User talk:Neutralhomer: Difference between revisions

KKCK

You have broken the 3RR on the aforementioned article (several times, actually). I am not blocking you at the moment because I do not doubt your intentions were good. That said, please be aware that any further reverts within the next day or so will result in a block. Thank you for understanding. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh?

I can't see it. - but my brain is tired. Did the editor ever post on my page under that ID? Just curious. :) - Sinneed (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page, you wrote:

"Actually it was to your user page. I should have outright reverted those. I misread which page they were on. But to answer your question, yes, they did. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)"

You may just answer me here (or there, be happy), I have been watching your page in case I can lend moral support. :)

Thanks for tagging that! I had edited that section and just didn't expand the watchlist collapse. The editor actually cut the warnings I had placed on the editor's talk page to me. I reverted it and warned the editor. - Sinneed (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :) Glad I could be of assistance :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback Sept 22

Hello, Neutralhomer. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

an/i

I think I made myself quite clear over AN/I what my intentions were and why I started the process (to not end up in an edit war and 3RR breach) and I think I presented the situation quite clearly. It's not my fault that it got archived with no resolution, and no response from an admin. All the other details are present at AN/I where I clearly explained what is the problem all about, why is not a content dispute but something that requires admin action which is long overdue, and why it can't be resolved through discussion with the other user (though I did try as well some other users involved) as the user in question is first of all irrational in the sense that he is twisting the situation so that according to him the stable version needs to be proven on talk page and not his recent blanking (which is in turn based on conspiracy theory that can not be a valid edit reason) and secondly because he has a history of disruptive behavior including several warnings, ANI reports and a block.

I am not taking the warning personally but I find it very unnecessary for a user (me) who brought the whole thing to your attention and for a user who brought it to your attention in order to avoid the thing that the warning is all about. Anyway I still thank you for some action because prior to it the only reaction from others was to dump this into archives or rename it.--Avala (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with your help, I just had a problem that my complaint was dumped into the archives without being resolved and then when I put it back no admin looked into it. Then I am also frustrated when they only skim through the complaint and make hasty decisions. I am also frustrated that when a disruptive user picks a random policy of Wikipedia and puts it into the edit summary as a reason for his vandal edit which has got nothing to do with that but with nationalism or anything unrelated to WP policy the user mentioned and what angers me even more when an admin says "well look there seems to be a problem with xx policy, that's a valid issue" without actually realizing it is all fake. Imagine if I go and blank any page and say "NPOV" or remove half of some page and say "no original research", would admins really tell the user that would normally revert such an edit to discuss the issues of npov and nor with me? It's ridiculous.--Avala (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

All these universities and their name changes

While the edit summaries were not perhaps what they should have been, the name change is sourced.

I have left a note for the protecting admin, asking that the page protection on the new name be dropped so that mere mortals can do the move, or that the admin do the move directly.

I also left a note at the talk page explaining, and an encouragement of civility at the name-change-editor's talk page.

All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 06:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Retired

Sorry if I'm stepping on your toes, but are you sure you are? I count about 150 edits since you retired... --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 13:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Retirment

Are you really retired because you have made many edits. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anesleyp (talk • contribs)

Television channels Wiki

Because of the problems we been having with old logos do to WP:NFCC, I have decided to start Television channels Wiki on Wikia. On Television channels Wiki you only need to have {{Fairuse}} on a logo to add it to an article. Powergate92Talk 03:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

admin's noticeboard

I have re-searched and reported your Labh Singh's related matter to Admins noticeboard. It was for your kind information only. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also on a related note; you don't have to post backlog notices on /i. I mean, you don't have to stop, either, but I feel bad for you doing all that extra work. It's fine either way, I guess. Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WACL

Thanks for keeping an eye on my talk page. That editor is certainly... passionate about his beliefs. Oh, and I've significantly expanded the WACL article, complete with detailed referencing, since while he was wrong about so many things he was right that it utterly lacked references to reliable sources. Now it's bulletproof. - Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WGGH

I'm in an "edit war" with 75.170.195.109 who keeps vandalizing the WGGH article with references to "pancake polkas" (it's a part of an inside joke on a radio industry message board). Any way to lock the article? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.174.11 (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Either way won't stop

I'm considering another RfC, but I may set in a rule for the next one. No pro-EW editors may edit that new one until at least 10 who felt wronged by them (me, you, and another whose name I forgot included). FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)