User:TeleComNasSprVen/The Piggy Bank/14¢
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Rest of 2011
Non-admin closures of controversial subjects
I'll give you an opportunity to undo this edit [1]. You obviously aren't really up on the delta situation, and the immediate problem hasn't been dealt with. There is a reason we let discussions run a day so that people from all time zones can contribute. The discussions are still on-going.--Crossmr (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Many people have voiced disapproval of your proposal, and in particular your hounding of Delta, especially given this thread just further up the page. Are you going to continue the proposal until you gain one support? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Massem already posted and stated he agree that Delta should be limited to 1RR or 2RR on NFCC What I do go back to is my suggestion from the last time Delta was here: that he should not be exceeding 1 or 2RR without attempting to engage in discussion on an appropriate talk page, and MJRoots comment, while not stating "Support" as it's header, clearly states that he disagrees with Delta's edits. Δ should not be deleting images because there is a minor error in a FUR. You might wish to more clearly read discussions before you close them, and on my talk page, and administrator stated that he should that I should start the thread I think that you should present what you sent me in the email in a public forum, and I would support your analysis. However, it's likely night/work time where he his since he hasn't edited since that time. Discussions are not a tallying of the people who have written support or oppose and if you think that, you really shouldn't be closing discussions. Oh, and I had nothing to do with the complaint in the other thread.--Crossmr (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see the point in continuing to hafta beat this guy with a schtick whilst he's down. There's been three threads on ANI right now — that's right, I said three — where Delta has been blocked and/or sanctioned, and in two out of those three threads already each of the blocking decisions unilaterally made by some administrator was subsequently overturned. Why waste more sleep and kilobytes asking for more sanctions on it? P.S. Note that I had read Masem's comment and interpreted differently, that if you disagree with the way Delta handles the NFCC rules that'd be a reason to change the rules themselves rather than having facepalms trying to change Delta. Masem is not an arbitrator nor the end-all to some community consensus. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Massem already posted and stated he agree that Delta should be limited to 1RR or 2RR on NFCC What I do go back to is my suggestion from the last time Delta was here: that he should not be exceeding 1 or 2RR without attempting to engage in discussion on an appropriate talk page, and MJRoots comment, while not stating "Support" as it's header, clearly states that he disagrees with Delta's edits. Δ should not be deleting images because there is a minor error in a FUR. You might wish to more clearly read discussions before you close them, and on my talk page, and administrator stated that he should that I should start the thread I think that you should present what you sent me in the email in a public forum, and I would support your analysis. However, it's likely night/work time where he his since he hasn't edited since that time. Discussions are not a tallying of the people who have written support or oppose and if you think that, you really shouldn't be closing discussions. Oh, and I had nothing to do with the complaint in the other thread.--Crossmr (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll be a little more blunt: You had no business closing that discussion, and I intend to undo your action. If Crossmr thought the discussion was over, he could have closed it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't have to, as someone else had (un)done it already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- A bit late to the party, sir... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, I nearly reverted you immediately, last night, but decided not to at that time. Next time, I won't hesitate. If there is a next time. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, maybe you'll keep this in mind the next time you think about closing someone else's discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've done it before. Nevertheless, I don't intend to revert war on something which is bound to fail. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've done it before. Nevertheless, I don't intend to revert war on something which is bound to fail. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- A bit late to the party, sir... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Request for clarification
Your request for clarification has been closed. The Arbitration Committee did not feel that there is any further action to be taken in this matter. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(Alleged) existence of God
My fault in not removing the redirect when I reversed the move on the article. I've deleted it. BTW, I've move-protected the article against any attempt to move it back again immediately. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
CSD notification
The page Moneywise looks like it may be a valid CSD, but I prefer not to delete a page unless the creator has been notified. I understand that sometimes automated tools fail to do the notification for some reason. Not sure if that was the case, but could you make the notification?SPhilbrickT 01:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've notified the original author of the page in this edit for reference. However, the author has not contributed to Wikipedia in at least two years, so it's unlikely he/she will respond in time. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User pages
Hi TCNSV,
I see that you re-added a link to the VP discussion to the Wikipedia:User pages policy page. Would you mind removing it, or at least changing the link target to the ongoing talk page discussion, please? Please see: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Removal of current block notices. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.