User talk:Booksworm/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
){kind=link}
Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 4 | 22 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag | WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness" |
| News and notes: Talk page template, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Logo founex.gif)
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:Logo founex.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 5 | 29 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
|
Happy First Edit Day, Booksworm/Archive 5, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
I'd e-mail you some Bosnian burek, but that's not really possible, so...yeah. Well, enjoy your day! Cheers - •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
| HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! | from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE | |
|---|---|---|
  Wishing Booksworm/Archive 5 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee | ||
- Happy First Edit Day on behalf of WP:BDC. --Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 06:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Happy FE day!!!
|
Happy First Edit day to you, Booksworm/Archive 5, from Gravity!!! Have a nice time! |
Have a nice day!--GravityTalk 12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 04:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Top Gear Dog, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DrFrench 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 08:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Children of Men
Hello. Thanks for attempting to convert an interpretation into a plot element, but could I ask you to provide a good, reliable source demonstrating that the sound of children laughing in the credits is a necessary (non-trivial) part of the plot synopsis? This topic has been discussed on the talk page and there is no consensus for inclusion. Please let me know what you think. —Viriditas | Talk 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are going to find that Viriditas is strongly opposed to including any mention of the laughter of children in the plotline, for reasons that are both unfathomable and entirely his own. As it is an observable part of the movie, it certainly belongs, but he will edit war with you about it, as is his habit. He has driven off editors with this tactic. I've taken the step and reversed the revert that removed your text about the laughter of children, and support your edit including it. However, you might want to seek an outside editor to get their take on the text, as I am sure that Viriditas will likely revert the text unremittingly, until he breaks 3rr.Arcayne 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Arcayne, could I ask to please assume good faith and not make spurious allegations about other editors? I am not strongly opposed to anything, and would love to see a discussion of the children laughing in the article. However, what I personally like or prefer is different from what we can source. Try to keep your personal beliefs and interpretations separate. Right now, the sound of children laughing in the credits is not considered a plot point; if you would like to discuss it in the article, find good, reliable sources. I'm looking for some right now. —Viriditas | Talk 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies, Booksworm; I forgot that i asked Viridtas to not respond on my Talk page anymore. Keep it to the Talk Page, sir. I do not assume good faith with you, as you have shown yourself to be unworthy of it by your trollish, uncivil behavior. You have caused three editors to retire from editing the article, simply because you were part of it. As far as "spurious allegations" go, who accused who of being either a sock or meat puppet?Arcayne 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Arcayne, you followed me here to attack and make incivil comments. Frankly, your comments above aren't supported in any way, however your edit history documents you trying to recruit meatpuppets to fight edit wars for you. Arcayne, if you can't stick to the topic in a civil manner, please don't reply. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 23:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies, Booksworm; I forgot that i asked Viridtas to not respond on my Talk page anymore. Keep it to the Talk Page, sir. I do not assume good faith with you, as you have shown yourself to be unworthy of it by your trollish, uncivil behavior. You have caused three editors to retire from editing the article, simply because you were part of it. As far as "spurious allegations" go, who accused who of being either a sock or meat puppet?Arcayne 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion is valuable
I don't think you are a meat-puppet, which is what has been suggested here. You are not the first person that the editor in question has chased off, but you can help be his last. I was hoping you could tell us all why you think the laughter of children is part of the movie. Remember that synopsis items, as part of the story, do not require citation - just observation. The editor doesn't consider it part of the movie and wants to remove it because no one has specifically mentioned it.Arcayne 03:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies to allowing my disappointment at the other editor to spill onto your page. You should feel free to blank the entire conversation, if that is your wish. I am deeply sorry that I exposed you to our disagreement.
- Your edit was good, and your thoughts well-considered. I certainly look forward to seeing more of you around here.Arcayne 08:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Your recent talk page edits
Regarding your recent edit to Viriditas's talk page and your threat that you will report him to the arbitration committee if he removes your message, please note that editors are allowed to remove any messages they like from their talk pages. This includes warnings. Furthermore, the arbitration committee only deals with serious disputes and would not be interested in such trivial rubbish. Thank you, Sarah 18:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sarah is right, Books. I am sorry that your support directed Viriditas' accusations at you. He is allowed to remove items from his talk page (they survive in the edit history forever, though). If you felt he has treated you uncivilly, you could simply forget him and enjoy your time here, or if truly bothered, you could take your opinions to an admin you know, and get their input. I don't want to render advice that would have Viriditas calling you a meat-puppet again. Some people in Wikipedia have no manners, just like the real world.Arcayne 12:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lastly, to show that a lot of folk seem to have ulterior motives in WP, Sarah appears to be a fairly good friend of Viriditas, as evidenced by recent posts here, here, here and here. I wouldn't go so far as to call her a meat puppet of Viriditas (I really hate that term), but I think it is odd that she wrote you right after you threatened Viriditas with ArbCom.
- If you want to know who someone is connected to, just look at the history for the user in question. You can see who they talk to and where they contribute. Anyway, I thought you might want to know that you were getting played a little by Viri and his friends.Arcayne 12:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I didn't think so, but your question made me read up on sock-puppets and meat-puppets (WP:SOCK). A user can get banned indefinitely for making sock-puppet accounts. As for meat-puppets, it is considered "highly inappropriate" to gather together meat-puppets to help you in a dispute in an article. That isn't what happened in the case of your involvement in the Children of Men article. You posted an opinion independently, and others (me and others) decided to defend that particular edit. Viriditas was wrong to call you (and others) meat-puppets, and him calling you such in more than one edit summary is even worse, because it damages your reputation in the WP community. Myself, I would complain about it, because I serve no other person but myself, although there are people who's edits I respect and usually agree with. It is up to you whatever you want to do, but if you need my help, I will help. If you don't want to pursue it beyond this, I will support that decision, too. However, you should know that Viriditas' bad bahavior did not begin with you, and until he somehow learns a lesson, it will likely continue.Arcayne 13:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)