User talk:Patton123/Archive/January 2009

Dear Patton123,

Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, and thank you for helping out when I needed it... the whole Threshold situation has been unbelievably frustrating. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cam's RfA was put on hold BEFORE you !voted, so I have reverted your edit... if he continues to get !votes while it is on hold, it would be viewed as vote stacking and could end up hurting his RfA. Please keep an eye on it and when Cam does go live with it again, please return to place your !vote.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do thanks for the note.--Patton^t/c 21:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I posted a couple of questions about the RfC you started. The RfC did not state the specific dispute in question, and none of the certifying people have actually tried to resolve a dispute with me and failed. It would appear to me then that the RfC has not met its minimum requirements. Then again, I have a miraculously acute ability to misinterpret Wikipedia policy, so if I am wrong again I won't be terribly shocked. :) Thanks. Cambios (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would not normally edit another person's user page but did so today to revert clear vandalism. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patton, you might want to take a look at Sandy's talk page history... she has been nominated by just about everybody... I've even (semi)jokingly offered to nominate her directly to RFB. But she doesn't want it... don't be surprised if some of the comments (such as mine) take your offer on the lighter side of things... offers to nominate Sandy should be included in WP:PEREN---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well as a "noob" I don't people all that well lol. Better look into things in future lol.--Patton^t/c 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... it is usually newer people who are shocked when they realize that she isn't an admin yet... but it is a standing joke on her talk page...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I will accept requests for copyediting in preperation for FA review" is not a great way to advertise your copyediting expertise. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Funniest thing you ever said Malleus! :P Majorly talk 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there will be those who consider it to be yet another of my now infamous "personal attacks". To them I have only one thing to say: "Does this face look bovvered?". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M249_squad_automatic_weapon&diff=264313661&oldid=264312654 remove the visural element of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. -Signaleer (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page please. The images are not relevant to the article, they simply show random soldiers using the weapon. See Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement please. Also, in future I would appreciate you following the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If you make a change and it is reverted, don't make the change again; take it to the talk page. It helps avoid edit wars :-)--Patton^t/c 22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... thanks for your concern anyway. :) — neuro^(talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I've been adding sources to the article. I should be finished later this week. Thank you for your patience. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think the article is ready to be reviewed. Please see my comment at Talk:Jew/GA1. Thanks again for your patience. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denbot (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I won't be able to do so right away, but I should be able to take a look sometime next week (hope that's not too late). Cam ^(Chat) 06:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patton, I don't think it's wise or generally helpful to try to get Jimbo involved before Ryulong has even had a chance to react to the thread. IF AN doesn't help, this may go to Arbcom, and it would be nice if there wasn't too much confusion surrounding it. If you agree and you are fast, you may be able to remove the thread on Jimbo's talk page before someone replies. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My original intention in commenting there was to get Jimbo to resolve the situation quickly without going through all that drama that is Arbcom. Anyway, I iwll rfemove it now if you think it will only cause drama, removing...--Patton^t/c 19:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most likely result would have been a heated parallel discussion on Jimbo's talk page and no (meaningful) reaction by Jimbo himself. He must be careful not to give the impression that he assumes any of Arbcom's functions, and he has become generally quite good at that. In any thing the proper thing to do now is to wait for Ryulong to log in and comment. It seems likely to happen soon anyway. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.--Patton^t/c 19:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ikariam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

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), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]