User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Dec

Stay off of my talk page
Your arrogance is outstanding and I have no further desire to communicate with you. Do not leave messages on my talk page again.--TM 15:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, when making a request to someone, personal attacks aren't a good means of ingratiating yourself. They are also frowned upon generally here at Wikipedia. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► senator ─╢ 15:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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. Thank you.--TM 15:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Result—Namiba's complaint ruled to be "frivolous" – ╟─ Treasury Tag ► pikuach nefesh ─╢ 16:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─ Treasury Tag ► duumvirate ─╢ 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Giftiger wunsch
has apparently declined to voluntarily avoid interaction with and regarding me, despite our significant past animosity, and despite their alleged view that editors who bicker should try to stay away from each other. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► cabinet ─╢ 16:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC) (archive-now) ╟─ Treasury Tag ► duumvirate ─╢ 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning regarding POINT violations
Please note that edits such as this (as well as this) are disruptive, and violate WP:POINT. You've been warned about this kind of behaviour before (regarding Giano). Any further disruptive editing may result in a block. At this point the best thing you can do is leave this well alone (e.g. stop making comments such as the ones here). - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think that either of those are POINTy and thus have no idea what you wish me to refrain from, so cannot moderate my conduct accordingly. Block me now if you consider it appropriate. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► First Secretary of State ─╢ 17:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please take the time to read through WP:POINT. It's clear you're upset that consensus seems to be that you should not be making petty comments at other's talk pages after they have asked you to stop doing so (e.g. Giano's talk page, Namiba's talk page). The correct response to this is not to then try and apply this to other users (i.e. just because you want them not to post on your talk page they have to stop). Or in your view enforce it consistently. As I mentioned, at this point I do not think a block is the most appropriate action (and consensus at ANI seems to agree here). I think the best action is for you to simply leave this issue alone. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This was transparently not POINTy. It was not disruptive (rather, it was intended to avoid future disruption), nor did it seek to make a point: it sought to achieve a constructive conclusion. You will, therefore, excuse me doubting your ability to assess such issues in the future. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► prorogation ─╢ 17:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but pretending that your comment to Giftiger wunsch was intended to "achieve a constructive conclusion" isn't really helping us move forward here. It's very clear that it was simply a retaliation from you, because Giftiger expressed support for you not editing Namiba's talk page, you decided to make a POINT, by requesting that he not edit your talk page. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that you're not familiar with Giftiger's and my history of animosity, then, which generally takes the pattern of Giftiger taking every possible opportunity to argue against my actions in any ANI thread on any topic. I can only suggest that if you refuse to look into the back-history, you don't assume that I am retaliating and pretending. Any further comments from you which are assuming bad faith will be removed. I am happy to continue this discussion in any other vein, however. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► stannary parliament ─╢ 17:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just finding it very difficult to believe that you are not attempting to make a point when the following happens: you get into a debate over if you should be allowed to post to another user's talk page after they have requested you not to. Another editor expresses the view that you should not be permitted to do so. You then request that that editor do not edit your talk page. When they apparently decline to stop posting to your talk page, you make a statement that says as much, while linking of their comment saying that you should stop commenting after being asked to stop. Regardless of proir history this is not acceptable. In addition, you appear to have a battleground mentality, as you are holding grudges (speaking about a "history of animosity"), and apparently making point-y edits (so far the only way you've denied this is by insisting that I'm assuming bad faith (despite me providing plenty of evidence supporting the theory that your edits were point-y), or by insisting that you were attempting to reach a "constructive conclusion". Maybe you simply had a lack of foresight, but I wouldn't say you've achieved that goal..). - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just finding it very difficult to believe that you are not attempting to make a point – well you may just have to cope with that. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► consulate ─╢ 17:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to make your baseless accusations public rather than continuing to talk crap behind my back, you know where ANI is. The next time you make groundless accusations completely misrepresenting my actions and/or make personal attacks about me, I'll be taking it to ANI.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing on Wikipedia is behind anybody's back. My contributions are accessible to all, and you seem to have a particular knack in that department. Every edit to every page is preserved for all time in the page history. You know this as well as I do. If you consider this to be "crap" and a "groundless accusation" then please do feel free to take me to ANI, to start an RfC, request Arbitration, whatever. I welcome scrutiny. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sundries ─╢ 22:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, the other point is that if you repeatedly instruct me not to edit your talkpage then it is surely not surprising that I do not keep you abreast of my activities. Yet another reason why all this "behind my back" whining is complete nonsense. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► constablewick ─╢ 22:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to invite one and all to end this thread and have some tea, perhaps in large measures.

It may be worth noting that if Wikipedians reach the point of needing to request that others do not post on their user talk pages, they probably should also not post on the other one's talk page. Otherwise, they're (at best) confusing the issue. They should also bear in mind that this approach, while sadly sometimes necessary, will mean dialogue is going to be impaired. --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Come on!
It's Saturday night. Surely you have something better to do than bicker with GW at ANI? Put the telly on, go to the pub or something. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm intermittently finishing off work from during the week as it happens, but I'm obviously not going to let "PROVE IT OR ITS A PERSONALL ATTACK" stand for longer than necessary. I have no intention of engaging further until or unless there is further discussion there. If you want to close the section, of course, I wouldn't object in the slightest! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► high seas ─╢ 20:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─ Treasury Tag ► duumvirate ─╢ 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden RFC/U
FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. Snotty Wong  soliloquize 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you assist with a picture deletion?
I seem to remember you're a dab hand at cleaning up inappropriate images. This image (File:Delphine LaLaurie.jpg) is a screen rip from a YouTube video depicting a painting painted in the last 20 years and still under copyright. The picture is not itself notable and depicts a notable person who died a very long time before the picture was painted. I'm therefore pretty sure it's not in any possible way subject to either public domain or fair use. I've never got my head around the process for getting images deleted; is there any chance you could start things in motion for me? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ ╟─ Treasury Tag ► prorogation ─╢ 08:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pie for you!
Arakunem Talk 19:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy ANI notice
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that you have been invoked at ANI, here. You're not central to the issue, but you are mentioned prominently enough that you certainly should have been notified. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry christmas!


Merry christmas!-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  16:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

reply from Jeff
Hi, hope I'm doing this right. Thanks for the welcome note, I am new at this (and to Doctor Who, for that matter), and learning the ropes, so to speak. Regarding your comment, I thought I was contributing to the article's improvement, although apparently not terribly clearly. I don't mean to argue, I do appreciate gentle correction, take it in the spirit it's offered... I just wanted to let you know I "heard" and am not wantonly throwing in comments. Not anymore, anyway. ;-) Jeff (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Source for Canada–Tonga relations
Hi. I have a question about a source that you mentioned at WP:Articles for deletion/Canada–Tonga relations: "Google Scholar seems to suggest that this covers the topic a bit, but I can't find an online copy.diff"

The Amazon UK page lists it as Employment and Industrial Relations in the South Pacific: Samoa, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji Islands, but the cover image title is Employment and Industrial Relations in the South Pacific: Samoa, Tonga, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Fiji Islands.

Would you please describe the level of coverage (e.g. number of paragraphs or pages) relevant to Canada–Tonga relations? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)