User talk:WilyD/Archives/2008/February

Good idea.
Much more visible. Kudos! :) Jmlk  1  7  21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From ANI
Under the circumstances, it's the nicest thing to do and the most political thing to do to let people have their say and move on. If you want to make edits to the articles, use the template. Cheers, Wily D 17:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying here. --  tariq abjotu  17:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There's not point in blocking new accounts or IPs that'll just leave of their own accord anyways. All we can do here is let this blow over on its own. In addition, the Times story is somewhat favourable to us, but if we act harshly, we're likely to generate a lot of negative press. Meatpuppets isn't the right word - we're just dealing with clueless newbies - educating them on our practices is frustrating, but there's no reason to be dickish. Wily D 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The debate has long preceded The New York Times article, and this seems to have been a major issue since at least the beginning of January. I believe your fears about how the media would react are unfounded or at least unimportant. I say they're unfounded because I am finding it hard to believe the media would complain about us blocking the disruption that's clearly coming from these accounts and I say unfounded because it shouldn't make a difference how some media outlets (and not just the NYT) will react. The inclusion of the Muhammad images are heavily supported, by editors and by Wikipedia. Any further qualms about the images are being ironed out -- as they should be -- on the talk page, with a variety of appeasing proposals popping up here and there. I have no problem with people, even those vehemently against the images, commenting about the matter on the talk page. I do have a problem with those who simply show up and remove the image ad nauseum, with little to no interest of actually talking about their points. That's not being dickish, that's defending some of our most basic policies against people who couldn't care less about what they are.


 * Also, you don't need to tell me to use the editprotected template; I can just edit the article myself. --  tariq abjotu  18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Query
Hello. These seem rather malformed and misguided deletions. The original reasoning was "This practically duplicates Template:Countries of North America": the same can be said of any regional template and to me reflects excessive simplicity, e.g., compare South Africa with Southern Africa. I was unable to comment at the time. Do you think it's worth having a review of these template deletions? Thanks. Corticopia (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

new asteroid page
if you created new page, cut interwiki - it. pl. pt. (see: 9915 Potanin) - 213.158.196.66 (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * interwiki has each call almost asteroid (see it.wiki and pl.wiki) - 213.158.196.66 (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 9929 McConnell - this no problem cut interwiki in Your page:

- 213.158.196.98 (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * see polish interwiki
 * italian interwiki

Talk:Muhammad fight-fest
Thanks for pulling me back from the brink. She was getting under my skin. I've been trying to calm down about this, but at times, it can be difficult, especially when trolls like that are pushing my buttons for the sake of doing so. Thanks again. --Mhking (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me the reason why you threatened to block me if it is for 3RR are you not guilty yourself. BigDunc (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Supply the diffs or stop with the threats. BigDunc (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI, your friend seems to have used other accounts to circumvent the 3RR block you placed on her (which she admits to unrepentantly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/images&diff=189874392&oldid=189874049 ). Don't know if that means anything, or if it violates policy or anything else. It's just an FYI. I'm not going to interact with her any more; she appears to only desire to antagonize and fight with people who will not capitulate to her demands. --Mhking (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

enwiki-l
Thanks for pointing it out--although, I'll probably only read the archives--not post. And I've got to admit, "I want to at least kill the responsible person." is a catchy subject heading O_o --gren グレン 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

About 1978 NV4 you created
Please see Talk:1978 NV4. `'Míkka>t 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad (no images) AFD
Fair enough, I've undeleted the article and reopened the debate. I think this is a case of process for the sake of process though, given that there is no support to keep it, and the creator has even agreed with deletion. But, I'll leave it to run it's course. Regards, Resolute 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

JW message
I disagree. I consider it very helpful. --Raphael1 19:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning - AGF, NPA violation
. Note that making false or unsubstantiated accusations against WP editors can be seen as poisoning the well, in addition to violations of AGF and NPA. Consider yourself officially warned. My apologies. Lawrence §  t / e  20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Honourary"
It is "honorary" worldwide, see honorary degree (or any dictionary). --John (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed to see you've reverted me there. Rather than edit war, why not come up with a referenced opinion that this is considered a correct spelling by more than a few? Even Canadian English has no mention of "honourary". See my reply to you at my talk too. --John (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)