User talk:Pmlineditor/Archive 2
 | This page is an archive. Do not change this page. Make new comments on the current talk page. |
Careful
Watch your rollbacks. The user was removing vandalism. Either way (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- The edit previous to this user's edit was a rollback as well. Hence, I thought that that version was clean. I'll be more careful, though. Pmlinediter Talk 10:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I am removing previous vandalism, please go to discussion page. Also added dates for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.5.98 (talk • contribs)
The article Wijerd Jelckama, which I have written, is currently a Good Article nominee. It fits all the given criteria. Just thought I should inform you. :) Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a copy. It is different. It has been simplified. Mighty Wodan (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
It cannot be up for "quick" deletion anyway. It is a great article. Mighty Wodan (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Look, it is a close paraphrasing. It fits the criteria for A3. A3 applies to an article which "Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change". There is very little change in this case. Pmlinediter Talk 12:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll explain later. Pmlinediter Talk 12:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No, explain now! I have worked on this article, and many people have. It is a proposed good article and has been on the main page. Such articles don't get deleted all of a sudden. There has been much change, it is not exactly the same. It is nonsense you put a tag on it, and you aren't helping the project at all by doing so. Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please reduce your impatience? I am going to explain in a while. Pmlinediter Talk 12:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Look, I won't edit war over the tag. If you quarrel, I'll take it to AfD. Don't you realize that it is a clear copyvio? Ask the other editors to take a look at the enWP article. Pmlinediter Talk 12:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, once it has been deleted. That's helping me! I want the article to stay, don't you bloody get it? I haven't worked on it so that you would have it "quick deleted" for some shitty reason. It is a proposed good article, and tomorrow it will be GA. So leave it alone until then, please. Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't like this is "some random article", and it is a good article, understandable, easy to read, and interesting. What good is it to have it deleted? Can't you just let it be, what are you trying to prove by having it deleted? A article that would have otherwise been a GA by tomorrow... Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Look, it is a GFDL vio, and by complaining that won't change. I won't add QD tags if you so wish, but I'll take it up at AfD. I have an exam on Monday and really can't write a lengthy reply now. Pmlinediter Talk 12:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- It isn't like this is "some random article", and it is a good article, understandable, easy to read, and interesting. What good is it to have it deleted? Can't you just let it be, what are you trying to prove by having it deleted? A article that would have otherwise been a GA by tomorrow... Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Most articles here are copied from EN wiki and rewritten. This article is no different. It has been DYK for over a week on the main page. Nobody had a problem with it. Just let it be please, it is senseless and stupid. Just wait until tomorrow, don't try to have a great article deleted (GA nominee and former DYK). Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. I won't quarrel, but I have a last point to make. Tell me the truth, has it indeed been rewritten except for a few words? If this is the nature of this Wikipedia, I'll be happy to leave it. Pmlinediter Talk 12:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good to see that you're working on the article. Pmlinediter Talk 12:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. I won't quarrel, but I have a last point to make. Tell me the truth, has it indeed been rewritten except for a few words? If this is the nature of this Wikipedia, I'll be happy to leave it. Pmlinediter Talk 12:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
It is the nature of this wiki, so leave it if you will. Thanks for your understanding. I'm looking forward to seeing the article reach GA status tomorrow morning. Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Did you not change you opinion? In that case, sorry for reverting your vote... Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. ;) Pmlinediter Talk 12:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Did you not change you opinion? In that case, sorry for reverting your vote... Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least I still have more then 70% of the votes in favour of promoting the article, and that is all I need. ;) Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
CHU
I'm slightly confused - the username you're requesting to be usurped was taken about 10 minutes ago, presumably by you? Is there a reason why you cannot use this account? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Simple News Issue 7
 | |||||||||||
| Issue 7 - 8th June 2009 67,135 editors, 59,528 articles, 143,118 pages. | |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Announcements | ♥ | Administrators | |||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
|
[Subscribe] [Archives] [Discussion] [The Team] |
| |||||||||
Three Revert Rule
Please be careful when undoing edits. When you reverted the addition of a QD tag, three times, it was in violation of our Three Revert Rule. Please take time to read this and other policies - further breaches may result in your account being blocked for a period of time. If you have any queries, please don't hesitate to contact me. Regards, Goblin 18:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
- The three revert rule is violated at four reverts. While this obviously doesn't give anybody the right to edit war, I just thought I'd point that out. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have two points to make:-
- a) I am well aware of the three revert rule as you might see from enWP. I reverted twice and did not revert for the third time since that would come near to violating the three revert rule
- b) The removal of QD tags and the uncivil comments on my TP by Mighty Wodan are a gross vio of Simple's policies. I feel that I have a fair understanding of policies, and would have forbidden Wodan to edit war lest he violated 3RR unless I got into those "Change Conflicts".
- Cheers, Pmlinediter Talk 07:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC).
Bad news
I'm sorry for the bad news I just saw you wrote on the IRC channel. Hope you'll be back soon! -- Mercy (☎|✍) 11:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on there. Instead of using the done template, if you could just clear the list of the entries that were done... and if no entries remain... use *list empty* in the edit summary... administrators will see this in the watchlist, and will not check the page. This will save a step. :) Thank you again for you work! Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Template link
Hi! I'm not sure if you are aware of its existence but instead of writing <nowiki>{{talkheader}}</nowiki> you could have used the template link template like {{tl|talkheader}} which winds up looking like {{talkheader}}. Hope this helps! :) fr33kman talk 18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Did I use nowiki? I thought I used t1. Must have messed it up. Pmlinediter Talk
Simple News Issue 8
| | |||||||||
| Issue 8 - 22th June 2009 69,053 editors, 59,757 articles, 144,395 pages. | |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Announcements | ♥ | Administrators | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
[Subscribe] [Issues] [Discussion] [The Team] |
| |||||||
Adminship of Philosopher
Hi, I have finished the nomination of Philosopher for adminship here. You indicated a desire to support it with a co-nom. Perhaps you'd like to add that now? Cheers :) fr33kman talk 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
Too darned funny when the vandals start hijacking one's username. It means I'm doing my job. Too bad he didn't do it at English; it would have been fun to block him myself. Glad someone else clobbered him here. Thank you very much for the kind words, BTW. Much obliged. Yours, the original --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Michael Jackson
I was going to change that to singer but I'll leave it now. How is he more of an entertainer? --Tb240904 (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Per en:Michael Jackson, an FA. Also, not only his songs, but his dance is also popular. Regards, Pmlineditor 11:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC).