...and if you ever doubted that the world loved you, as it loves everyone, here's some proof. All the best, Drmies ( talk) 08:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't tell if your sarcasm here [1] was because you were just being sarcastic or if you don't get the concept that more than one set of criteria can apply. This is especially true when I mentioned recentism. That's simply a guideline to put things like NOTNEWS into perspective. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Turqoise127, any chance you can hunt for some more references regarding this person? Its a new article created today that was already put under the speedy deletion hammer, see [2]. Cheers-- Milowent ( talk) 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Congrats to Marin Čilić. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:University of Tubingen Seminar.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Smartse (
talk)
19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
DGG gave you sound advice regarding this previously, yet in the last day you have called me wicked and a coward, after I reminded you on a talk page of WP:NPA. SmartSE ( talk) 08:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
When you notify people who have participated in an earlier AfD, you need to notify those who had substantial participation regardless of what view they expressed, not just the ones on your side-- unless, of course, they already have seen it and commented there. Otherwise, it can be considered canvassing. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You wrote "Please do not WP:bludgeon all participants". You have made 22 edits to the AfD discussion—more than 21% of the total number of edits, and more than 50% more edits to the page than the second-most-participating editor (the nominator). Who's doing the bludgeoning? I see you are not a subscriber to the philosophy that "less is more", and that a single, lucid articulation of a proposition is better than a death of a thousand (well, 22) cuts. But your behavior does make an amusing spectator activity. Bongo matic 02:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, it's good I didn't catch this when it was around: [8], or I'd have blocked you for 48 hours. Please edit civilly, it's really not that hard. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 02:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Turqoise127 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
In my statement that Magog the Ogre quotes as being the reason fot the block there are no ad hominems. There are no personal attacks either, I simply offer my opinion of the AfD and of another editor's comments. The editor in question, Agricola44, engaged in a very long argument with another editor during this same AfD, and having experienced that type of agression disguised as wisdom before from Agricola44 forcing their own POV, I stated what I did. I live in a free country, Magog, I do not know where you live; and my statements would not be punishable or uncivil or considered a personal attack if said in the street. Your reasoning about "my other infractions" is invalid, because by that rationale, antyone anytime can be blocked if an admin percieves something they said was "not acceptable". You, on the other hand, leave threats on my talk page completely unprovoked. I have not had any interaction with you before ever. That borders on WP:HARASS.You are simply defending someone you feel I offended and flexing your admin powers; abusing them I should say. Thus, unblock me immediately, and know that your action here is not one becoming a Wikipedia administrator - to say the least.
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Your comment was a basic casting of aspersions, tantamount to a direct personal attack. I'm sure you or I can get away with attacking others IRL, but not here. – MuZemike 02:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Turqoise127 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
In looking over WP:BLOCK, the only section that seems to apply here is "Disruption". Within this section, the only line that is relevant is "persistent gross incivility". Now, I do not believe Magog has shown evidence of persistent incivility, much less could what I said in the AfD ("pretentiousness, forcefullness and over-the-top deletionism tactics") be interpreted as gross incivility. Let us not play games with semantics and equate my comments with personal attacks. I never used profanity or hate speech, I was never sexist or racist. If this block is allowed, it is simply censorship and abuse of admin rights. Please, if another admin decides to deny this request, do please direct me to how I can proceduraly make myself heard on this issue after the block has expired and have the admin actions of editor Magog be reviewed. Respectfully Turqoise 127 10:02 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
Racism, sexism, profanity or hate speech are not the only types of personal attacks or gross incivility that exist. Edits like this, as well as the one for which you were blocked, fall under the same category. Furthermore, this block isn't censorship of anything. It's simply notice that your behavior will not be allowed. Continuing to act in this fashion will lead to increasingly lengthy blocks. TN X Man 04:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
T. Canens (
talk)
21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)You may remember this article which was deleted at AfD in June. A new, fuller version has been prepared and, being asked for advice, I have decided that the best thing to do is to post it and relist at AfD for the community's opinion. I am notifying everyone who was involved before: your views are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha (2nd nomination). Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 22:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I just created Maatstaf; I thought I'd leave you a note saying so. Drmies ( talk) 03:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Turqoise127
What is the purpose of making a statement like "I simply felt that you ought to know that maybe there are those who do not respect you or your opinions much within the project"? To me (I don't know how other editors might perceive it), this seems disruptive, not assuming good faith, and likely to reduce, rather than increase, the overall level of civility and collegiality here. There's no reason to conclude that an experienced administrator such as Atama would be unable to come to informed decisions of the follow-up to discussions in which he had previously participated.
While reviewing the contributions of editors with a documented history of editing problems (such as creation of articles on non-notable topics, or retributive or POINTy notability tagging / deletion nominations) may be warranted (I certainly review your contributions, as I would imagine do several other editors), I think the community would frown on the manner in which you are following around certain editors. Please review WP:HOUND for the relevant policy, which clearly distinguishes between the two types of behavior.
You are, of course, free to—and going to, to the extent doing so doesn't result in blocks—edit as you see fit. However, I would recommend that you figure out a way to edit so that any editor who reviews the totality of your contributions (to article space and elsewhere) would consider your contribution to the project be net positive.
Regards, Bongo matic 05:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear User:Turqoise127, I notice that you want to delete the little article on Victoria Curzon-Price per nom and failing relevant notability guidelines. I think I have impoved the evidence of notability in via highlighting her WP:prfo qualifications via "her academic work", her "Professorship at Geneva" her being "president of Mont Pelerin Society" and WP:POLITICIAN via elected position. Would you have any advice as to which bits you are worried about and if, or how, the article might be improved rather than deleted? Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC))
. . . you may have some perspective on this, this, and this. Bongo matic 03:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)