User talk:Turian/Archives/2009/September

Brad Pitt

Hey Turian, sorry to bother you, but I was maybe hoping if you can copy-edit Brad Pitt's article, as I'm trying to aim the article to Featured article status. This past June, the article failed its FAC, due to the article not having a good prose. So, before a second nomination takes place, I need someone to copy-edit the article. If you have time, I would appreciate your help a lot. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Turian, you don't know how grateful I am you accepted, thank you. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for copy-editing the article and I apologize for not letting you know about the article being long. I am grateful for you doing this and here you go:

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I, ThinkBlue, hereby award Turian the Copyeditor's Barnstar for copy-editing the Brad Pitt article to ensure that it will pass FA. Thanks and keep up the good work. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, thank you. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

BB 2009 (UK)

Hi, this message has been sent to you in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices

It concerns the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#Cite_Episode_template

leaky_caldron (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a straw poll to the discussion in order to gather consensus. Dale 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop What?

I am Gregory Jackson, associated with this project. There appears to be left off info that was not listed here. Who gave this info? Please read the Album inside and back cover or contact me for what GOD loves "The Truth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregjacksoninc (talk • contribs) 07:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

[1] Just shout me if you want it lifted sooner. ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 08:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations totals debate

As a regular editor to Big Brother 2009 (UK), I am writing to inform you about this discussion on the aforementioned issue. Dale 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox edit

The IP Address that edited my sandbox was my own IP Address, I forgot I wasn't logged in. So if you see that IP edit my sandbox there is no need to revert. --12george1 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks..

...for this. See ya 'round Tiderolls 22:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Philadelphia Eagles roster

Hi, the reverts you made using HG to the above page were incorrect and subsequently IP 71.248.251.9 has a warning on his talk that could potentially be elevated by HG or other users despite the IPs contributions being valid. Might I suggest removing the warning and instead, if you wish, leaving a note about edit summaries as that was essentially all they did wrong (which isn't the crime of the century considering he's a new editor) cheers. RaseaC (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Being able to revert is not the point and it's worrying that you think otherwise. I would like you to re-consider retracting the warning you left of the IP's talk or leaving an explanatory note, alternatively I could. This doesn't need admin intervention, so don't get it to that point. There's no shame in owning up to a mistake. RaseaC (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oogliebooglie fish

I undid the your undo of Oogliebooglie fish. It was a PROD he removed not a speedy delete. I did however add a db-author, since now the author requested the page get deleted. He didn't do anything wrong removing the PROD as you probably know anybody can. --Abc518 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Turian!

Thanks for the speedy revert to my talk page. However, I think he'll be back again. Apparently he has an "auto IP changer" and is so super-cool that we can't block him no matter what ;).

Thanks again for keeping Wikipedia clean,

~SpK 02:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you save my talk page; and even do the AIV report for me! Thanks again!

~SpK 03:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the AN discussion, and a big thanks for you supporting my right to express myself! Thanks!! CTJF83Talk 07:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for all of your comments on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding my Rollback rights. I really appreciate it. Regards.--David | ^Talk 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Turian. Just signed up for Wiki. Just wondering why you deleted the E*Vax entry for Craig Wendren. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmerritt1 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank for you reverting vandalism on my user page (twice now) --Abc518 (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

