User:Fys/talk archive6

E. D. Morel
Could you verify the change of west african to east african in this article, the ip making the change has vandalized other article, thanks!Notjim 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Times
Just wondering, is there some sort of searchable database for The Times? Where did those references come from? Jillium 01:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They came from the Times Digital Archive - a searchable database of scanned copies of the Times from 1785 to 1985. David | Talk 01:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you post the full information in the article, ie author, title, etc.? --  user:zanimum


 * There is no more information. The Times never identified its journalists at all until the 1960s and these particular reports were not major news sufficient to get a byline. David | Talk 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My AfD
Thanks for reverting my user page and closing the AfD. That's my 2nd AfD. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Plaque build up
You said on Jimbo's talk page that you can help in the pursuit of a commemorative plaque. How long do you think such a process would take? -- user:zanimum
 * Thanks for the info on the talk page, I forgot you were an actual councillor. --  user:zanimum

Thank you for your support of my RfA
Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y  Arktos 21:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
David, I've been trying to stay out of the userbox debate. As I know your work and respect you, I thought I'd talk to you about it. I've seen your rather frequent comments about userboxes being evil, and I want to suggest to you, that your statements are counter-productive to your goal. There is clearly differences of opinions about userboxes and every time someone like yourself calls them evil it provokes a strong response of defiance from those who believe in them.

Personally, I think the discussion about userboxes is off the mark. Userboxes are nothing. They are just templates. The real issue is civility and respect. I don't mind if people state their opinions using userboxes. What I do mind is people being civil and treating each other with respect. We all have opinions and we all have motivations. I respect users who say what their POV's are and then work to create NPOV articles. It often HELPS create an NPOV article if there are editors from multiple POVs. As long as they respect each other and behave civilly. This goes to the point I'm trying to make about your comments. Calling userboxes "evil" is not a civil, respectful way to get your point across. It is like shouting at someone "DON'T SHOUT!" -- Samuel Wantman 05:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Christopherlin
Thanks for your support vote in my RfA. Unfortunately, no consensus for me this time (22/11/8). I hope that you'll keep me in mind in the future, I'll probably be back up there one day. --Christopherlin 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:BarbaraHarris.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BarbaraHarris.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 16:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Proper Page to Report Vandals
Thanks for letting me know that. I was just following the link that it gave on another page. Bignole 17:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Callaghanwaitingatchurch.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Callaghanwaitingatchurch.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 01:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam Yosef
Re-read Adam Yosefs statement. He clearly and explicitly refers to statements made by Tatchell concerning the riots. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We are dealing with what Adam Yosef said. What Peter Tatchell said is not relevent. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a ludicrous statement. This is Peter Tatchell's biography under discussion. David | Talk 16:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It concerns what one party has said, not the other. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What 3rr violation? --Irishpunktom\talk 16:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Peter Tatchell
Please be aware that you are skating terribly close to the edge of WP:3RR on Peter Tatchell William M. Connolley 18:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am indeed aware and am stepping away from the edge. David | Talk 18:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

BOSS
BOSS (music) is currently undergoing an extensive expansion, and unfortunately certain events forced me to leave it incomplete last night. The disambiguation notice was removed until I had decided on the overall layout and for the aforementioned reasons was left out when I resigned. I have replaced it as of this morning and apologize for any inconvenience caused by this.  Silmarillion   (Talk)   Wiki be With us! 13:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:198.99.244.32
I read the rubric. It clearly states: "The vandal vandalized after the final warning within the past few hours." The vandal was given a warning on 22:28, 8 March 2006 and vandalized again 07:16, March 9, 2006, 9 hours later. "They have not vandalized very recently (past 24 hours) since the last warning ..." Ten hours is clearly within the 24 hour span stated in the rubric, so what's with the "read the rubric" nonsense, when I can quote exactly the parts of the rubric I followed? Oh, well. So much for that "final warning." Seems like there's not much we can do about intermittent vandals other than revert, then. *sigh* -- Miwa 00:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on March 10 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion.  Voice -of-  All T 23:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
For helping me out, Dbiv. It is much appreciated. No Guru 18:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have
note, Further, your constant aggressive attitute, and constant threat to RfC me does not help in producing a compromised and equitable resoluton to the conflict. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I have, you hve yet to reply.
 * 2) I am not blanket reverting, as a simple chek would prove, you, however, have been, and condemning me for a practice you engage in is rather ridiulous.
 * 3) By inserting one POV, and not the other, and then adding Spin, you are inserting a Pro-tatchell POV, wheter that be your intention or not.
 * 4) My Name is Tom, people call me Thomas.. taking that as a personal attack would, to me, seem very stupid, how could you possibly take being referred to as "Dave" as an attack?

