User talk:Samir/Archive 21

Re: Shreyasjoshis
thanks for the suggestion. I am new to editing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreyasjoshis (talk • contribs) 11:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree
Samir, much as I acknowledge that you're a reasonable editor and that you're acting in good faith, I have to disagree with you. Fowler has routinely treaded on 3RR edge on that article. On a couple of occasions, he got away without a violation because an admin (Saravask on one occasion, if I remember correctly) protected the article just in time. And even in this case, he has 3 reverts in 22 hours and I am fully within my rights to warn him. Considering how long he's been around, I dont need to warn him, but I chose to cut him some slack and warned him. I feel I am perfectly justified in doing so. I cannot be expected to sift through or respond to all that he has dumped in another of his characteristic collapsable boxes on ANI, but here are the diffs - 

Given that WP:3RR doesnt translate into a 3 reverts/24 hours "entitlement", I could as well have filed a 3RR vio report against him. It is to my credit that I assumed good faith and chose only to warn him. My warning is legitimate and I shall be reinstating it on his page. He is of course free to archive it and I am sure he knows that. Please do not remove it without explanation. Sarvagnya 03:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, a warning is a warning is a warning. It is meant to and will look, sound, feel and read like one.. atleast if I'm the one who hands out the warning.  I may be blunt but I'm never incivil.  I do not believe in sugarcoating things just for the heck of it or just to play to a gallery... nor do I expect people to sugarcoat their words when they speak to me or 'warn' me.  To me, that would seem insincere.  I get my share of people who vent their ire on me frequently for no reason.  I've never gone crying about it to ANI.. even when I wasnt wrong.  Packing a bundle of lies inside civil and sincere language (like Fowler's done on ANI), is to my mind, an extraordinary display of dishonesty and bad faith.  I'd be grateful if you could strike off or amend your statement on ANI to reflect that Fowler was indeed on 3RR edge when he received the warning.  Thanks and regards.  Sarvagnya 03:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Your RfA
Well, thank you for your encouraging words. However, I do not think that the tide will shift. It looks like another failed nomination for me. Anyway, I will keep editing on Wikipedia because I just LOVE this project! It has become my life!!! -- S iva1979 Talk to me 05:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is this?
And that's all? Clearly not what I expected. Did you actually read all the talk pages linked there?

Can you please tell me the proper place to report those users? Thank you.--Tasc0 23:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

FYI
Frikkers has reverted again on Boerboel. That batch of reverts last time was ridiculous, and I won't be doing it again. But obviously there is a modicum of real consensus for a version this time. Van Tucky  Talk 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

TyrusThomas4lyf
As an admin with some familiarity with the TyrusThomas4lyf case history, if you could take some of your limited time to render a verdict on Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (4th), I'd really appreciate it. If you feel that more evidence is required, please let me know. Thanks. Myasuda 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Samir, thanks for your prompt response. If you have any suggestions regarding admins who are familiar with range blocks, I'll take it from there.  Myasuda 01:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Results of the RfC on Talk:India
Hi Samir, Here, for your information, are the Results of the RfC about the Toda Image. You may recall that in his Only warning issued to me, Sarvagnya had exhorted me to, "Stop edit-warring against the consensus" on the Talk:India page. As it turned out, and as Nichalp and I had surmised in the first place, there was no consensus for the removal of the image (not even a simple majority of votes; the majority, in fact, is for keeping it). Sarvagyna has now changed his tune and claiming that there is no consensus for keeping the image either (for an image that has been on the page since January 2007). When Saravask set up a rotation-scheme for the images (see here), Sarvagnya was quick to revert, again with characteristic rudeness and with nary an acknowledgment that setting up that rotation-scheme must have required work and time. When one of the other editors suggested that we could perhaps accommodate all three images (Taj, Tagore, and Toda) or perhaps let only one (Taj) remain, until the issues are sorted out, Sarvagnya again reacted with his trade-mark lack of grace here.

I would like to request you, as an administrator who saw some evidence of his incivility last week, to urge Sarvagnya to be more cooperative and civil. The "warning" he issued me, I don't really care about, but I do care about the India page, and I don't want it held ransom to the conceits of one unaware and unrepentant editor. Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A tiresome problem
Frikkers reverted to his version again recently on Boerboel. Van Tucky  Talk 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons
Diff: -- Samir 23:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ despite you putting the request in the wrong place :) ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)