User talk:Coastergeekperson04/Archives/Dec/07
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Your (old) sig
Hey, I was browsing some old pages, and I saw that some of your sigs included User:Coastergeekperson04/Stats (Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Coastergeekperson04/Stats). Since it is baaaad, do you wish to reformat your old sigs? (or I can run a AWB). -- lucasbfr talk 17:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- No thanks, I wanted to keep that, but I was asked not to. I want to keep them. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@11/30/2007 21:43
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hey....Thanks a lot for your wishes.. They really mean a lot to me... Thanks again.. :-) Jayant,19 Years, India • contribs 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coastergeekperson04, I'll tell you what I've told a dozen other people: Show me the policy I am supposedly violating. I have discussed this at length with a number of administrators in the past and they have said there is no definite policy on the faking of the user interface on a user page. This link is exactly what I'm talking about: WP:UP#Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces At worst, it is frowned upon. But most users manage to find a reason to smile about it. One of the last times someone removed the fake interface from my user page, they were blocked for their personal attack in their edit summary. I reported that user to an administrator and explained to him what that user was trying to do. The administrator blocked the user in question for his personal attack, but made no attempt to remove the fake interface again. Another user nominated the page that the fake interface links to for speedy deletion. Another administrator came along and removed the speedy deletion tag, pointing out to the other user that it was a user page and no attempt had been made to discuss it with me first. Again, this different administrator made no attempt to remove the fake interface from my user page. The most recent example was when the administrator user Alison attempted to remove the interface, citing the link above. I went to her talk page and presented my case and pointed out that there was no definite policy on fake interfaces. She made no further attempt to remove the interface. I would say that is pretty concrete evidence that administrators don't mind the faking of the user interface so long as it is restricted to user pages. Anywhere else would most certainly be inappropriate, but it does not create any problems on a user page. In fact it just makes people amused/annoyed with themselves for falling for such a trick when they click on it. If at some point a real policy against simulating the interface is established, I WILL COMPLY WITH IT. Until then, I am keeping it on my user page. In the future (unless there is actual vandalism on a user page or a policy has been violated) discuss changing the page with the related user AND WAIT FOR A RESPONSE before editing it yourself. Any such edits without discussion first are considered quite rude. Any further attempts to remove the fake interface WILL BE REPORTED to an administrator. Thank you and have a nice day.--Just James T/C 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's right Coastergeek. It isn't disallowed by policy. If he chooses to have the very negative opinion that is given to users with these on their userpages, that is certainly his prerogative. Few users think these are funny. Soleil (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Soleil for your support, but I would advise you not to attempt to provoke other users with derogatory comments. That is against Wiki policy.--Just James T/C 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- On another note, a lot of users find it funny, which includes a number of administrators. As I said, some people find it amusing and others find it annoying. My advise would be to get over it.--Just James T/C 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was not provoking you. If I wanted to do that, I would remove the notice myself. I intend to "get over it", as you clearly have no intention of changing your mind, and further discussion has no benefit to anyone. Soleil (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just James (talk • contribs)
- On another note, a lot of users find it funny, which includes a number of administrators. As I said, some people find it amusing and others find it annoying. My advise would be to get over it.--Just James T/C 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Soleil for your support, but I would advise you not to attempt to provoke other users with derogatory comments. That is against Wiki policy.--Just James T/C 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's right Coastergeek. It isn't disallowed by policy. If he chooses to have the very negative opinion that is given to users with these on their userpages, that is certainly his prerogative. Few users think these are funny. Soleil (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently SineBot doesn't recognise signatures copied from other talk pages.--Just James T/C 01:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I don't find this fair. I got in trouble when I put a fake message bar. And I didn't find the policy. But when I warn someone I get in trouble. This has also happened with removing stuff from my talk page I guess I'm going to do what I want whether Daniel or RevRagnarok both like it or not. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@12/07/2007 21:22
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Note on speedy deletion of James Machon
Your assistance in helping with speedy deletion tagging is appreciated. I thought you should be aware of an issue with one you recently tagged:
You tagged James Machon for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. In case you run across this again, the text was the subject's Medal of Honor citation — which is a work of the U.S. Government, and in the public domain. The article's references linked to the source of the citation — which was published on the United States Army's Center of Military History (CMH). This article should shortly be restored. — ERcheck (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@12/30/2007 18:20
- No problem. I've contacting the creating editor and made such a suggestion — which does help eliminate some misunderstandings. It is possible that you will come across this again in military articles, and not all have public domain tags (not required). Thanks again. — ERcheck (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)