User talk:PeaceNT/Archive 9

Re:Hey there
Certainly am! - Zeibura (Talk) 15:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope the image is right where it should be. Nice work :) - Zeibura (Talk) 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Firefox 2 for Mac OSX. Has it not worked on others? Looking at the code I can't work out why it wouldn't - Zeibura (Talk) 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Aw, thank you :) I've no idea why internet explorer doesn't like it, but it looks pretty to those of us who know better ;) - Zeibura (Talk) 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Uchiha Sasuke cursed seal.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Uchiha Sasuke cursed seal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

More on the Deathly Hallows page
Hi there ... while you're busy explaining things to Folken nicely, do you reckon you could do the same with this guy? He's reverted the Mugglenet reference out of the article three times now - first generally, again when you restored it, and now to me after I restored it. The first two were on the basis that it was spam, and looking through the debate, I see only two people stating that it could be seen as spam - the original IP (who I am convinced attempted to remove the ref in bad faith for some reason), and Folken mentioning it briefly to Sandpiper.

Furthermore, with his latest revert, I feel that if it is acceptable to mention sales, the "Background to the series", then mentioning so-called "companion books" accompanying the series would fit like a glove. But given that all of this was debated back in Archive 14, and the responses (and lack of), I feel there's little point pressing the point to him/her.

Looking at his contribs, he may have also broken 3RR.

Thanks, Daggoth | Talk 07:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you've ignored my warnings, and are continuing to violate established consensuses and keep re-adding POV-violations in the articles, without justifying yourself. I now ask you to stop disrupting this article. If you don't agree with the removal of certain paragraphs, please discuss with the other editors instead of trying to impose your views. Folken de Fanel 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You've ignored my warnings 3 times. Discuss your edits and reach consensus instead of revert-warring to impose your views. I've yet to see your justifications for all this.Folken de Fanel 14:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you were so much enjoying blindly reverting that you have not noticed that I've not removed mentions to books about HP (including the Mugglenet book). The paragraph in its current state satisfies me, it is more neutral and that's all I wanted (however I don't think it fits really well in the "background" section). Can't you notice my offer of compromise ? However, if I won't remove it, I won't prevent others to remove it if they want either, that's not my debate anymore.
 * I am removing the paragraph about fan speculations because, as I've explained in the talk (to which you never replied), this paragraph was written by Sandpiper only to promote the view that fans could correctly guess the plot of book 7. This paragraph is first irrelevant (it doesn't pertain to the "background of the series" since fan speculations simply aren't the background of the series, how JKR came to write HP, etc), and Sandpiper wrote it only because it was a mean to support his quest to add fan speculations in other articles (like in Horcruxe, R.A.B., etc). He's adding fan speculation everywhere, and this paragraph in the DH article is linked to this: he wants to advance the position that fan speculations are accurate, and then he adds them in specific articles. There are now various people who are against Sandpiper's actions, thus there is a consensus against fan speculations in articles. Thus, please stop reverting back this paragraph, as its only use was to promote the "accurcy" of fan speculation, in order to include them in specific articles. It's all linked. Sandpiper believes in the "power" of fan speculations, he believes fans have already guess the whole book 7, and wants to add these theories everywhere on WP, and this paragraph in the DH article is only an insidious way to push his pov about fan speculations.
 * That's 'background to the series'. It is about generalities, not about a history of the wizarding world. Part of the background is that rowling has generated an obsessive fan following whose task in life is to analyse her books to death. This is most certainly important. I'm sorry Folken doesn't seem to consider fan involvement with the books important, because I feel he is thereby failing to understand why these books have become so successful. Anyone wishing to emulate Rowling should think very hard on the section 'background to the series'. Aside from that, Folken is correct in suggesting that rowling, in these quotes and others, has essentially told us that the ending is significantly predictable, based upon the books so far. I think anyone wanting to know about the last book would want to know that. It is an important fact about the general background of how the books have been written. Sandpiper 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, nothing to do with background. It's only you pushing your POV. This has simply nothing to do with the background, which is how Rowling came to write HP, etc. Your personal views about fan speculations isn't related to the background, neither are fan speculations.
 * I never said nor suggested that Rowling told us "the end is predictable", and Rowling has never said it either. So don't invent things. The irony is, you're always talking about "predicting", and that's what crystal-balling is...Folken de Fanel