Image Tagging Image:Edwardheath1970.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Edwardheath1970.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 03:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom vs. Netscott
Hello, sorry to disturb you but I noticed that you as an administrator have been editing on the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy. User:Irishpunktom made a 3RR violation report against Netscott. Netscott has been blocked but in my lurking on the article I noticed that Irishpunktom was as much a violator as Netscott and so I made a report of 3RR violation against Irishpunktom. I was hoping you might be able to comment/administrate on my report.

Please know that in my opinion and the opinion of several other editors on that article, blocking against User:Netscott wasn't warranted.

Thanks!

CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 00:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * dave David, we meet again. take a note of this anons few contribs and then draw your own conclusions. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for your response, I understand your reasons for declining...your reasoning is honorable. I see Netscott's not the only one who's encountered difficulties with Irishpunktom... may you be successful in your pursuits of redress. CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

New Den Stadium location
Dear David

According to all the relevent pages I have seen on Wikipedia, Millwall F.C.'s New Den Stadium is in Bermondsey the London Borough of Southwark. I had always thought that it was in the London Borough of Lewisham as they were at one time sponsored by that council. This though was probably when they were playing at their old ground.

I have checked a few online maps and the stadium appears to be located just inside the Lewisham boundary. Before I change anything on Wikipedia I thought it would be best to ask a trustworthy person, especially one with a good knowledge of London, to ask their opinion. One thing that often muddys the water on locations is the difference between postal and political boundaries.

Thank you for reading,

Philip Davies

phildav76 11:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PS I am not the MP for Shipley! You might or might not remember me from uk.politics.electoral. Last time I posted was about the Prestbury by-election as I live in Macclesfield.


 * You are right - the New Den is in Southwark Borough, in Livesey ward in fact. Welcome to Wikipedia! David | Talk 12:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks David. Does that mean Deptford should be used instead of Bermondsey when referring to the location? -- phildav76 11:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Andy Cunningham
Hi, I've started a page on Andy Cunningham, which I want to expand on. I notice that you've done T. Dan Smith and John Poulson. Can you recommend any useful sources online or offline that I may find useful. Thanks in advance. Rob

magnesium and diane abbott
magnesium was a link for firebrand (it burns v. brightly). Jamaissur

Image copyright problem with Image:Oldcountyhall.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Oldcountyhall.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 01:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA Withdrawal :(
Hello Dbiv, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your vote in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appreciate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Ter e nce Ong 15:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, PPOV, and Obfuscation
Greetings, having previously noted your expression of a desire to file an RfC against Irishpunktom I thought that I'd let you know that I'd be happy to comment in such a request in the event you do so. As I'm sure you are no doubt aware, he is an editor who has no qualms about introducing heavy Islamist POV and seems to relish in obfuscating Wikipedia articles in particular ones with subject material concerning Islamist events/figures. Due to Irishpunktom's history of being uncooperative, I'd like to see such behavior quelled and I'm willing to make efforts to such ends. Cheers! Netscott 12:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no experience in filing RfCs however I'd be happy to work together with you in filing one. Netscott 13:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Judging by the comments others have made, I don't think we'll have much problem getting others inclined to comment as well. I'm about to head off to work.. but I'll be checking in to WikiPedia for messages...so I'll keep my eye open for messages from you. Netscott 13:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * i have plenty to add to the RfC but need to pop out also. i'll be back this eve or tomorrow eve. cheers. Veej 14:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: I could probably have no problem pulling in a decent number of people on this who'd like to comment... shall we go that angle at this point? Netscott 15:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've commented here. Netscott 17:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wondering what the plan is. is the RfC going ahead? should i be adding info to it? Veej 22:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A request for abritration has been filed against you
Please see: Requests_for_arbitration --Ben 06:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing that to my attention. It seems I may have mistook you for someone else (WarriorScribe it turns out).--Ben 11:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering that that's a fairly major detail to foul up when you're filing an arbitration complaint, I'm curious as to how this "confusion" might have happened... - WarriorScribe 15:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Southern Rhodesia, Rhodesia and Zimbabwe
Hi David,

