User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Jan

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.

Hi, could you please restore my comment that you deleted at [1]? Thanks,  Sandstein  10:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was following the model on the Wikipedia citation page. I don't think I was directing anything at you in particular, just stating that the page was full of links with no sources or reliable references which is against Wikipedia policy. I did add other templates for references needed. If you look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed that is where I got the template. On the Generations page, several users and I came to a consensus (that was already decided a long time ago) that the Generation Jones addition to the list was unacceptable because Generation Jones was a term coined by one person and not used by other demographers or researchers. Basically, the article Generation Jones was up for deletion a while back, and it will probably be deleted eventually. Anyway, whole chunks of the 2010s article page is unsourced. I was following directions on how to do this according to Wikipedia. If you can show me another way to do that, that is fine. Please leave me a note on my page if you can. The problem I have is with the whole paragraph under the section 'In the population'. The pension bomb article is on it's way for deletion, so it is definitely not a good reference. There are NO reliable sources for pension bomb. I would really appreciate some help - maybe we can do this together? I know how to use the 'unreferenced' template. The templates I have trouble with are mentioned on the link above. The paragraph on 'those born in the 1960s, etc. down to 'which began in the 1990s is unsourced. I work on the Generation pages on here with other users. I have no idea why so many unsourced information is allowed on a Wikipedia page. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Thanks for reverting the nonsense edits by DriveMySol (talk). Several of his edits have been reverted, but he keeps re-adding the same things, and with no references, or website links to blogs, etc. He has been warned about this already. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir,

First I want to apologize. I had not read your talk to me before I undid your edit. If I had, I would have complied.

May I ask; is there a certain number of references I could submit that would cause you to allow me to correct all references to the beginning of each decade and millennium?

Is my error that I did not provide references, or that this has already been decided? If it is the latter, is there an appeal process?

I would like to reiterate that it is quite obvious that there are many discrepancies amongst the articles dealing with certain dates in the 21st Century. The 2011 article is a prime example. It states that 2011 is the 11th year of the third Millennium. I agree with that. I assume we can agree that the 11th year of a millennium is the first year of the second decade of that millennium? If all that is true then the 2010's article I have been trying to edit, have got to be wrong.

Thank you and I will watch my manners in the future. Rsoltz (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I have the read the template articles and test edits out on the Sandbox page. I completely forgot about that!--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello TreasuryTag, and thanks for your vote of confidence on my RfA. I noticed that you opposed SoWhy's RfB per his involvement in WP:NEWT, and in light of that you might want to read the note I just left on my RfA. I wouldn't feel entirely honest accepting your support without making you aware of it.

Cheers, and happy editing, Olaf Davis (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you please care to discuss the necessity of this addition on the talk page? --Jmk (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The nominator for this article has asked to withdraw the nom. Since you're now the only Delete vote, I was wondering if you'd object. Your concern was a lack of sourcing, but the following comment provided several third party sources that look adequate. You can ping me, leave a note at the debate, or non-admin-close it yourself if you prefer - whatever is simplest. Or, alternatively, we can leave the Delete and see how the debate proceeds. Entirely your option. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, feel free to withdraw, looks like I was going to "lose" anyway! Thanks for checking, though! ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 14:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you back me up on the policy change? Thanks! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, thats called canvassing--Jac16888^Talk 01:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To be absolutely fair, I had !voted to support it, but I agree it's borderline... ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 08:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly blank out messages, even when I make sincere efforts to attempt to be polite and make requests for constructive positive dialogue. Please do not post to my talkpage. I think it is for the best. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted and disapproved of.

However, I think you should have been much more careful before making that block, Cirt. The "Pomodoro Technique" is a widely-used and freely-available time-management scheme (as a quick Google-check would have revealed), and the user's activities were in no way promotional: on the contrary, they produced a well-referenced draft article, which – particularly for a new editor whose native language may not be English – appears to my untrained eye to be superb. How could you possibly think that a page citing the Wall Street Journal among other respected sources was spam?

