User talk:gtdp
Please click here to leave me a message. I'll usually reply at the page where most of the discussion can be found. Thanks! |
25 April 2024 |
Who are you album listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Who are you album. Since you had some involvement with the Who are you album redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Notice of redirect discussion at Incarceration in the United Kingdom
Incarceration in the United Kingdom listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect
Orphaned non-free image File:Pegilogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "
Software Bug
I sincerely apoligise, I was just too excited I have recently read a Dan Brown book related to that you see and once I read the information I desperately wanted to post it on here, when I found there was a page on it I couldn't resist editing it. Conboy98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conboy98 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
AIV
Hello, per your request at AIV[1]. I've blocked the IP. The warnings were not typical to make a block, however the pattern of vandalism by the same user in for example this history, indicated that the same individual had seen all the warnings before, not to mention being blocked for it. Without the pattern from other IPs, it's likely a block wouldn't have happened with a single edit after their first warning. Hope that helps. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{start date}}
Thank you for bringing that up on my talk page, rather than just reverting it or whatnot! I'm a clueless newbie when it comes to editing things like infoboxes/templates/etc. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 12:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm much the same, I wouldn't have known it was wrong if I hadn't had just been reading the post on the talk page as you made your edit! -- gtdp (T)/(C) 12:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
2011 Sendai earthquake & tsunami
Thank you so much for being a constructive asset to wikipedia! Wikipedia could not exist without people like you! Although it is promoted as something that one should do even without doing whatever on Wikipedia, I'd like to give you a smile with all the upper-most positive intentions! I hope that you therefore hold it even closer: A big smile to you because of your involvement in the 2011 Sendai earthquake, which you can find below this message! Ρόμπστερ 1983 ☞Life's short, talk fast ☜
Smile Greetings!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
As been spoken about above this mssg. :) Ρόμπστερ 1983 ☞Life's short, talk fast ☜ 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, it's much appreciated, especially on such an emotionally-draining article as this one :) -- gtdp (T)/(C) 06:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You are now a reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not
For the guideline on reviewing, see
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
excuse my obtuseness
I see you added an 'edit request not done per lack of consensus to the Shakespeare Authorship FAC archive page.
I'm not sure what this means, and would appreciate a clarification. Despite the heading of the section, no edit request was actually made there. Knitwitted used that template to complain about one source, and promote another source. A complaint that a POV source wasn't used is not a request to have that source edited in. It is true that, as the discussion evolved, the editor suggested a major source be elided. Knitwitted announced his her intention to disrupt the FAC, and followers of the Oxfordian school were forewarned that his her disruption was imminent, and to sit up, tune in and watch the spectacle.
Since the whole section consists of a tongue-in-cheek piece of disruptive gamesmanship it can han hardly be considered to be an 'edit request' nor to provide conditions for securing consensus. Therefore I fail to understand why the slightly farcical proceeding should be marked with an eye-catching sign as if it were signalling a failure of editors to satisfy one of several FAC criteria. In anticipation, thanks.Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Nishidani, thanks for your message. I realise now that my message on the talk page might have been confusing: as Knitwitted had used the {{CAT:ESP, which was contributing to a backlog there.]
HeShe used the template incorrectly, as the template says that it should only be used for definite and specific edit suggestions, not whatheshe used the template for, which appeared to be (as you say) to start a discussion about sources. My edit nullified that template so that the page didn't show up in the category page contributing to the backlog, and so that other users like me didn't have to go to the page, only to read through the discussion and find that no action should be taken. The comment shouldn't be taken as anything negative to do with the article achieving FAC status or not, in fact the opposite - it goes to show that due care and attention has been taken to ensure that the article meets consensus, an important part of becoming featured. I hope this goes some way to alleviating your concerns, please let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Thanks again. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)- Thanks, pal. I know you guys have a heck of a load of stuff to get through, and explaining to twits like myself, with not the slightest grasp on the indispensable technical aspects of wikiworkings, must be a drag. So thanks indeed for the clarification. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, explaining decisions to people is a pretty routine part of sorting out edit requests so it's no problem at all, and I definitely wouldn't think of describing you as a twit - we're all just contributors helping out the project in our own ways. Thanks again for your message. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 06:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, pal. I know you guys have a heck of a load of stuff to get through, and explaining to twits like myself, with not the slightest grasp on the indispensable technical aspects of wikiworkings, must be a drag. So thanks indeed for the clarification. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
2011 NRL season results
Knowing that fixing it again would be kneejerk reverted (as you have done), I did indeed foreshadow the changes on the talk page. Completely ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.52.75 (talk)
- Nah, it can stay wrong, I just can't be bothered any more.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.52.75 (talk)
Hello young man
Howdy, just read the message you sent me and I am greatly sorry for posting false info on the Slayer article. --Davemustainesdaddy3 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comment, but you haven't stopped doing the same thing at other articles. Please stop this or you may be blocked. Thanks. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 20:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Platform Independent Petri Net Editor
Hello Gtdp, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the
- Thanks for your message, I had a feeling after I tagged it that I might have gone the wrong way (as its description does say A7 doesn't apply to "software"), but I couldn't tell from a look at the external link whether the whole thing was entirely web-based or not, which might make it fall under A7, and with no other references I thought it would likely be deleted anyway. In future I'll be sure to propose for deletion articles which don't specifically meet the CSD. Thanks again for the advice, it's very much appreciated. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 19:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- With CSD it's always better to err on the safe side. Software products are not covered in A7. I'm pretty sure it will be deleted as well, but when it doesn't fit a criterion fully, it's (almost) always best to go for PROD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Gtdp! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Quixotic plea
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)
06:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Mavrick12345678
A tag has been placed on
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
]Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Gtdp. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia Revival
Hello, I'm Jamesjpk. I wanted to let you know that the Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia, has been tagged with a semi-active tag. I am messaging you about this because you are listed under the wiki-project's list of active participants. Please contribute to the WikiProject if you want to keep it alive! I hope that it becomes active again! Jamesjpk (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The article Tim Amann Quartet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
All of the claims in the article are unverified, failing
WP:PROFESSOR.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Invite to Join WikiProject for Spoken Wikipedia
"Jailarity" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Jailarity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 14 § Jailarity until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)