User talk:Jamesofur/Archive 3
 | 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. |
Simple News Issue 16
|
| ||||||
|
| |||||
–Juliancolton | Talk 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Your signature
Hi James. :) If you could, could you nowiki the pipe character in your sig? It's causing some issues with some templates, as your recent block notice can attest to. Thanks. :) Lauryn Ashby (d) 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- ahh! hadn't thought about that :) If your bored come on IRC ;) James (T|C) 06:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Just sent you an email message, when you have a chance. :) Yours, Lauryn Ashby (d) 01:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Importing
I fail. Sorry. Lauryn Ashby (d) 02:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- No worries ;) James (T C) 02:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ohai
|
Just a happy birthday message to you, Jamesofur, from Pmlineditor! Have a great day! |
Pmlineditor ∞ 10:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was so going to do this when I got home from school, but looks like Pmlineditor beat me to it. :p Happy Birthday, James! I hope that it has been a good one. Lauryn Ashby (d) 19:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No answer
Why do ou never answer? --Raymondnivet (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You wrote that:
- Thank you both for your comments. Raymond: I restored and moved the article to your user space at User:Raymondnivet/Ophélie_Bretnacher_disappearance If you think you can improve it please feel free and me or another admin can move it back out. I would encourage you to specifically focus on trying to explain why its important beyond the actual case itself, to bring it out of the 1 event issue. I would also guess that if it survives in fr others there will have ideas as well on good things to add. Kate: don't worry I noticed it and thought it was worth noting, more about how complicated it was then anything. I should also note for the record (which I forgot as another point on my close) that I did think a bit about BLP. While obviously it isn't strictly a BLP there has been a long standing tradition of recently dead being treated, at least partly, as such because of the connections to the living. This does not mean that it can't be an article, just that you should be careful when you talk about other people etc. James (T|C) 23:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
And then no answer !
I redid and redid again the Ophélie Bretnacher page.... And it'was always deleted.
SO I give up Ophélie Bretnacher, and I give up simple to !
Bye --Raymondnivet (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Raymond, I apologize for my lack of response, I was very busy over the holidays and just recently have been able to free more time up. It was in no way a slight towards yourself. I did notice that some others had spoken to you (most notably Lauryn/Katernka and was under the impression that it was being taken care of, again I apologize for not following up on it more. I do think that the comment that was made by Lauryn earlier about having a deletion review discussion may be the best way to go (to make sure the community belies it should stay since it is not solely my decision) but I will take a look at it now and give you my own opinion. James (T C) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am satisfied, I am moving it out now. If others disagree with me they may of course want a discussion but I am satisfied it meets the requirements and is different enough not to need a deletion review discussion. James (T C) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
A big thank you for your own, but very effective answer. Sincerely--Raymondnivet (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
One month and half of persecution
It's not possible . Katerenka asks for the 5 th (yes !!!) time the deletion of Ophélie Bretnacher. It will be without me. It's great, great persecution. So I give up...--Raymondnivet (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy note
You might be interested in this request for deletion. Regards, Lauryn Ashby (d) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- already commented :) at least for the first one James (T C) 23:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, I didn't notice. :) I just wanted to make sure that you were aware. Lauryn Ashby (d) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
What is WP:SNOW ?
- Delete: New year, same answer. Even though it passed muster for the French Wikipedia (barely, by one vote), I have serious doubts about it belonging here. I am also troubled by Raymond's recreation of deleted content both here and on EN-wiki. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC) I am willing to change to Neutral and allow for a SNOW close. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Excuse me to disturb you, but I don't understand
what is happening to the page on Ophélie B. ? What does it means ? --Raymondnivet (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- when he says that he means an early closure per WP:SNOW which means that it closes early because it is obvious what everyone wants. He is saying that he is ok with changing to neutral to allow it to be closed as keep (because of how many people who have already voted keep). James (T C) 22:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Rollback
Hi James. :) Do you happen to know what I would need to do to change the rollback summary (not just mine, but the default for everyone)? I've looked all over MediaWiki space but cannot seem to find it. Lauryn☆ 03:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- sure :) MediaWiki:Revertpage and MediaWiki:Rollback-success James (T C) 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why? fr33kman 03:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Because we changed "change this page" to "edit this page" and so on, so I need to change "reverted changes by" to "reverted edits by". Thanks, James. Lauryn☆ 03:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Cool! Was just wondering :) fr33kman 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I thought about putting something funny in there ("Reverted edits by $2 to last version by $3 [hi fr33kman! ;p]) but decided MediaWiki space probably wouldn't be the best place to joke around in. :p </kidding> Lauryn☆ 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Now, you see, that I could appreciate. After all, if this place is not funz, why are we here lol :P fr33kman 03:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I thought about putting something funny in there ("Reverted edits by $2 to last version by $3 [hi fr33kman! ;p]) but decided MediaWiki space probably wouldn't be the best place to joke around in. :p </kidding> Lauryn☆ 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Cool! Was just wondering :) fr33kman 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Because we changed "change this page" to "edit this page" and so on, so I need to change "reverted changes by" to "reverted edits by". Thanks, James. Lauryn☆ 03:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Ha
No, I really do walk all talk pages that I edit. :p Thanks for the typo fix. Lauryn☆ 01:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Checkuser
As one of our more active checkusers, there is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Justification for checks that you may be interested in participating in. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 00:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Simple News: Issue Seventeen
|
| ||||||||
|
| |||||||
Pmlineditor ∞ 12:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Simple News: Issue Eighteen
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Simple News: Issue Nineteen
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||