User talk:Timo3

Deletion request
Hi,

I've declined your request to delete this user talk page as user talk pages are almost never deleted - they're needed to be kept to provide a history of the account's actions. If you're merging from another abandoned account, I suggest you simply copy the content from the old one with an edit summary something like "Copied from...xxx". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1
Hi Timo3, I noticed that you are probably attempting to start a poll about what the pages 1 to 100 should be moved to. However, it should be up to the closer of the first RfC to decide how to proceed, including decisions about templates, etc. Since the first RfC has not concluded, the poll will probably confuse some editors, and I suggest you close or remove the poll. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 13:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've closed your poll for now. I suggest can be reactivated if the first RfC is closed by an uninvolved editor. Thanks — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 14:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Do not speedy-delete number pages
You recently placed db-g6 templates on pages 0, 1, 2 and 3, which I reverted. The second RfC on Talk:AD 1 is not closed yet. Besides, the right approach would be to move those pages to 2 (disambiguation) and friends. Deleting them would lose the revision history! — JFG talk 15:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Request to pass a message on
Timo, could you tell the editor called "Gladysco ball" that I have posted a message to her on her talk page? Since you are her brother, I assume you are able to do this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I will tell Gladysco ball. Timo 3 13:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've unblocked her account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Timo3 and Bobby Jacobs
I used both of my accounts Timo3 and Bobby Jacobs in Talk:AD 1. Some people in the discussion might have believed that Timo3 and Bobby Jacobs were different people, but they are actually the same person. That is very funny! Timo 3 17:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is an example where JFG believed that we were different people because he pinged both Timo3 and Bobby Jacobs.
 * From Talk:AD 1:
 * Would we have local consensus that titles 1…10 hold number articles (done), 11…100 would hold dab pages (in progress) and 101…2099 hold years (unchanged)? It's true that the original RfC didn't clearly specify what to do with titles 1…100 after years are moved to AD 1…AD 100. Some pages still have a mix of number properties and dab entries, e.g. 52 (disambiguation) and 52 (number), I suppose we can fix that as we go. Where do we put uses of each number, e.g. 52 is the number of cards in a standard deck? I think it makes sense to keep those at the number article. Dab pages should only have entries about things that are called by this number. We don't call a card deck a "52", so that's just a use, but 52 Pickup is the name a card game, so it belongs in the dab page (unless it gets deleted per WP:PTM). Makes sense? — JFG talk 22:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We are the same person! Timo 3 17:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)