Hosta

Archives

Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, and my apologies - was in a bit of a hurry and my eyes must have skipped over (and my brain forgotten) the bits you're quoting. Great time to shoot myself in the foot on the practical implications of the very tools I'm asking for in my RfA! Thanks for your message. _GB^T/C 15:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why my tiger shark pic (Image:Scarface-tigershark2.jpg) is still here, when it was tagged for "speedy deletion" some time ago.... As mentioned then, this image may be used for publication soon, and I don't want it here any longer since I'm rescinding the copyleft coverage. Thx much for any info.... Pterantula (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanx for the reply - jeez this gets complicated! I'll have to go through those hoops later, when I get the time; I don't recall ever uploading to Commons, I believe that was done on my behalf when I was getting the white shark pics uploaded there...? Cheers Pterantula (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you deleted the user page as blatant advertising. I was trying to find the guideline that supports the deletion. I checked Wikipedia:User page. There is some discussion on the talk page but I can not see a deffinitive answer to the deletion of user pages that advertise. I am not disagreeing with the decision I am just looking for clearification for future reference. Thanks in advance. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... It does seem that it could use some clarification somewhere. Again, not disagreeing, but I seem to remember users being told to place content on their user pages (especially in WP:OR or WP:COI situations). It seems that the message has been "this is not appropriate as an article but feel free to put it on your talk page". I think we would let people violate the other speedie criteria (nonsense, test page, blanked page etc). The WP:NOT is a good rational and should possibly be added to the WP:User Page criteria. Anyway... thanks for the info. Have a good one. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thanks for the barnstar. Don't forget about Big Brother tonight. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not just that it is that mainly those two everywhere I look I keep getting blamed for Article Ownership. Plus I get put down by pete and to an extent RMThompson it just makes everything frustrating. And who uses an excuse that you can't cite premium cable channels? That is just urrg, they are carried on DirecTV and Dish Network plus the top ten cable providers and various smaller cable companies. Just because you have to pay $12-$15 extra for Showtime doesn't mean you can't use it. I will be fine after I calm down. I am just going to edit my little userpage for a while. It is getting too crowded. Thanks for the comment. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I don't even remember this much drama during Big Brother 8 (U.S.). ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you got caught up in your own BB nonsense today. Liked your comments thought hit the nail on the head I must say. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing controversy over whether those additional navboxes at the bottom of Family Guy episode articles are desirable. I think they have all been removed once or twice. Would you care to join the discussion? / edg ☺ ☭ 04:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to take a look at it. Can you be more specific as to which navboxes you're talking about? Give me an example. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I hit the wrong Talk page. The editor I wanted to communicate with is Cyberhawk241 (talk · contribs). The edit in question was this one. :Thanks for getting back to me on this. I will bring this up on Cyberhawk241's Talk page. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not really going to edit, but however, I do have an account. I am not telling you my username. I am not using my account. Thanks! --75.60.247.92 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for protecting my talk page! Party!Talk to me! 19:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a few days ago, I appealed a block I had been wrongly issued, and you replied and said reasonably that if I created a new account, there shouldn't be a problem. I have now done this, so therefore, I'm assuming you believe it is appropriate for me to go ahead with my constructive edits to the Maria Sharapova page (bearing in mind the edit logs show I did not reverse 64 edits, the offence I was blocked for), without fear of harrassment from the user BanRay? Thanks Masha4ever (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You' were blocked for trolling, vandalism and disruption and not for directly reverting 64 edits. Again, you can propose your edits on the talk page and wait for green light there, but seeing that there is a clear consensus against your version, you should probably just move on and leave the page as it is. BanRay 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, BanRay, you issued me a warning for reverting 64 edits (Which is not the case), then I was blocked for "failing to adhere to the warning", even though it wasn't legit in the first place. If I did not revert 64 edits, please tell me how I trolled or vandalised? I merely put through constructive edits.