September 11 attacks talk page: forum-style discussions

Someone asks a legitimate question (why is the rumor about the emergency telephone number not covered in the article), another editor transforms that into a forum-style discussion, and you are deleting the whole section, instead of contacting that editor and reminding him that WP is not a forum. I do not agree with this approach.  Cs32en  23:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with the article: I noticed that the date that the attacks took place is 9/11 or September 11th, but Americans write it down as 9/11 right? Now in America the number to call the police is also 9-1-1. So did the Al-Qaeda do this on purpose?? I mean did they want to make America look like they were in need of help ( 9/11 = 9-1-1 ) but no one could .. :s not really sure to be honest. Thanks. –túrian^patois 23:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a comment from a new user (unless the account turns out to be a sock), so I interpreted it that way. We cannot assume that new users know about Wikipedia talk page guidelines, and it's best not to delete their comments, so that we do not discourage them. I've also seen (just now) that you removed an inappropriate attack on another user [2]. Although I fully agree that the attack is inappropriate (and a check user request would be the way to go), it's not an attack of a kind that needs to be deleted. I'd rather address the respective editors in such cases, and take it to the respective places for user-related issues, if necessary.  Cs32en  01:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't make special cases for new users, and the entire conversation was digressing towards something bad. So I removed it. –túrian^patois 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't make special cases for new users after informing them about the relevant policies and guidelines.  Cs32en  01:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it was a policy violation, so I wasn't planning on keeping it based on the fact that he was a new user. –túrian^patois 01:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not a policy violation. Please don't do this again. Thanks. --John (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How was it not? The question was irrelevant to the article. It ask about information on the topic in a forum manner. So, I ask again, how was it not a policy violation? –túrian^patois 14:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As has been stated on the talk page itself, the coverage of air defense on 9/11 is a notable and verifiable one which should be discussed in the article. Saying so is thus neither "forum-like" nor a violation of policy. --John (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I obviously beg to differ. Why were they saying "if you don't agree with us"? That implicitly tells me they are talking about fringe. Did you even read the sentence that was proposed? That is the ultimate opposite of NPOV. And if they continue, I am going straight to Arbitration, since this has been discussed before without anyone following the sanctions of even heeding them. –túrian^patois 14:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) As Cs32en says above, if you feel a discussion is drifting off-topic, say so. If you feel a particular remark is inappropriate, say so. Archiving the whole discussion was inappropriate, as it is not on the face of it an unencyclopedic or unreasonable subject for discussion. --John (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

People who always talk about fringe, talking about the "inefficiency" of the military? How can you say that is not fringe? –túrian^patois 15:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I can say that because I am able to assume good faith. If and when you find yourself unable to do that, you should stand aside and let others deal with it, or else pass the matter on to someone else. --John (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When assuming good faith conflicts with logic and intuition, I usually take the logic route. And I will continue to do so. –túrian^patois 20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure. As the guideline puts it, "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." I certainly didn't see strong evidence to the contrary in the example we are talking about. Did you? If you did, what was it? --John (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay and more...

Ok i will not do it again , and i am trying to get experience with Rollback so how do i know what level im at so i can apply again to be rollback.' -- Dwayneflanders | ^Talk 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh... I am in no mood to give advise to you. Sorry, but you have not proven yourself worthy to have it (not that I can give it or anything). You have a sockpuppet, you made a boogus RfA, you disrupted the rollback page, you disrupted the sockpuppet case page. I will advise every single administrator to not give it to you if you ask for it more. –túrian^patois 02:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Turian. Rollbackers have to have shown integrity and experience. In the last 3 or 4 days that you have been active on your account (during the first year since you created it, you only made 3 edits), you have behaved in a way which seems very distruptive to me and to others. To be honest, I don't think Turian would have to advise any admins at all - a look at your contributions will show the ridiculous RfA, the disruptive behaviour on the rollback page and the attempted blanking of the sockpuppet case page. The fact that these behaviours show that you do not understand how Wikipedia works (everything you do is kept - ok, there are a few very exceptional circumstances when contributions can be permanently removed from the view of editors and admins, but none of your edits would qualify for that - and anyone can see anything you have done on existing pages, and any admins can see all your contributions to deleted pages as well) - all of this shows me that you are not ready for rollbacker permissions, let alone adminship. I would give you the advice others have given you - walk away for a bit (a few days or a couple of weeks), calm down, think things over - and then come back ready to work constructively on Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Brown ambiguity

Hello, I'm going to change back your revert. For a non-Colts or non-Dolphins fan, it might be confusion between Ronnie Brown and Donald Brown. It doesn't hurt to be more clear. Dr. Clutch (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad with the word deletions though, that was a mistake my firewall made. Dr. Clutch (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright

thanks for the reminder! DellLaptop! 23:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)