User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2007/Aug

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

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 00:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 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 09:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image for 42
If you look at the pages history, it wasn't me that removed the images to begin with. By putting the original image back, you are edit warring as an agreement has not been met on which image to use.--Brinstar 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 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 20:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

example.com
As you insist on this: Can you please remove that example.com? I am one of the few people who try to clean up this site from editing experiments, and this includes additions of that weblink by accidentally or intentionally clicking on the editing toolbar. Thus every unneccessary entry on makes this cleanup task more difficult. andy 11:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 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 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Flagged revisions
I'm not sure whether you're likely to read this comment in the near future, but in case you are, I thought you might find this interesting: Flagged revisions. It deals with proposals which may address some of the concerns you had over having to revert so many bad edits to articles. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't had a good chance to examine all the (massive loads of) discussion that's going on, but I believe the following summarises the current likely position on voting:"At present time we're simply trying to formulate a decent proposal; once said proposal is formulated, then it will be brought to a 'vote'."I imagine a lot will depend on how things pan out on the German language 'pedia. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Justmemmkay07 report at AIV
I'm about to remove the above report. I do not see vandalism since the last warning. There is/was a content dispute at Martha Jones, but I see it as good faith dispute of continuity. If there are more undisputable vandal edits please feel free to bring it back. LessHeard vanU 14:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit
Removed an inaccurate summary as the claim is not totally unsourced just not sourced to a site that is accepted on it's own .Garda40 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Extra synthesis
Yeah, but I occasionally like to put in extra explanatory detail just in case. Once, I removed an image from an article, using the edit summary "'Rmv image: lacks proper fair use rationale';"and then had to remove it again a short time later, using the summary"'Undid last edit: no, image lacks a proper fair use rationale. You must edit Image:Drax.gif accordingly.',"and also pointed the uploader in the direction of a guide on how to do that very thing.

That led to this complaint.

Welcome to Wikipedia, where competence brings no rewards. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fashion Icon
Please stop revert-warring over his talk page. As I pointed out at your ANI thread, people are pretty much allowed to remove anything they want on their own talk page, and I would not like to see you blocked for 3RR again.  Melsaran  (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 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 06:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Golding
I checked the credits for Last of the Time Lords this morning and he is indeed credited as "Lad" for that episode (but not the preceeding one). I've no idea whether he's the young Master or not. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My edits and Digby Tantrum's happened at the same time - (check the history they were 2 mins apart). I inadvertently undid Digby's in the process though I've now undone my own back to Digby's.  Adding good information without a citation is not vandalism, and I believe you've already been warned about using that term when its not appropriate to do so.  Kelpin 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction I tried to undo my own edit but you just beat me to it, and Wikipedia doesn't tell you if 2 people undo the same edit! Kelpin 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Cribbins
I just noticed your warning on Voyage of the Damned - I haven't seen it myself but I am informed that its in this month's Doctor Who Magazine. (This comes from a Moderator on ). I won't add it myself unless I see a copy of the magazine but if you have a copy it might be worth checking. Kelpin 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK fair enough (on the Last of the Time Lords) - can we put this down to a misunderstanding. As for Bernard Cribbins - I hadn't heard that about Season 4, I know DWM is a reliable source but unless I see it with my own eyes I won't add it.  Have a good evening I'm going offline now until tomorrow.  Kelpin 18:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rambutan/Extra
Hi there. I'm afraid I've had to delete the page above as it contains content unsuitable for Wikipedia, it primarily exists to disparage the subjects mentioned and was created by a user whilst banned. If you could please refrain from recreating or reposting this content anywhere else on Wikipedia, this would be much appreciated. Kind Regards Nick 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive post
Even if it's not personally identifiable information, it was written by an IP of a banned user while they were banned. Will (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Edits by a banned user may be removed at any time, regardless of merit. (At the time of the thread, I didn't know the user was the IP of the banned). Will (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Banned users have no right to edit, therefore any contributions found to be by them while banned can and should be reverted on sight, regardless of namespace. Will (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any edits by a banned user, not just edits in the mainspace. Hell, 3RR says "it's fine to revert in your userspace endlessly, providing the content does not breach any of the other exceptions", which edits by a banned user is one of them. Will (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew's RfC
Hello. About Requests for comment/Matthew: first, I formatted one of your comments which in retrospect is a mistake because I'm pretty sure it was not your intention to support JetLover's outside view. However, the tradition is to avoid commenting on outside views unless you take it to the talk page and that's probably a pretty sound practice for many RfC's would otherwise be caught in an endless shouting match. In any case, you should consider moving that comment to the talk page yourself. Secondly, a few have taken issue with you labeling Matthew a "rude troll" and I have to agree that Matthew's incivility is not really an excuse to fire back with such strong words. I'm not going to make you change it but I'd appreciate you giving it a moment's thought. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)