| Revision as of 15:33, 26 January 2008 editZenwhat (talk | contribs)Rollbackers4,094 edits →Sorry, jumped the gun.: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:43, 7 January 2024 edit undo2603:6081:7800:41c2:e1c3:189b:3058:139b (talk)No edit summary | ||
| (289 intermediate revisions by 91 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|3=December 2013}} | |||
| welcome ] 23:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userpage bar}} | |||
| ==Rezon8 Living== | |||
| <div style="border: 3px solid #C80815; background-color: #AADBE0; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 10px 0px; font-size: 90%"> | |||
| <center><big>'''Welcome to the User talkpage of SaltyBoatr'''{{Busy}}</big><br> | |||
| <hr> | |||
| If you ] me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. <br>'''If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.'''<p><b>*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. | |||
| <br>*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. | |||
| <br>*Sign your post using four tildes (<nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki>)</b> | |||
| </div> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 75K | |||
| |counter = 2 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:SaltyBoatr/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archive box}} | |||
| Am hoping for some clarification of your suggestion for deletion. Information that paints an accurate picture does not in and of itself equal Vanity because it is positive. I would suggest that WIKI being what it is, others will no doubt be able to contribute and that, in doing so, an accurate picture is revealed. You want to talk about vanity? How has the ] entry been allowed to exist for so long? Also, the ] page is not without certain negative aspects that seem a bit unnecessary, yet continue to exist. Thanks, ]. | |||
| == |
== Rezon8 Living == | ||
| Am hoping for some clarification of your suggestion for deletion. Information that paints an accurate picture does not in and of itself equal Vanity because it is positive. I would suggest that WIKI being what it is, others will no doubt be able to contribute and that, in doing so, an accurate picture is revealed. You want to talk about vanity? How has the ] entry been allowed to exist for so long? Also, the ] page is not without certain negative aspects that seem a bit unnecessary, yet continue to exist. Thanks, ]. | |||
| I commend you on your patience in deaing with contentious issues and editors. ]] ] 11:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 2A intro == | |||
| ] | |||
| As I mentioned, I have a friend who is a writer assisting in a proposed draft of a 2A intro. They have no interest at all in the 2A as far as I can tell, so should be in theory unbiased. We're drafting via IM at the moment. Care to participate somehow? Not sure what methodology we could use, but I'm sure we could find something. ] 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Well done, I commend you for having your references ready so quickly. I would make a sugestion to you though: try to add a few inline citations to the article to firm up the information, it will help with the referencing situation. If you haven't done so already I suggest dropping a message on the talk page for ] and ask them to evalute the article; since it is within their scope as well they can help with formatting issues and other related matters. ] (]) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==sorry bout that:bob13377== | |||
| sorry about that one edit... wont happen again... promise, k? :) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == How on Earth... == | |||
| ... did you fix that so fast? Is this something you get paid to do? I would hope so. Otherwise, I can only picture you as an obsessed Pohlad-apologist who constantly monitors his page, and that just creeps me out. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Barnstar== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thank you for your time, skill, and patience on ]. You did a great job of compiling and summarizing reliable sources with the neutral point of view under difficult circumstances. Misplaced Pages is better because of your involvement. ]] ] 08:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Welcome to ] == | |||
| You were already approved for VandalProof. ] 14:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Slow vandalism == | |||
| Hi. With respect to your note at ], long-term slow vandalism can be treated by the use of the template {{tl|uw-longterm}}. After that, as long as the action is within a reasonable time and particularly if it demonstrates a pattern, you should be able to report the problem to AIV or ]. I hope that this helps. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please don't report vandalism that is stale to ], as you did . AIV is for urgent, current vandalism. Please only report a vandal who is active '''now''', has been sufficiently ], and has vandalized after a recent last warning. Do not use automated editing tools to make incorrect reports, as such tools can be taken away if persistently misused. Thanks. ➔ ''']''' likes kittens... ''and you'' 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the coaching. I don't know where would be the proper place to report a user account used entirely for vandalism, but which is not presently active. If not WP:AIV, is there some where else? ] (]) 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's no need to report them at all. If they're not editing, they're not vandalising. And if they're not vandalising, there's nothing to report. | |||
| ::If they reappear (and have a username; different advice applies to IP addresses) then they can be reported based on them having had the full set of warnings last time and another upon reappearance. | |||
| ::If they don't reappear, ignoring them saves administrator and vandalfighter time for use against active vandals. | |||
| ::If they are vandalising but it is not clear; is complex; is intermittent; or it cannot be summed up in a single sentence; then ] is your friend. | |||
| ::Don't let the severely and fatally mis-named tick boxes in Twinkle let you think "if I tick this, it makes it true". It doesn't. Happy editing! ➔ ''']''' is wearing a pointy red hat 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you forget that I did not dumbly rely on the Twinkle 'tick boxes', using words I carefully commented the nuance of this vandal when I reported it to WP:AIV. | |||
