Jump to content

User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Oct

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


Oxygen bar

Hi TT, and thanks for sorting out Oxygen bar. Apologies for not mentioning in my edit summary that the dollar part of the cost was bit the that was actually referenced. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No prob – the first time I looked in the source I just did a search for the $ symbol, which was obviously misleading! ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 21:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hehe - I didn't like the "$1.00 USD" that was there before, and the GBP cost was unsourced, so the article's been improved anyway. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Whys

Because of WP:BRD. When there is disagreement about an issue we restore things to where there were before the bold change and then discuss. In theory the person making the bold change should initiate the discussion. Instead you three edit warred without discussion. You all know better. I set us back to the state we started in before your bold change and initiated discussion--exactly what should have happened to begin with. Hobit (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

So you basically decided to make the 8th revert on a page while simultaneously lecturing others about the evils of revert-warring. What hypocrisy. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

File:Flag of the African Union 2010.svg

Hi,
concerning File:Flag of the African Union 2010.svg, as far as I'm aware F4 doesn't apply to fair-use images. A source in particular is not particularly relevant as long as the rationale is valid – quite regularly the source of a fair use image is actually unknown.
Cheers, Amalthea 18:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Any comment? Amalthea 18:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've restored it, less your tag. And I'm confused that you're ignoring me. Amalthea 11:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused that you're ignoring me – what does that even mean? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
That I would have expected some kind of a reaction to my comment/question. Amalthea 16:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
a) I would have thought that ignoring qualified as "some kind of a reaction," and b) so what's with the confusion? ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 16:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
a) No visible reaction is to my non-clairvoyant, good-faith-assuming mind indistinguishable from no reaction. My unconscious mind probably already interpreted your silence as "Sod off and bore someone else, I don't give a rat's ass". But I don't let him let out much. b) I'm easily confused. Amalthea 16:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
To answer your question: all non-free/fair-use media must have its source specified, see WP:NFCC#10. — Edokter • Talk • 11:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, "to help determine the material's potential market value", that makes some sense I guess. Odd, I looked at that page before posting here, and found some talk about just that case at the WT:CSD archives before posting here, and I didn't make it out to be as clear cut; must have been blind. Anyhow, I've amended the FUR to state that the source of the flag of the African Union is … the African Union. :)
Thanks, Amalthea 13:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 18:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 13:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Your change to a section title

This edit broke the section link that shows up on people's watchlists. Please be more careful about that sort of thing in future. --Viennese Waltz 17:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I make no apology for enforcing WP:TALK#markup. Please be more conservative in dishing out brusque comments to people! ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 17:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 13:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Stay off my page please