 * Last time we talked, you completely avoided this issue. You only talked about Mugglenet's book, which for me, is settled. But you didn't talk about this. So I'm waiting for your justifications.
 * Concerning the refs in "Choice of the title", last time we talked, you also declared that you had "no opinion whether to keep or leave out this part". Spam and PoV violation cannot magically become valid just because you claim it as such. In barely a week you went from having "no particular opinion" to "we have to absolutely keep these" without any explanation. I'm still waiting for it.
 * I'm not going to write in great length about this, as I've already done it before and I can't spend too much time on this again. All I'm going to do is to give you the link to the long talk we had, which concluded that these refs were not includable. If you read it carefully, you'll see that there is a consensus of 3 users (Tuvas, Hobson and me) against these refs. So sorry, but you cannot suddenly come after days of debate, which came to a certain conclusion, and then impose another conclusion, without any justification or debate.
 * gosh we do all write a lot of nonsense don't we? As to Tuvas, the last comment I posted to him was that essentially, his position seemed to be that he agreed the material was includeable, even though he seemed to be trying to frame an argument why it ought not to be. I queried this twice on the DH page and once on his user page, but he never replied to this specific point and I think has avoided the page since. Sandpiper 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Tuvas said the content was not includable, please don't alter comments from others.Folken de Fanel 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting for a complete answer to this, and I ask you to please stop reverting while we're still discussing it. I've shown good faith and offered a compromise by not deleting the Mugglenet's book mention any more, but now it's your turn to show good faith, and to accept to discuss your edits.Folken de Fanel 14:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Explanation requested
Hi there - could you please explain the actions of this account, which you appear to have created? If you'd prefer to do so off-wiki, email would be fine. MastCell Talk 21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While you're at it, how about these? MastCell Talk 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please comment at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Corvus cornix 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people need to be pointed at Request an account, specifically Request an account/June 2007 --Steve (Stephen)talk 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Stephen. I was ignorant of that page. PeaceNT, I don't know how to say I'm sorry enough here. I apologize deeply for jumping to the wrong conclusion. I'm sorry for creating a mess as a result of my own ignorance; please accept my deepest apologies. MastCell Talk 02:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Naughty Peace! <3 Riana (talk)  04:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

He's doing it again...
TTN is at it again, but this time he is deleting my comments now, not just deleting episode articles. User:Tvoz has been talking to him. Angie Y. 13:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm adding tags and opening discussions, so you have no room to complain there. I'm removing your messages because they are getting really annoying at this point. I think that we get that you don't like me; you're beating a dead horse. Either drop it or search for another method (even though episodes are definitely going to be mostly removed due to the updated guideline, project, and task forces). And again, PeaceNT doesn't hate me (at least openly), so I really don't get what you think he is going to do. TTN 13:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on finding my secret page! I started out with this one, and will make a harder one in the future, and have them get harder as I go on ("secret page 2", "secret page 3", etc.). I'll let you know when "secret page 2" goes into effect. Cheers!
 * My second secret page is in effect. Better get looking! =) hmwith  talk  19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much!
Your kind words and your warm wishes, coming from one of the most compassionate and wonderful friends I've ever been blessed to have, meant more than I could ever express, sweetie. My gratitude to you goes beyond my ability to put it in plain words. So a simple "thank you!" and a great, great virtual hug will have to do :) Love you!  P h a e d r i e l  - 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
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 07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

sick
I Don't Know how to say it, but Seth's Very Sick. He sounded like he needed to go to the hospital on the phone! I Hope he gets better. Bananaman1137 23:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Page
Hi there, Any reason why you deleted the List of Girl Groups page? Looks like it was done just today or yesterday. I think my niece, Karen Rayne, was cited on that page. Thanks, RuthRinehart 6 July 2007

Hi there, I´m currently working on expanding the page of São Paulo Museum of Art. I´m Brazilian, so I have Portuguese as native language. Anyway, I´ve got a intermediate level of English, which I used to translate the corresponding page at Portuguese Wikipedia (did my best), but I believe that perhaps there are some orthographic or grammar harmony mistakes, so I would really appreciate if you could point me some user interested in art or museums to help me reviewing the page. I also have a doubt. I don´t know how to start a discussion page to São Paulo Museum of Art. I looked for it at the tutorial and help pages, but I didn´t get it very well. Can you help me with this? Thanks, Dornicke 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, is there any way you can unprotect the Ashlee Simpson article? I have a whole article to add in. SMASH96 02:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Belated congrats
Hey, sorry I was away. Congrats for your successful RfA! Yeah, I know, it closed a long while ago... Xiner (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's getting worse... far worse!
The situation with TTN and Ned Scott is getting worse! Angie Y. 02:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
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 08:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi PeaceNT, just a quick note to say thanks for participating in my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Happy editing, mattbr 10:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA/ACL 2
Thank you for your support in my RfA. :) Acalamari 23:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

FLC
WP:FLC says the following:


 * Featured list candidates will remain on this page for a minimum period of 10 days. Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured list status, and a list must also garner a minimum of 4 "Support" votes (counting the original nomination as a "Support" vote, provided it is not withdrawn). Featured list candidates that are not promoted after 10 days will be removed from the candidates list to the failed log unless (1) objections are being actively addressed; or (2) although there are no objections, the list has not garnered 4 "Support" votes. In these cases an additional period of time will be given to the list to see whether it can attract more support.

The nomination had been up for 19 days without a decisive consensus, which per these rules I feel is long enough to fail. You can nominate it again if you'd like. --MarcK 03:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for helping me!
Thank you for helping me. I don't deserve to be picked on. Angie Y. 00:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

='(

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
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 08:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)