Please exercise more care in future when using the block tool. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 09:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be interested if you could substantiate your claim that I delete your "sincere efforts to be polite" using diffs (see Help:Diff)... thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 09:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Request in light of your recent behavior

TreasuryTag: In light of your prior conflict with me on the topic of Doctor Who, following me around as you are doing and then going to complain about me to Beeblebrox gives the appearance of impropriety. It appears to exemplify a pattern of vindictive and spiteful behavior. I think it is best due to the non-constructive nature of our prior interactions, if we both take a break from interacting, and try to avoid each other for a while. Perhaps after a bit of time has passed, we will be able to interact politely, positively, and constructively in the future. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I only complained to Beeblerox because you wouldn't listen to me yourself. The concerns I raised are genuine, not simply designed to get at you, but thanks for assuming otherwise; it keeps me on my toes!

You can object as much as you want about being "followed around" but that doesn't exempt you from criticism. Either your block was justified or it wasn't, regardless of who's making the accusation. I look forward to reading your reply. (And no, I don't agree to try and avoid you, as a I see no reason to do so.) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 09:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and how, precisely, can one violate a request? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 09:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to clutter up ANI, but sorry, I obviously should have noticed that you had contributed to the previous thread about heisting userpages. I hope my comment didn't come across as, "Read it this time, you dolt"! You have such an identifiable sig it should have stuck out.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, we've all done things like that before :/ ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 10:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you be willing to withdraw this nom? It's gotten zero support so far. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it's got zero support, but I don't see a reason to withdraw it. The process of consensus will arrive at a decision presently. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 08:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, fundamentally it's acting as a soft redirect right now. The RfD page is an extra step to get to the content. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not currently have any plans to withdraw the nomination. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiuser999120 looks good to the best of my knowledge, and I see it has already been endorsed for checkuser attention. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was not able to help you out with this yesterday; I ended up spending the rest of the day with my kids and did not sign back in to Wikipedia until today. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, TreasuryTag, I've been asked to discuss something with you. Cirt claims that you two have had disagreements (specifically regarding Doctor Who, which I happen to enjoy), and would like to resolve the issues. He approached me on my user talkpage and asked if I, as one of the MedCab coordinators, would help mediate your dispute. Since you're both valuable contributors to this project, I agreed to come here and discuss it with you. So, here I am. Hopefully, we can get you two working together, if not necessarily agreeing. If you would like to work it out, would you be able to tell me briefly what your side of the dispute is? The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I really have very little to say; we had a dispute. Subsequently (because I still had Cirt's talkpage on my watchlist) I noticed that he'd made a bad username-block, and left him a polite comment pointing out the error, and suggesting that he be more careful in future. He deleted the comment and refused to engage with the issue. End of. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the prod tag takes five days to have any sort of effect and the AfD suffers from the same problem. The problem is not about deletion per se: it's editorial. Is this the most efficient way of organizing content regarding the aftershocks of the main quake or not? My first impression is that it's not but the recent major aftershock might change that as it certainly will lead to added content on the main article. And if the aftershock article is superfluous, the simple fix is to turn it into a redirect. Pichpich (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That was the intent of my edit summary but obviously it wasn't sufficiently clear! Pichpich (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you appear to be adding the {{Orphan}} template to articles with a number of links going to them. For example this edit where the page has a number of links. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, dear, that was AWB's automated estimate of what qualified as an orphaned article; it's obviously a bit dumb. I'll check more carefully in future! ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Outgoing from some of the additions of the template, I would assume that AWB ignores results from redirects... (for example [2]). Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

For getting that vandalism off my user page. This guy is easily one of the most inept/insane serial vandals I've ever seen. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Insane, perhaps, but pleasantly diverting from the "serious" issues caused by ethnic-revert-warriors, say ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

True. Personally I won't come within ten feet of articles on Eastern Europe anymore. At least there's just one nut who is obsessed with Col. Sanders... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)