| Revision as of 00:24, 6 December 2006 editとある白い猫 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,796 edits →[]← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:52, 28 March 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,198 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2024/03) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|date=October 30, 2023}} | |||
| {{User:Cool Cat/Talk Template}}<!--{{User:1ne/Title|User talk:Cool Cat}}--> | |||
| {{User:とある白い猫/Talk Template}}<!--] Drumhead--> | |||
| This user is no longer on wikipedia. You may reach him at ] --<small>] ]</small> 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{User:とある白い猫/xkcd | |||
| = Posts: <small><small>{{time}}</small></small> = | |||
| |number1=557|title1=Students |text1=Fun fact: ]s from now, with school a distant memory, you'll <u>still</u> be having this ]. | |||
| |number2=903|title2=Extended mind|text2=When ] has a ] my, apparent ] drops about 30 points. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |linkfortalk = User talk:とある白い猫/Archive | |||
| |archiveheader = {{User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/Note|%(year)d|%(month)d}} | |||
| |counter = 8 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(14d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/%(year)d/%(month)02d | |||
| }} | |||
| = Posts = | |||
| I saw your note on the deletion page. I would urge you to stick around despite the occasional aggravations that occur around here. Take a break if you need it but I hope you'll return and resume contributing. ] 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I've added the "{{tl|prod}}" template to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "]" and ]). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at ]. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to ], where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the ]. - Basically, with the recent improvement of the main ], the episode list is a duplicate of the information. Sorry if this causes you any grief.] 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please do not prod that page nor try to get it deleted. The duplicate info can be removed from the article can be removed but see ]. I had been meaning to nominate that for a "featured" status. I will do so soon. --<small>] ]</small> 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::All of the article is duplicated on the main SEL page, though... I won't prod it further, but you might want to confer with ] on what exactly is going to happen with regards to the episode list, and the main ] article, which is currently in FA nomination. - ] 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do not see a reason to further discuss. And please do not get that the wrong way, I just feel this would satisfy all parties involved. I will put a note to the main lain page to explain my actions but I think he would prefer having two featured articles/lists. I'll however wait for that FAC to conclude and nominate the episode list after it for FL. --<small>] ]</small> 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Star Trek Insignia == | |||
| Thanks for updating the page. I personally am intriqued by the subject but lack the knowledge and wanted to save the article before it gets deleted. ] 08:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] drama? == | |||
| I'm confused by your repeated use of the word "drama". Is there something inherently dramatic about redirects that I'm not seeing? ] ] 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I continue to be very curious at your use of the word "drama" in this case. Are you using this word to mean "something I disagree with"? ] ] 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''drama''' -noun see meaning #4 and perhaps #5: / --<small>] ]</small> 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Of extreme interest is that one of the people heavily involved with the deletion votes of both the Warrant Officer and the alternate ranks article showed up within 5 minutes of my working on this article, blanking parts of it and challenging the sources on all of it. I've asked that user to tone it down, I think there might be some personal feeling at work here. Will this never end? Anyway, your help on this new article would be welcome. -] 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I recommend arbitration. ] is not tolerated if thats the case. I am sorry but the other guys do not care about what I have to say and frankly I am sick and tired of repeating myself to them. --<small>] ]</small> 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This is now to the level that I am trying not to laugh. How can one seriously propose deletion of this article? Do these people not like the articles, not like us, or a bit of both? You are so right what you said on the page. It is the same people, the same type of articles, and yes they are making a mess. In this case, however, I am hoping the AfD gets laughed out of court. -] 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You know... this series of incidents almost reminds me the nature of my ]. Were these guys following you around or attacking star trek articles randomly? --<small>] ]</small> 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| BA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Thats what I did when I saw that these people have nominated '''YET ANOTHER''' article for deletion. Who are they trying to fool? -] 00:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :They can nominate the entire star trek franchise as far as I care... If they really want to destroy their own credibility that badly, how can I prevent them? | |||
| :In 15 days from now if this nonsense continues as it is going on now, I will compile it in the form of evidence and let arbcom review it. With my estimate that would mean over two dozens of deletions. | |||
| :--<small>] ]</small> 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, this is a sanity check thing. Either the majority is wrong or I am right... I asked the same question to several people... Would it be OR research to cite Star Trek Encyclopedia as source? --<small>] ]</small> 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It is impossible to answer such a generalised question as it depends what exactly the claim being made is. I have cited the ''Encyclopedia'' for things in the past, generally real-life behind the stage info that it is a reliable source for. Drawing your own conclusions from things the a source says, then citing it, is still original research, regardless of whether the s source is the Encyclopedia or the episodes themselves. ] - ] 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be more ] the claim is that Star Trek Encyclopedia is a "self-publication" and hence not meeting "]". --<small>] ]</small> 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do not see any such claim there. I see a claim that you are citing the ''Encyclopedia'' for things it does not actually say. You would do well to acknowledge and address the point actually raised, rather than misreading what is being said and addressing that, people might think you are using ] arguments. ] - ] 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am citing the encyclopedia for the rank insignias. They are there, are they not? Have I mis-cited any? (I am seriously requesting you to verify, I do have my copy). As for the "text" there is room for work of course, but an AFD wasn't even necessary for that... --<small>] ]</small> 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:52, 28 March 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. とある白い猫 has not edited Misplaced Pages since October 30, 2023. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
|
とある白い猫 A Certain White Cat User Page | Office | Talk Page | Bot | Sandbox SB2 SB3 |
Assume good faith! |
| ||||||||||
There are currently 6,941,920 articles and 931,690 files on English Misplaced Pages. The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. The truth resists simplicity. | ||||||||||||
|
TALK PAGE OF とある白い猫
{{{ovr| To post a new topic please use this link or the 'new section' between "edit this page" and "history". | ||||||||||||
Posts |
||||||||||||