I see that you've put your name down for helping on articles that deal with Southern Rhodesia, Rhodesia and Zimbabwe politics and elections. I have just started the Timeline of Zimbabwe history similar to Timeline of South African history and I need all the help I can get. Thanks --Jcw69 17:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
Hi David! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Kif sends his best regards - are you in Birmingham on Saturday a week on Saturday? ➨ Redvers R E  DVERS ❞ 19:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What?
Are you honestly ignorant, or are you lying? here is just one example:"We outed them because they were not preaching what they practiced". --Irishpunktom\talk 23:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I note you havn't answered this question. The compulsion seems like your own. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith, surely not!
hehe, no, this is not me, nor a "Sockpuppet". It is from the UK, from Homechoice, so it could be AE. Nice to see you engaging in Good Faith though. --Irishpunktom\talk 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Polite request
Wikipedians have got into trouble before for keeping lists of other Wikipedians they do not like in their user space. I would like to request you not to do this, because it tends to create a negative and poisoned atmosphere among users when we should all be working together in the interests of writing an encyclopaedia.

If you do have serious concerns about another user's editing, then there are ways of trying to resolve disputes and of bringing that concern to the attention of the rest of the community. David | Talk 12:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * David, I appreciate the post above you made on User_talk:Crad0010 but I honestly think that User:Crad0010 made that list as a 'joke' and it was anything but serious... honestly. With that said it will be come clearer when User:Crad0010 has a chance to respond. Netscott 12:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: Please see Crad0010's talk page... oh, that was soooo funny! ;-) Netscott 22:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Tatchell
Tatchell is a gay rights activist and campaigner, and I do find it offensive that someone who was involved in a campaign of "outing" people against their will, despite your claiming that he didn't (He did), should be described in such a flattering way without citing that it is his own reference for himself, or any criticisms therof. he is a Gay rights activist/Campaigner, etc - This is NPOV and easy.. and, really, there is no problem with it, why are you making one? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cash for Peerages/Jowellgate
Do we need to be concerned about your neutrality in articles containing criticism of the labour party?

I ask because you've described Jowellgate as putative (adj.) in an apparent attempt to lessen the impact of the affair or perhaps introduce the concept that it might not actually be a scandal. You also corrected a minor surname spelling error by expressing apparent umbrage ("..aargh, can you at least spell the man's name right?) "at least" what? "at least get it right if the article is going to criticise him"? because he is the Labour Home Secretary Charles Clarke? Why not just correct and comment "typo"? It appears that you are annoyed that someone could make a simple mistake over such an important Labour politician in a condemnatory (factual) article.

Nothing to do with the fact that you are a Labour Politician? --leaky_caldron 23:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should do the honourable thing and revert your last edit. I believe the fact you're a colleague of Tessa Jowell may have influenced your edit. --Oscarthecat[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|]] 21:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I'm not a colleague of Tessa Jowell. I don't think I've ever met her. I have been able to improve the mess that was the Jowellgate article into something which brings credit to our encyclopaedia rather than looking like a mess of unsorted POV rubbish. David | Talk 21:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * will you be attempting to expunge any other "-gates" you take personal or political exception to?!--leaky_caldron 22:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, if they are poorly written, inaccurate and could do with my attention. David | Talk 22:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * you've admitted that you will change articles that you take political exception to? thanks!--leaky_caldron 22:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not. I have said that I will edit articles that are not NPOV and that have factual errors. The rest is your invention. I really do not appreciate you casting unsupported aspersions that my edits are POV. You have not provided any evidence or justification for this complaint beyond my political affiliations (which I could just as easily keep private), and which is irrelevant on Wikipedia. David | Talk 22:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you did - I asked "will you be attempting to expunge any other "-gates" you take personal or political exception to?" you said "yes............". Wholesale changes to articles, including title pages, go way beyond improving poorly written, inaccurate content - and you know it.--leaky_caldron 22:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you "expunge a gate"? Is this some countryside tradition of which I am unaware? I took your question to mean, would I edit articles about other scandals if I did not like the look of them? The answer is yes. If a page is not NPOV, has factual errors, is poorly written, I will edit it. That applies whether the POV is one I happen to support or not. David | Talk 22:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally you can hardly call me reluctant to write about Labour scandals. I wrote T. Dan Smith, John Poulson, and much of Eddie Milne. David | Talk 22:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't called you reluctant to write about Labour scandals. I live in the NE and knew all about the affair at the time. Eddie Milne was my MP and I voted for him!--leaky_caldron 22:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting
That edit removed far too much sourced material and rephrased it to suit one POV. For that reason I reverted. If you are saying some of it is worthy of inclusion, but some not, include that, and do not be critical of me for Blanket reverting when you are doing exactly the same thing. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not a Personal attack.. the addition you are trying to force is heavily Biased, or non-npov, or POV.. Seeing this as one is rather bizarre. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is what you thought, you are wrong. I couldn't care less. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your entry
David, ordinarily I wouldn't be commenting over on Irishpunktom's talk page but I just had big "debate" about such things with Irishpunktom... I'm still of the opinion however that Irishpunktom's edits and reverts do tend to be counter to the spirit of the expression WP:AGF and I'm inclined to think that you are right in your edits counter to his. Netscott 23:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean that one continues in the assumption after receiving evidence to the contrary. I would really like to think Irishpunktom is making good faith edits, but the enormous weight of evidence to the contrary prevents it. David | Talk 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your reverting on Peter Tatchell
You and Irishpunktom about to be heavily in violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy. I suggest if any editing/reverting in the near future be done by someone else. I suggest getting consensus on it on the talk page before furthur reverting. If any futher revert wars between you two occur, I am reporting it on WP:AN/3RR. Thank you. M o e  ε  23:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This user is a POV revert warrior. I am not prepared to wait around for someone else to maybe come and clean up his vandalism in two days time. I have tried that before and it did not work. If you are prepared to revert him, then I shall call on you. David | Talk 23:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you see him violate the policy WP:3RR then report it on WP:AN/3RR rather than digging yourself in a hole. Your allowed to revert an article 3 times in 24 hours without breaking policy. You both are reverting several times a minute. As to calling upon me, I am not about to get myself involved in that mess. The only way I am going to interject myself in this is if I see you two reverting eachother anymore. M o e   ε  00:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A revert is a revert, whether or not the actual edit was recorded as a revert or not, It was placing information that was there before back to it's original state.