Sometime ago you were asked to leave me alone [1]. Yesterday, uninvited, you chose to twice ignore that request and post on my page and comment on me in matter which did not concern you. I am more than happy to maintain a very great distance between us. In future, if you comment about me anywhere, post on my page or go out of your way to irritate me (on or off site), then I will not consider myself bound to abide by that same agreement. I hope that is very clearly understood. I hope I will not have to post on this page ever again. Is that quite clear?  Giacomo  11:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Giano, if you start purposely annoying TreasuryTag simply because they comment about you, you will be blocked. Do not think you can prevent editors who are likely to have conflicting views from commenting on your actions, by threatening to harass them if they do so. That said, you are entitled to remove TreasuryTag's comments from your own talk page (TreasuryTag, best not to complain if this happens). If the comment's are problematic they can be dealt with, using means other then attacking TreasuryTag. - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no intention at all of attacking Treasure Tag - I merely ask him to stay away from me. I feel this will be beneficial to all, and will assist the peace and harmony of the project. I point out that I am more than happy to extend the same courtesy to him. That's all. Please do not misconstrue. I wish it to be very clear exactly what I mean.  Giacomo  11:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you make yourself rather clear here. By attack I mean come to TreasuryTag's page with the intent of making his editing of Wikipedia unpleasant (in violation of WP:HARASS). Threatening to do this is also a violation of harass, FYI - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I am establishing that Treasure Tag has seen that and is aware of my views and feelings and that others are too. I wish this to be clear and beyond all reasonable doubt. Now, I have no wish to frequent this page again, so I suggest you leave the matter there.  Giacomo  11:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to your initial comment, this request is just that: a request. Wikipedia has no mechanism by which editors can ban others from editing their talkpages. You merely requested me not to edit yours; I considered; I decided not to abide by your request, as is my privilege. It is your privilege to delete any material from your page at any time, as you did. And it is my privilege to complain that you are rude.
Hope that's all clear. (Incidentally, nice subtle non-allegation of offsite harassment, but since none exists, it was scarcely worth you bothering to type it.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, you are an editor I respect, and so respectfully I must mention that yes, Giano does in fact have the right to "ban" someone from their talk page, this topic has come up numerous times at the Village pumps and the Talk page guideline page. While I would say "consensus" has not been fully reached it is an acceptable request that should in fact be respected and if it is not respected CAN lead to a block. For the benefit of everyone involved in a dispute- if someone asks another to stay away, then the person should do it. No sense in a provoking more drama and as has been pointed out numerous times- other than an AN/I notice there really isnt any reason anyone MUST contact another person.Camelbinky (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Giano does in fact have the right to "ban" someone from their talk page – I stopped reading here because you are quite simply incorrect. If you're interested in policy, then run your eye over WP:UP#OWN. If you're interested in case law, then Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive107#Talk page blacklist may be interesting reading for you. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
HAHAHA! "If you're interested in policy" and first off linking policy to statute shows you dont understand what policy in Wikipedia is, and the statement in the first place with "if" shows you dont realize I've helped re-write numerous instances of policy and have been fundamental to the effort to continue to make the 5P NOT policy nor represent itself as such. Second of all- YOU are incorrect about talk page banning and obviously unaware of the very thread that is going on at this moment regarding that RIGHT. Frankly, I'm going to use my RIGHT right now and ask you not to go to my talk page again including the ridiculous talk back template on my page seeing as how if I had wanted to see your response I would have watchlisted your page but frankly I've lost the respect I had for you with your inability to recognize the common law application of the fact that YES people can be banned from talk pages. I myself have banned people and at AN/I it was upheld and the person was told to respect it and back off.Camelbinky (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
My link to statute was clearly to light-heartedly distinguish it from the case law of individual ANI threads. If you were unable to recognise that, then I can understand why you would be mistaken over the rest of this.
You are talking a lot about threads which grant editors the "RIGHT" to ban others from their talkpages, but I notice you haven't linked to any or provided any evidence for that claim: strange, that...
I do not, of course, consider myself bound by your request. I will be leaving you a {{talkback}} notice, and while I suspect you will delete it and pretend not to have read my reply here, I'm 99% sure that you won't be able to resist actually looking at my response to your slightly drivular and unsubstantiated post above.
Hope that's clear. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 05:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 13:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent incivility in edit summaries, such as here, here, and here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked you, per my comment at ANI. Please ensure you don't give offense in edit summaries. Terms like "crap" and "drivel" are not necessary and you never know when they may give offense. Thanks. Rd232 talk 17:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus, as Sarek points out, such comments may drive new contributors away (WP:BITE). It's incumbent on experienced contributors to point out mistakes by newcomers in helpful and friendly ways. If you can help draw people in like that, you can sort of count every edit made by a newcomer-turned-good-and-prolific-editor as partly your work :) Rd232 talk 18:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 13:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Award for damn good humour

The Outlaw Halo Award
Awarded to TreasuryTag for his exceptional good humour and ability to take the p*** at The Village Pump, and making me laugh till it hurt! BarkingFish 23:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(about the award)

I'm touched :) ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 08:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Oct&oldid=1144753429"