User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2009/Feb

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Colonies Chris. 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.

Yes, no joke. I've mentioned you here based on a previous conversation we had, I hope you're not upset that I did not ask you for permission first.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking are clear and to-the-point. I have no objections when an article on my watch list is stripped of date links. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just read them too and you make some very good points. I have been delinking dates since the consensus changed back in August. I must have done several thousand, usually as part of a copyedit (ie I fix any other problems I see with the article at the same time). I had one or two inquiries at the beginning, but it is obvious that an overwhelming majority of editors here never liked the linked dates and are now quite happy to see them go. --John (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• A discussion at Lightmouse's house may be of interest to you. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• "How telling it is that the best Tennis Expert can come up with to support his allegation of edit warring is a complaint that he himself filed, and whose outcome was NOVIO. Strange he didn't mention that." He has amply demonstrated, therough the number of complaints against him, that he has ownership issues. What's more, his unforced errors are legend. That's why I would very much like to play tennis with him. I expect him to hand me game set and match. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your entry was spot-on at ArbCom. Tony (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The following temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking;

Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you must have seen the analysis I did here. Do let me know if there are any more I may have overlooked. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It may interesting to see what the other side has to say about date linking. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)