Jump to content

User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2011/Apr

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


The Signpost: 21 March 2011

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Carefull ....

I think you accidentally collapsed more than you intended to on the thread about RNGs. I fixed it for you. APL (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes indeed, sorry! ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Day of the Moon

Just what is "The article is written in standard English" supposed to mean as a edit summary? What's standard about referring to the recording of a television programme that is not shot on celluloid as "filmed." Please enlighten me. In "standard English." 12.88.4.102 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal, in the English language, to refer to television programmes as being "filmed" and as using "footage." That is what I meant, fairly obviously. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 22:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Nothing obvious about it. Came across as snarky and rather insulting, frankly. 12.88.4.102 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
May I politely suggest that if your English is not up to knowing that "filmed" was a perfectly acceptable word in that context, then you probably shouldn't be style-editing articles? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 22:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
May I politely inquire just how "filmed" is better than "recorded," when it's more accurate? And may I also politely inquire if this sort of passive aggression is the reason you've been blocked almost a dozen times? 12.88.4.102 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not more accurate. "Filmed" is the standard English word for this sort of thing. And I guess this sort of passive aggression is also the reason I've been unblocked exactly the same number of times? ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 23:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:KnowIG

Hello TreasuryTag, I'm not baiting this user, I had a good faith and a valid reason behind adding this Commons' activity. If you shall read whole paragraph, then you would know how this user abused me continuously by using different mediums like by mails, reverting mine constrictive edits, attacking on my talk page (both on Wikipedia and Commons). The message I left, was for the attention of concern users and admins (specially those who ain't on Commons), so that they might be in touch with current situation. If I just ignore this abusive message then how anybody would know about it. I think you should revert back your edit. Remember this (2.102.255.224) is a same series IP for which I was advised to contact his ISP, I really don't what kind of relevance you want, if this is a thing that I should keep Wikipedia and Commons separate then you should also remove edit of User: Sandstein from Commons, who gave reference of German Wikipedia. This is an interwiki problem and as many users/admins are involved in this, so I think everybody must be aware, thanks --Bill william comptonTalk 15:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If you require attention from English Wikipedia admins then you should start a thread at WP:ANI. If you require attention from Commons admins then you should do the equivalent there. I will not be reverting my edit because I don't see any value to leaving a blocked editor inflammatory messages. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 15:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
What's the need of ANI if there are admins who are responding on his talk page and they don't have any problem in this. What would be the result of ANI if this user is already blocked. Would you please tell me where on Wikipedia there is rule against keeping related discussions on the talk page of a blocked user? specially in the scenario when this blocked user using sockpuppets against any particular user.--Bill william comptonTalk 15:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The proper way to attract the attention of administrators here on Wikipedia is to contact one personally or to start an ANI thread, not to leave a comment on a semi-relevant page which you know that at least one has on their watchlist. I am sorry if this disappoints you; I will not be reverting my edit and do not see any point in prolonging this discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback templates

There's really no need for you to trouble yourself with those templates. I have the AFD page on my watchlist. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who)

Thank you for dropping the personal comments. I would ask you to go one stage further and cut out the sarcasm too. "This really isn't rocket science" is more apt to generate heat than light, as was the sarky little [sic] in the obscure redlink "Wikipedia:Doctor Who monsters are to be considered notable if they're central to the current seasons [sic] MythArc". Please? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That [sic] comment was in response to the single most stupid comment I have ever seen at an AfD, and in the circumstances of having such a wealth of ironic material opened up to me, I think I behaved with some restraint! ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 19:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This "pathetic" is unhelpful. Please adhere to the civility policy. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It's really not incivil, but feel free to escalate this via WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U and/or WP:RFAR if you feel it necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Chill TT - you know this type of banter never goes anywhere good. Stick to the policy arguments, sarcastic humor doesn't usually translate well to the typed text. — Ched :  ?  09:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the advice Ched, but speaking off the record, I've never before come across an AfD quite so stuffed full of idiotic WP:ILIKEIT arguments in my life. "Keep—I’m pretty sure it will soon have toys in the shop and people dressing as them for Halloween," "Keep—They’re central to this seasons [sic] MythArc [sic]." It's extremely frustrating! ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 09:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    Gotta admit, the "Big Bad" keep really had me literally laughing out loud. All we can do is quote policy, and hope reason wins out. Oh well, it's only one page .. not worth getting all that upset over I guess. — Ched :  ?  09:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hi, one of your contributions has been mentioned in a report at ANI here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just drop it if I were you. Yes, it's frustrating when the same crappy arguments get rolled out on every AfD on a fictional subject, but increasing the level of invective directed at such comments doesn't make it any less likely that they'll be repeated. I think you picked a poor time to nominate here, as the article would doubtless have been recreated the next time said villains appear this series. Might as well leave it to see if sources do miraculously appear and if not re-nominate once the current popularity of the subject fades a bit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I didn't remember to notify you when I raised the issue on AN/I. I'm more-used to dealing with issues myself than raising them there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record: material salvaged from User talk:Medeis