 * In a nutshell, you are in exceptance to the 3RR rule if it is blatent vandalism, which in this case you are not, it is a contant dispute. M o e   ε  00:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing of Peter Tatchel
Sorry David, I'm not familiar enough with him to revert to any one particular version.. Until I familiarize myself more with the truths of this article I'm going to have to edit in good conscience. Netscott 00:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * David, please calm down.. I understand your frustration... I too have experienced such sentiments when co-editing (if that's what one could call it) on certain articles with Irishpunktom... let me do some editing on it for now... and just cool off for a bit... Netscott 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Welshman Ncube
Hi, I saw the edit you reverted at Welshman Ncube. I did likewise at Zimbabwe for much the same reason: it is very difficult to read a long series of single-sentence paragraphs. Plus, it was difficult to spot what else crept in on the back of those anon edits. I have been taking a look at that editor's contributions, and it looks like some of those may need the same treatment. --BillC 17:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And
And you have still to explain any of your problems with that version on the talk page. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, how did you arrive at the idea that the version you approve of is "Consensus"?--Irishpunktom\talk 11:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * SO, if more people objected to it, and sided with mine, you'ld be willing to allow it?--Irishpunktom\talk 11:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, double standards.. I've to argue for my one, but ou do not? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But, as you have said, Consensus is not perfection, and you have said you will refuse an alternative consensus without Talk page consultation, what is your problem with my version, or the previous one, and what is stopping you making your points in this regard on the talk page? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked you if mine became the consensus version would you accept, and you said "No. A consensus version is not necessarily the best version. Consensus is a matter of numbers, perfection is not. You have to argue your case for why the consensus version is bad." - yet, you did not argue for the changes you made to the previous consensus version, and you will not accept an alternative one! --Irishpunktom\talk 16:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Undeletion request
Please undelete (or describe) Template:User Evol-X, which is currently DRV (userbox subpage). Whichever you do, please write my talk-page Septentrionalis 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cease and desist
You must refrain from re-adding vile language to my talk page from hostile editors. To not follow my request, is to indulge the trollish remarks. If you delete this too, then you are effectively one-sided and bigoted. Please leave me alone and don't take sides. Don't vandalise my talk page with nasty comments. I ask nicely. IP Address 14:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If that's what it's like when you're asking nicely I'd hate to see it when you're annoyed or ratty. David | Talk 14:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:KIT
I have been using this test for a while now, as have others (though the actual page has only been created recently). Notability is subjective, but I have defined my standard based on what we currently accept as notable. If you would like to nominate Karen for another AFD, feel free. Until then, it remains my test for notability. While it is still subjective, it is more specific than other users who vote keep/delete by simply saying "non/notable". &mdash; 0918BRIAN &bull; 2006-03-30 21:25

Userbox
Here's a userbox for you: Template:User eschews userboxes. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)