User talk:ClassicSC/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April 1

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should act like one (every single day). What more is there to say? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As one editor (can't remember who, and the quote might be a bit off) put it in an unrelated discussion "If everyone stopped building Wikipedia right now, it would remain a valuable resource for years to come". I'm not advocating stopping, just pointing out that we can have some fun once a year, as Google does with their various April fools jokes. If you feel inclined not to take part, then stay out of it, but I don't see a reason to stop a longstanding tradition.--Res2216firestar 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

ER

My bad. I meant WP:ANI.--Truco 01:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded.--Res2216firestar 01:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How was my edit unconstructive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto Sergio Lopez (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


But how could anyone not like that song? That doesn't make sense. --Roberto Sergio Lopez (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto Sergio Lopez (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome, Res. Mylesgray (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, let me know if you need help.--Res2216firestar 02:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 May 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help on Friendly.Much aprreciated--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeathER 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Res2216firestar 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to support any future RfA. Thanks--Res2216firestar 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Something's wrong

You sent me this:

User talk:71.187.24.67 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] March 2009 Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Johan Björnsson Printz has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Res2216firestar 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never been on this page, nor did I attempt to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.24.67 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Responded.--Res2216firestar 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with Barbara Rosenthal article, please. Sept 8, 09.

Hello again, and thanks: I am working on this as you said. There is now a link in from Existentialism, and from Franklin Square, so the orphan tag could come off, and i am making more and more citations. Some citations are hard to find because they are in print, which I saw in the archive in New York, but not online.Originale (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Res, I'm back on this project now and need some help.

1. I added internal links to this article, so it is no longer an orphan. There are links from Franklin Square, which I will add the footnote to today, and from Existentialism. There was a link from Surrealism that I was about to add the footnote to, but it was taken down and I got a note "vandalism" but I don't know why. Please explain, if you can, and anyway, please remove the tag about "orphan"

2. I tried to improve the style of the lists of accomplishments to be less like a resume so that tag could come off. But some lists seem more easy to understand this way. Please advise, and if ok as is, please remove the tags.

3. I'd also like to understand why this is cited so often as "promotional" tone, so I can fix it. I see this article as factual, not promotional, so I don't understand. Could you please copy/paste one of the lines that seems to be promotional, and rewrite it as an example for me? Or, if the changes since the posting make it less promotional now, please take the tags off. Originale (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Originale (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

note

Thank you for caring. DS (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would hate myself if I didn't.--Res2216firestar 19:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability tag on Barbara Rosenthal article

The orphan tag is now gone -- good! -- because we have linked in to this article from others now.

But the notability tag went up in Dec of 2008, and since then my group has footnoted several articles in the New York Times, the Village Voice, NY Arts, etc., and noted work shown at The Jewish Museum, etc and in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art, etc. Can you take off that notability tag now, too?

And I searched for "peacock terms" but didn't find any, yet it says that this article is a member of the hidded class of "peacock terms," so either please point them out to us, or please remove the category and tags. We see the paragraphs as dry now, not promotional, so please point out anythng else that needs changeing, specifically. You did take off the "Bill Gates" reference, thank you.

We are trying to find one of us to work on the tone and the whole class has been discussing the work, so we will have that part up by the end of the semester.Originale (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Originale (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Originale (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi sir or madam,

Please help me how to public below article to Internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DungHo

Thanks, Quoc Dung —Preceding unsigned comment added by DungHo (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Global warming

Thanks for the suggestion. I had a look, but nothing looked very promising unless I was prepared to spend a lot of time becomming an expert in wikipedia law and even then I'd probably be completely wasted as it is a very tenacious group that control these climate articles. I'll just have to satisfy myself with the moral victory knowing that their inability to tolerate any kind of contrary evidence really underlines how little faith they have in the strength of their own case! 88.110.76.120 (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Roll call for WikiProject Warriors


Hello. You have listed youself as an active contributor of WikiProject Warriors, but as we are trying to see who is still active, we have put all active contributors under "status pending." If you are still active, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warriors and move your name to "Active." Move your name to "Inactive" if you no longer wish to contribute. You may always move it back. On December 27, 2009, all members who have not listed themselves as active will be moved to the "inactive" section. Thank you!

Airplaneman talk 03:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

  • Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
  • Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
  • Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
  • Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
  • Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
  • Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClassicSC/Archive_2&oldid=1166514413"