This page 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.
I have lost all emails sent to me before April 2009, so no longer have the email from Michael Gove's staff. If you email them, I'm sure they would verify that they agreed for it to be freely used. Larklight (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Waters of Mars
Pointing out that the BBC seemed to be issuing red herrings ( a viewpoint shared by at least one other editor ) and making no effort at all to insert it into the article is not claiming ad nauseum that their original research deserved to be inserted into the article it is simply pointing out something that may need to be checked out in future reports about the episode in DWM etc .
As for them "being disruptive " continually closing a thread is not helpful .Garda40 (talk)
So be it if you want to call reverting you twice and pointing out then I'm not going to go 3RR "revert-warring" .I would have had time possibly to improve (or even discuss) the associated article if I wasn't doing that .Garda40 (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
What does all this mean then [1]. As I said I only got into this because of the comment above mine. I did not watch confidential until Monday but I don't like the way you go about your business. Shall we have a truce. I am sure some Doctor Who expert will sort it out. I am only an interested fan or I would have edited.REVUpminster (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Porcupine
If you hadn't nominated those pictures I wouldn't have brought it up but I feel it is very relevant considering you did and frankly speaking I don't have to make you look bad you do that job all on your own quite well and I'm even more convinced about that when you decided to drag up what was part of of a dispute with you over signatures [2] with this edit[3] .Garda40 (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not dragging up "part of a dispute over signatures" – it's not a dispute. You have to sign your messages, and you are 100% in the wrong if you don't... no dispute, no discussion, no negotiation. Read the policy.
Comments such as "I don't have to make you look bad you do that job all on your own quite well," are grossly incivil and unacceptable in a collaborative environment.
I am not stalking you, stalking REVUp, or trying to irritate either of you. If you wish to allege harassment, then please do so, but badmouthing me on talkpages is completely inappropriate. Please accept that we are all working towards a better Wikipedia and stop insisting that everything I do is motivated by hate, jealousy and envy, and stop dragging up my entire past just to make yourself look impressive. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 08:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not dragging up "part of a dispute over signatures" – it's not a dispute. You have to sign your messages, and you are 100% in the wrong if you don't... no dispute, no discussion, no negotiation. Read the policy.
As you were told at the time [4] and as I see is still the requirement [5] it is good practice and even you seem to accept that here [6].
Pointing out your own behaviour isn't helping your case isn't grossly incivil
I never said you were stalking me since that is persistent behaviour ,it's you who has brought that word up . I pointed out something you did in the past to someone you appear to have done something similar to now .
stop insisting that everything I do is motivated by hate, jealousy and envy
You are bringing that wording up not me . I can't even figure out how "hate, jealousy and envy" would be/are motivation factors in what you did/do .
stop dragging up my entire past . Two or three incidents is your entire past ? I have no desire to go into your entire past but I do recall incidents that occurred with me Garda40 (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason for you to not sign pages. If you have one, please explain it. If you don't, then please sign
Check my talk page history and you will see I do sign pages and have 99% of the time .The fact is you have encountered occasions when I didn't and then said it it is a requirement and I pointed out it is "good practice" Garda40 (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
If your reason for not signing is that you forgot to sign, then say so. Defending it by claiming, "it's not a requirement" implies that that is actually your excuse, which I have an issue with. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I did say that or words to that effect anyway [7] in that archive thread but I will still point out it is not a requirement .
You may require it on your talk page , which is fair enough for your talk page , but it is not a requirement anywhere else .Garda40 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Note also that there are now 'bots that will take care of double-redirects within 24 hours (or you could fix them yourself). Jheald (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know all about the naming conventions, thank-you; please see Alan Sugar and Margaret Thatcher for instances where the convention is deliberately waived for those who were better known under their pre-noble names. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 13:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The policy page says that that exception is not to be applied "unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name" (my italic). A quick google-news for "Baroness Ashton" shows that that is not the case [8]. Compare Baroness Scotland, who similarly achieved greatest notice only after she had already been made a member of the House of Lords. Jheald (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It is blatantly obvious that nobody is "exclusively" referred to by their pre-noble title, so your argument breaks down if you are going to make an absolutely literal interpretation of the convention. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that I don't insist upon the article being called Cathy Ashton – I just resent your apparent position that I am so contemptibly in the wrong! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 14:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
How is an internal reference to events from another episode of The Sarah Jane Adventures (about a Judoon ban on extraterrestrial travel) not related to continuity???--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It is clearly expressed as a plot-point (as in, it doesn't say, "Sarah Jane's mention of a Judoon ban on interplanetary travel refers to the episode Whatever.") – it says, "Sarah Jane mentioned X to Rani..." which would go adequately in the plot section. Because of the problems with trivia collections like continuity-lists, phrasing needs to be very tight and focuseed. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 13:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to improve the wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
International Relations revision
Appreciate your watching for inappropriate edits, but you undid my attempt to remove a link to the Diplomacy Monitor page. It is true that that page still exists but it notes that the service is no longer in operation, which is the case. The information therefore is useless to a user seeking international relations research. You might want to reconsider your reversion. I was only trying to be helpful.
--Ashley Rootberski (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The Soviet Union no longer exists, but we still have an article on it and it is still of use to those researching. I appreciate that you were trying to help, however! ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 16:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that user talk pages of indefinitely blocked sock puppets are usually redirected to their user pages. Is there any reason why this shouldn't apply to Launchballer? SUL (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
speedy deletions
Hi I am declining your copyright speedy deletions requests from wikiwat [17], as it is a Wikipedia mirror, copying the content from here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