I'm genuinely interested to hear your views: if it was nonsense for me to warn you of the 3RR, how come it wasn't nonsense when you did it to me 11 minutes later? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 16:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: signature

Did that, but for some strange reason it didn't show my username as a result. So sorry about that!!--SGCommand 17:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No prob, just something to watch out for! ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 17:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Cheers mate!--SGCommand 17:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest

Is this intended for articlespace at some point? It's difficult to see why we need a BLP on the subject when her sole claim to notability could be added in one sentence to Paradesi Jews, especially given her own obvious desire for privacy is at stake. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed intended for articlespace (I hope to finish it off at some point over the weekend when I can get ahold of a copy of another book I've loaned to someone) and I think her notability as a person is established even with the material on the page at the moment, and as I say, more will follow. Yes, she has an obvious desire for privacy, although as it happens, she made great friends with Edna Fernandes, who wrote The Last Jews of Kerala, the authoritative volume on the subject – "I was to learn later of her warmth and enjoy a smile that was as spectacular as it was unexpected" – so is clearly not entirely reclusive.
Overall therefore, given that there has been quite a lot of coverage of Yaheh, directly and in detail, I feel that she certainly deserves more than a one-sentence throwaway line, and since I'm not aware of any policy or guideline mandating your position ("It's difficult to see why we need a BLP,") then I hope you'll allow me to press ahead. You are, of course, welcome to nominate the page for deletion once I move it into articlespace, or even to MfD it now, though I would personally think that a little unfair! :) ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 18:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll let you do as you please with it; you're obviously not one to go creating articles lightly. I'm still a little concerned that as her primary notable attribute is related to her ethnicity/sect that we shouldn't have a separate article on her while the "parent" is basically a stub, but we can examine that later. Any particular reason for interest in this subject? Planning on expanding Paradesi Jews as well? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I do get your point. I guess what you're saying is a variant of WP:ONEEVENT, except that she's not notable only by being involved in a particular event, but notable only for one 'thing' rather than for herself. I'd kind of compare that situation to Louise Brown, whose only claim to fame is having been the first test tube baby yet has still been the subject of sustained personal news coverage since, regardless of the fact that she herself has done nothing of note.
The point that we shouldn't have one article on her while the 'parent' article is fairly underdeveloped seems to me to be slightly backwards in logic; WP:DEADLINE and WP:IAR tend to apply. It makes no sense to hold back from adding acceptable content to Wikipedia, at all, for any reason. It doesn't/shouldn't matter what order we create articles in, and to be honest, if you look at my draft thus far, not a huge amount of it could be ideally placed on the Paradesi Jews page.
My interest is that I'm a British Jew and recently returned from a trip to South India where I visited the synagogues in Mattancherry, Ernakulam and Chennamangalam, and yes, I do hope to do some work on other articles related to the Cochin Jews, but I started with her because she's living, I met her and very interesting she is too! ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes...

...but it took place over it, so to speak. And there was the scene near the end where the ship flies over Buckingham Palace, and the ending itself. That's sort of on Earth.

Kinda. HalfShadow 21:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

God, I love Wilf. Hope we see him again. HalfShadow 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2011/Apr&oldid=1144715812"