User talk:RyanGerbil10/Archive 21

Please imagine a different catchy song:


 * Believe it or not, this page is archived,
 * Please leave a meesage at this page
 * Scream all you want, but I'll never hear,
 * 'cause I'm not here-
 * Believe it or not, it's archived!

Riana's request for bureaucratship
Sorry if I ruined your excitement! :( ~ Riana ⁂ 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Caps at FAC
Please see here, thanks ! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
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) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Template deletion process
Hello RyanGerbil10, several hours ago, you deleted 2007-08 Boston Celtics depth chart and I was wondering if you could delete all ohter similar "depth chart" templates? OR I have to nominate them one by one at WP:TFD? Regards, Crzycheetah 07:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacement
So if the templates all get deleted, they should be replaced in the respective article which has been using the template by the content of the template, just like you did. And there are about 20 articles which have such a template. ●  8  ~  Hype  @ 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the one time use of something like a depth chart should be hard-coded into an article. One-use content is not appropriate for the template namespace. If depth chart templates are considered at TfD, they should properly be substituted and then deleted. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But the only problem is, it isn't only used in the respective article, but also in the current season article of a team. That's why it should be fitted into a template. ●  8  ~  Hype  @ 18:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

'''Why do the other teams still have their depth chart templates? If they won't get deleted, I will just re-create a template for the Celtics.''' ●  8  ~  Hype  @ 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:TOC-scrolling
Hi Ryan,

Sorry to take your time. I didn't have a chance to participate in the debate of the proposed deletion of the template above. There are a couple of questions that I do not see addressed in the debate. Is there a page where I can write for the record and future reference?

Sincerely,

vapmachado talk.cw 04:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
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) 08:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Manual"
The removal of the warning—manually or otherwise—is inappropriate, especially given the fact that you manually labeled your second removal "minor."

I'm tempted to simply revert, but I don't wish to fuel an unnecessary incident. If you promise not to engage in any further April foolishness today, I'll drop this issue and move on. Otherwise, it's important that anyone responding to further vandalism on your part be made aware of the fact that you've already been warned.

Do I have your word that you're done with this for the day? —David Levy 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus is that it wasn't vandalism. Get a sense of humor, you'll get my word for nothing. I hope you have enjoyed ruining a holiday. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Where was consensus "that it wasn't vandalism" established?
 * 2. You are aware that this "holiday" isn't a worldwide observance, right?
 * 3. You are aware that our policies aren't dependent on the date, right? —David Levy 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of our policies and the dates, considering I am both an administrator and own several desk calendars. Now would everyone please drop it! Get over yourself and write an article instead of sticking your fingers in sore spots. It's become painfully obvious the Wikipedia is serious fucking business and I'm sorry I committed the ultimate blasphemy of trying to make the terrible, slogging job of Wikipedia administrator slightly more bearable. Jesus Christ Amen. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 17:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * David, an editor can do with their userpage more or less as they wish, within bounds of policy. There isn't any policy forbidding a person from removing a warning from their userpage. Even the guideline on the issue clearly says "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user" David, you're out of line. Being tempted to revert the removal is your problem, not Ryans, and you're out of line for making it a problem for Ryan since you would be acting outside the bounds of policy and guideline. There's been a long history of hijinx on Wikipedia on April Fool's day. It's tradition around here 2004200520062007. You know this. Templating Ryan was completely unnecessary, when a polite message asking him to stop would have sufficed. Instead, you're issuing warnings, demanding promises, and the like. Shame on you. SHAME on you. Ryan deserves an apology from you. Your insensitivity and actions outside of the bounds of policy and guideline have lead to his announcement to the effect he's quitting Wikipedia. This was entirely avoidable had you acted in a more appropriate manner. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Template:Personality rights
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Personality rights. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  howcheng  {chat} 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ProseTimeline
Template:ProseTimeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Blunt
You recently closed the deletion discussion for this page (Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 19) and I'm not sure your closing fully refelected the views of the participants of the debate. I'm thinking about taking it to deletion review and was wondering if you could offer any further insight into your decision? Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
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) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, I hope everything works out for you, and, after a short break, you're willing to come back to the project. I'm sorry things came to where you can't participate here anymore :( Let me know if there's anything I can do to help! SQL Query me!  22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In any sufficiently large group, there's going to be at least a few idiots. Corollary; the more you are involved with that group, the greater the chance you're going to bump into one or more of the idiots. Everyone has their own tolerance level for idiots. I'm not suggesting you should raise yours, but rather remember that there are guaranteed to be idiots here. That there are idiots here is not a reflection of Wikipedia. It's a reflection of society. You don't give up driving because someone pulls a new jersey left and nearly wipes out your new BMW. You don't stop going to baseball games because a dolt tripped and smeared his loaded chicago hot dog all over your brand new  jersey. Wikipedia operates on the basis that the weight of good far outweighs the weight of bad. It has to. Otherwise, vandals would take over here. Don't let idiots take you over. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only one problem with that. They weren't idiots. We are all on the same side here and need to learn to work together and increase productivity without incessant arguing. I've only come to realise this recently, and I'm trying to balance my contributions more. The trouble comes when my contributions conflict with someone else. Then we have to stop and discuss things. It's at that point that the incessant arguing restarts. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Template:Blunt
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Blunt. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Guest9999 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So Don't Go Away

 * But say that you'll stay
 * Forever and a day  Enigma  msg Review 05:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome back!  Enigma  message Review 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Events of 1 April
Hello, Ryan. I want you to understand that my actions were intended solely to uphold Wikipedia's integrity. I never meant to offend or upset you, let alone to play a role in your departure from the project. For that, I'm sorry, and I sincerely hope that you'll decide to return (even if you dislike me). Making enemies is the furthest thing from my goals, and I'd like very much for us to be able to work together. —David Levy 06:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear
See, it's a good thing you stuck around, because we'd be worse off without this. Your tone, I must say, was heartening; I was, having thought di Stefano to so plainly and volitionally notable as well to exceed the bar that has roughly been erected for "do no harm"/subject request deletions, incredibly surprised to see this at AfD and to see so many "delete" !votes, and your comment makes me, at the very least, think that I'm not incredibly crazy to have so thought. Good on ya. Cheers, Joe 00:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

my RFA
Thanks for your thoughtful support, but I'd be interested to know how you think our perspectives on adminship differ? Thanks, Van Tucky 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:RfA vote
Heh, seeing the header, I thought someone came to complain. :P But yeah, I agree with you. I too have found that common sense and good judgment of a candidate can be gauged from something as apparently irrelevant to admin work as RFA discussions. Though I prefer not to oppose solely on those grounds. - Two  Oars  12:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination of my RFA
I would suggest that you talk to, the original nominator. However, if you wish to gush about me on my RFA, go for it. I won't complain one bit. - LA @ 06:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're more than welcome to add a co-nomination. It won't crush my soul :)   Keegan talk 07:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)