied more fully on my own talk page, however please know that the link you see there from the FireFox user is his signature on text that he added to my discussion page. Such signatures (as you will see at the end of this comment) is considered part of the Wikipedia guidelines.

Kind regards, Shawn 18:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the wub's RfA[edit]

Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub "?!" 14:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with the templates on talk pages[edit]

Hi FireFox. I noticed a comment you made on someone's page about blanking, and I assume you are using the monobook with some of the automated template actions...because you repeated a mistake I was making for a while. If you've hit the + to edit a new section on the page, and then hit the template for say {{blanking}} then it sooooooorta puts the template message in, but also turns it into something like ====={{blanking}}===== (makes it bold and weird).

I didn't check to see if it was an isolated accident or more common in your edit history, so just wanted to give you a heads up if you didn't know of that interaction. :)

ps - yes, I've been watching that editor who goes up and down the year pages (I'm assuming its a bot) removing links, adding links, etc. I've suggested on the admin noticeboard that this user and another who does similar things be watched very closely, but it was dismissed.

cheers, --Syrthiss 16:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol ok. :) --Syrthiss 17:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd's RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Tito xd^(?!?) 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Regards Rich Farmbrough 17:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the hint, although I don't have a website of my own. I was trying to share material, and help . That's it.--Maral79 18:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message[edit]

I see you use a Welcome template... it can be seen on Sferrier's talk page. I was wondering, is it alright if I use that template myself to welcome new users? What is the template's name? I can't seem to find any decent welcome templates. Thanks. Deskana 10:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User page & contribution count[edit]

Hi! Thanks for reverting the vandalism that went on at my User page.

Looking at the history of your user page, I'm amazed to see how often it gets vandalised, and how many rude comments people replace it with. Yet looking at your User talk page, you seem to be relatively popular. :-) I guess with popularity comes hatred, no matter what you do...

One thing I would like to comment on, though, is that your edit count appears to include all edits from all namespaces. You seem to edit User talk pages much more than articles, and User and Wikipedia pages added together also amount to as much as article edits; are you sure you're not betraying yourself by using that figure as your edit count, especially because every time you update your edit count, counts as another edit? I realise I've used all namespace edits in my own edit count before, but now that I've come across this handy edit counter that breaks it down into namespace, I've reduced it to just my article-namespace edits. — Timwi 13:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]