| :::What confuses me in this instance is that being a lapsed vandal appears to be OK in the eyes of AIV admins. I find this bewildering, as I don't see how timing matters. A vandal is a vandal. I must conclude that vandals are acceptable if they evade quick detection. Rather what matters is the immediate act of vandalizing. This concept confuses me, but I guess I can learn to deal with it. This user which I reported would have been banned indefinitely had he/she been caught four weeks ago. But when reported today, he/she has successfully gotten away with the 'crime'. I don't get the logic in that. I am only trying to understand what is the consensus, (or if there is a consensus) on how to deal with vandals. I am learning, it is not the vandals that are the problem, but rather the vandalism. ] (]) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD nomination of ]== | |||
| ]An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:adw --> ]] 00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I did not "vandalize" this page. I added information to it.--] (]) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Alzheimer== | |||
| This is a copy of my answer to your comment in the alzheimer talk page. Best regards: | |||
| News are not a reliable sourcing but can give you clues on the reliable source that lies behind (in this case a published scientific article: see ). The article seems quite promising and in the future these kind of treatments may be useful for the people with the disease. However its only a unique case (only one patient) and therefore we can not be sure that that the effect is related to the treatment. Due to the thousands of studies going on looking for treatments for the disease there is an agreement only to include in the Misplaced Pages article only those studies that are alredy in phase III of the clinical trials (the last phase before being used widely). Thanks anyway for providing such an interesting article. --] (]) 09:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I also had a response to you on the alzheimer talk page. It would be fantastic if everything we see mentioned in the news shows effect to change the disease course, but of the 60 drugs here only 5 are on the market with an indication for Alzheimer's. Even the phase 3 compounds have a higher likelihood of being discontinued versus approved (using historical norms for the category). The cynics might want to call it "potential treatments that are unlikely to make it to market," but with enough attempts, some of these may be approved. --] (]) 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == please keep discussion about articles on their respective pages == | |||
| frankly, i don't know what your latest comments are about. i have never edited the 2nd amend article - or at least, it's been a year or more if i did. again, please discuss articles on their respective pages. thanks. ] (]) 17:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I answered here. And, at times user talk pages are necessary. ] (]) 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == please stop the harrassment == | |||
| i reverted your edit this morning. once. 'warning' me about 3RR is nothing but harrassment. please stop. ] (]) 16:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I am trying to collaborate with you, not harass you, but your response has been to evade and engage in edit war. More here. ] (]) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::warning an editor about 3RR after a single revert is harrassment, not collaboration.] (]) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please read ]. The issue is to avoid edit warring. Your behavior in the last week+ has been a clear edit war. Instead, let us work this out collaboratively. Your quick 'single revert' this morning was part of the edit war you have mounted, spanning several days, plainly violated the spirit at the heart of ], and deserved a warning. See also ], which describe it better. ] (]) 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::i disagree. i see this as being much closer to bold, revert, discuss. these are exceptionally contentious issues, and even though discussion has been heated, for the most part it has been civil, and productive. i'm sorry you disagree. ] (]) 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == TUSC token b2b7c4679cceebaba3eea1f39739e896 == | |||
| :::::I am more than happy to do dispute resolution over this with you, but sorry, when you do reverts like you did just this morning claiming a book is not a reliable source, and then admit to not having even read the book. Well, that is much more like edit warring. ] (]) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I am now proud owner of a account! | |||
| == Apology for ] == | |||
| == TUSC token 7aaa90f5dff35780fe0322a027d0a238 == | |||
| I apologize for making a mistake when making an edit summary for ]. Unfortunately, I have said it was citation #89, however it was citation #88. | |||
| I am now proud owner of a account! | |||
| Please be sure to remove those fact tags because I will not have the time to check. ] (]) 04:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Acknowledgment for your long efforts == | |||
| == Sorry, jumped the gun. == | |||
| == ANI Notice == | |||
| Sorry, I have a tendency to accidentally flip out sometimes after misreading a diff, lol. | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
| In case you see this , SORRY. God, I'm an idiot, man. | |||
| == Second Amendment == | |||
| Maybe it's just lack of reading comprehension or I try to read things too quickly? I was almost about to post a report on you on ] before I realized I had misread what you posted. Yes, your source is reliable and the article is currently crap. ] <font size="4">]</font> <font face="impact"> ]</font> (]) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:43, 7 January 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. SaltyBoatr has not edited Misplaced Pages since December 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, it may be a day or two before you receive a reply.
If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Rezon8 Living
Am hoping for some clarification of your suggestion for deletion. Information that paints an accurate picture does not in and of itself equal Vanity because it is positive. I would suggest that WIKI being what it is, others will no doubt be able to contribute and that, in doing so, an accurate picture is revealed. You want to talk about vanity? How has the Billy Mann entry been allowed to exist for so long? Also, the IKEA page is not without certain negative aspects that seem a bit unnecessary, yet continue to exist. Thanks, Dean.
TUSC token b2b7c4679cceebaba3eea1f39739e896
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
TUSC token 7aaa90f5dff35780fe0322a027d0a238
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Acknowledgment for your long efforts
ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.