Automatic Edit Summaries edit
Hi-- I saw your response to another user at General Complaints, and thought I might ask you the following. A couple of days ago I posted a suggestion about Automatic Edit Summaries that I thought would draw some kind of response, whether "Yeah, great idea" or "That's a stupid idea because...". Instead, nothing at all. Is this the wrong place for the post, does it make no sense as written, or is there some other reason I'm not seeing? I'd be grateful for any suggestions. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 17:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Answered over on your talk page --Kickstart70·Talk 18:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Queen of the North edit
Well. I think you should re-install the lifeboat pic. First, it will make my son happy. Also the picture is not so much touching as forlorn. We can't use the photos of the lifeboats from other websites as they are copyright, but my son's drawing of a QotN lifeboat is gratis. It depicts very clearly what is left when a big beautiful boat goes blub and people die. likewise too this very day the photos of the Titanic lifeboats tethered at the White Star booth are poignant, but also a clear alarum of what can happen at sea when minor things go awry. Line and shade drawings are encyclopedial, I assert, unless you can show me a policy against it, in which case I will slink away. Otherwise reversion is justified, I respectfully submit.regford 16:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- As much as I feel for your son, and understand his desire to share this, the picture itself isn't notable in terms of the topic. It's an artistic representation of the lifeboat, and I'm unsure if it was just based on mental imagery or your son saw one of the QotN lifeboats. If the former, there really is no justification for its inclusion. If the latter, then a photograph would serve this purpose much better. FWIW, I understand where you're coming from, and I support your son in sharing his art, but this isn't the place for it. Let's not get into a reversion war, but instead if you want to bring this topic up on the talk page of QotN, let's get some others' input. --Kickstart70·Talk 18:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
your psycho friend edit
jeez, how many of these does he have? User:Sn0rlax . . . i've semi-protected GNAA, but he got around that pretty quick . . . --He:ah? 23:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
articles created edit
Is something like this what you're looking for? The report takes a little while to run (5 - 10 minutes), but I can manually create it / update it for people at any time. --Interiot 13:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, exactly so (for myself, or against other usernames, of course). Even if I could get one copy of that for myself I'd be happy and then able to update it manually on a personal subpage over time. Since it's so heavy to run though, I guess expanding this to a tool anyone could use for themselves is impossible? Thanks for the help! --Kickstart70-T-C 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Here you go. Your report only takes ~20 seconds, actually, but some users definitely have reports that take 10+ minutes to run. --Interiot 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Awesome, thank you! I knew it wasn't too huge for me, but it's a real pain to track those down from my contributions list. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Here you go. Your report only takes ~20 seconds, actually, but some users definitely have reports that take 10+ minutes to run. --Interiot 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The Psycho edit
Thanks for that link - unfortunately I have to run right now. Could you please put in a request for check-user on those suspected socks, or else post them to [1]? Thanks! Johntex\talk 02:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Your message edit
I don't know how that happened. I just added my comment to the page. I would never do that on purpose. Do you want to fix it or do you want me to do it? --FloNight talk 19:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
response to molly edit
well if you dont agree,then atleast wait while the news is still fresh,then see what others think about it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodrigue (talk • contribs) .
GNAA edit
i've filed an incident report because i don't know what to do about this. It doesn't need commenting or investigation or anything, we just need to figure out how to stop it . . . I've come to the conclusion that it isn't simple irony that all this trolling is occuring around GNAA. --Heah? 06:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Molly edit
Hey there -- I saw your note on the Help Desk page after I started cleaning up the Molly disambig page. I saw at the bottom of the disambig that there was a link to Molly the cat which linked to a Redirect back to the Molly disambig. I corrected this to Molly (cat) and deleted the little paragraph you added at the top of the disambig. I also used the information from a prior Molly page on the cat's page. I didn't realize you were asking questions on the help desk regarding this a moment before, so I hope you don't think that I was trying to enter into the debate. I only noted the conversation on a "what links here" page from Molly (cat) and wanted to bring my changes to your attention. Hope all's well, --Ataricodfish 23:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Cool -- I didn't want you thinking that I was throwing another wrench in the machine. I normally don't contribute to things so trivial, considering I'd never heard about this cat until finding the link at the bottom of Molly, and I thought I'd clean it up. Now, I already have had another editor make fun of me for creating the page, so I'll probably regret having it on my "User Contribution" page. :) Anyway, good work fixing it up. In a weird case of synchronicity, I didn't realize until now that I actually bumped into some "work" by the prior editor, as I successfully nominated for deletion or speedy deletion some pages on Michael Hill which it looks like he contributed to as well. Small world. Anyway, thanks again, and have a good one. --Ataricodfish 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)