User talk:Tim!/Archive 14

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC UK regional tv on satellite
Hi Tim, someone has changed the name of this article earlier this month, realised their mistake and hasn't been able to put it back correctly. I was just wondering if you could put BBC UK regional tv on satellite back onto BBC UK regional TV on satellite, please? Thanks. Bob talk 22:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Television by country
The subcategories of Category:Television by country are badly named. Most of the subcategories of Category:Categories by country are populated by categories named "topic in X" (where X is a country). So the topic television shouldn't be an exception. 16@r (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

occupiers
Well, I was going to get round to putting the cases and explanations of how all those provisions had been applied - and readers may find it useful to have the provisions at the start of each section. Would you mind reversing your deletions (though I am grateful for the statutelaw.gov link). I expect you know something about tort. Would you help?  Wik idea  23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Tim! I don't think I ever thanked you for welcoming me. Type 40 (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nebulous on hold (GA sweep)
I have reassessed this article as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. We are currently revisiting all listed Good articles in an effort to ensure that they continue to meet the Good article criteria.

In reviewing the article, I came across some minor issues that may need to be addressed; I have left a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put Nebulous's GA status on hold. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the article's status.

I've left this notice here because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article, please accept my apologies and feel free to disregard this message ;)

Regards, EyeSerene talk 12:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits
Please try reading sources properly. How is "A pathologist stated that the stab wounds Ferris suffered would not have killed a healthy man, and the judge acquitted all sixteen as he could not be satisfied that the heart attack was caused by the stabbing" not sourced by this which states "While the officer Kelly shot survived, another, James Ferris, was less fortunate, dying of a heart attack after being stabbed. Sixteen prisoners were charged with his murder but all were acquitted. After a state pathologist said the wound would not have killed a healthy man, the judge concluded that he could not be satisfied that the heart attack was the result of being stabbed"? One Night In Hackney 303  17:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?
This block of User:One Night In Hackney looks to me like you are using the tools in a dispute you are involved in. I strongly suggest that you A) bring it up to ANI, B)Unblock and seek others involved, C) Both of the above. SirFozzie (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review ONIH's edit summaries, this is what he was blocked for. Tim! (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you blocked him because you were in an edit war with him. No warning on the page, revert war, then a block. Horrible block. SirFozzie (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was on my way to raise this as well. In my view, the edit summary of "piece of piss" was not an offensive statement aimed at you - you effectively said "source this, or it goes", he replied with "piece of piss", which I take to mean "easy", whilst sourcing it. I also question your use of the tools in blocking someone with whom you were in a dispute, and would recommend you unblock, not least because there were no warnings given whatsoever. GBT/C 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * has unblocked see Tim! (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I just unblocked ONIH, You were clearly involved. This block was not well judged. If you want to seek sanctions against a user you are in dispute with you must seek an uninvolved admin to deal with it. Spartaz Humbug! 18:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tim!, I don't want to labour the point or be accused of 'piling on', but I think you should address the concerns raised here and at AN/I. We all make mistakes and I think this was one. If you can indicate that you realise it was a mistake to block someone you were in dispute with, we can all move on and put this behind us. A note here or at my talk would be fine and I'll mark the AN/I discussion as resolved. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for that, I appreciate it. --John (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Hu12 (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)