This is an archive of past discussions with User:TreasuryTag. 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.
AIV
Thanks for seeking to prevent vandalism! However, I advise you: please don't list a vandal on WP:AIV simply for vandalism after a block. The IP must have received a final warning recently, except in an extreme case, which most of the vandals you've listed in the last few minutes haven't. I'm not going to block any IP or registered user that hasn't received a recent final warning, unless it's an extreme case, and I doubt that much of any other admins will either. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Now you seem to be reporting IPs with no warnings at all. Even one with exactly one edit ever. Please read the instructions at WP:AIV. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, those are for removing speedy delete notices four months ago. I feel a little better (since you can't see deleted contributions), but you should still take a look at the IP's contributions to determine if a block is warranted. Edits and warnings from four months ago have no bearing on blockability now. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Failed the Utopia GA as it's nowhere near what the other GAs in the project are like - use the Doomsday article (as it's FA) as a template. Shannon Sullivan has accounts of all of the series 3 episodes, so that might be helpful. Thanks! Will(talk)19:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, TreasuryTag. Your recent disambig + clean-up using AWB of Maclay School didn't work out well, since the images were left to show at full size. I'll put it back. You may want to check and see what went wrong. Tim Ross(talk)18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Unfortunately, your access to VandalProof access has been revoked due to a number of blocks for edit warring, which were concealed by your username change. For security reasons, and to prevent abuse, we do not allow users with this type of block to use VandalProof. I apologise for any misunderstanding and inconvenience. Ale_Jrbtalk20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please could you consider shrinking your signature? At the moment it is huge, taking four lines on an edit window and disrupting the editing of places were it appears. In this edit your signature alone takes up more than three quarters of the total edit you made. Thanks in advance! ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about this, but now you're transcluding User:TreasuryTag/Sig2 on each page you sign. This puts strain on the servers as it needs to be fetched again every time the page is refreshed, any change you make will force updating of every page you've signed, and it's a vandalism magnet - one change and your signature on every page could be made to read "FUCK YOU!!" or the like. Please consider changing to a code signature. Thank. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've whittled it down so that the transclusion is at bare minimum; I'm just about to fix it so that vandalism won't show up... —[[User:TreasuryTag|User:TreasuryTag/Sig2]]—[[User talk:TreasuryTag|User:TreasuryTag/Sig2]]—[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|User:TreasuryTag/Sig2]] 09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You can get around the transclusion problem by using subst:, which causes pages to only fetch your signature once, when the signature is first posted. Equazcion•✗/C •10:09, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see - sorry, I just assumed that ignoring {{uw-tilde}} was bad-faith!! —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that you have reverted a couple of my edits to discussions and also left some warnings in my talk. Please can you have a closer look at things before doing this, I was editing my old discussion posts (in fact one of them to say that I could not remove one of my posts (because you had reverted it)). Thanks Jackocleebrown (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's 'cos you deleted the village-pump discussion for seemingly no reason, and I assumed that your other edits to suicide-related pages were also iffy. Pardon me. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I will leave the Village pump section now anyhow. I was removing it because we have reached concensus on talk:suicide and it is no longer helpful to have the two discussions going on in parallel. I'll put a note to that effect on the page. Jackocleebrown (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been watching your reverts and the complaints posted here, Treasury, and I request that you please try to be a little more careful when reverting. I'm assuming you're using Huggle for these, and it can be tempting to work quickly through many edits when using that program, but please consider carefully whether each edits actually constitutes vandalism. Talk page edits in particular should be handled with extra care. Equazcion•✗/C •11:18, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Please make use of the talk page; it does appear that you are editing simply to favour the status quo sometimes and with no consultation. dfutter (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
While I apologise for my seeming carelessness, I would ask that you give me credit that I wasn't trying to disrupt discussions and maintain the cabal-approved version of the page. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Further to this, I've reverted your messages on Jackocleebrown's page; pardon the comment there ("no vandalism, just legitimate edits to user's own posts."), but it has to be clear to future readers that the editor didn't do anything wrong. Please ask if you have any questions about this. --Ckatzchatspy11:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I feel that they should, since they fail to assert their notability. I'll nominate them for deletion shortly, I think. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed we are - I just feel that they don't meet the relevant notability guidelines, and I assumed that the {{db-a7}} tag was for tagging articles subject to the A7 criterion. The requirement is that they assert their notability and they transparently don't. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy tags are for articles that can and should be quickly deleted without debate. The bit about "asserting" notability in the guildline is to catch people writing about random junk and allows admins to simply delete it without having to go through a debate. Does an autobiography article about a person who merits a wikipedia article assert notability by merely being written by that person? I'm not sure but not willing to speedy it. It needs debating. Likewise a school. Concensus is that schools are considered notable, especially such an old one. When the arilce isn't new then speedying it is silly. These things need discussing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'd have said that an autobiography article about a person who merits a Wikipedia article would merely duplicate the contents of that article, both being biographical!! Anyway, I'm still at a loss to see where the argument is. They both fail to meet the relevantguidelines and don't even attempt to. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Treasury Tag. Another editor has noted the way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Peth was closed and is afraid it was not the right procedure. Though the close appears unorthodox, your nomination was also a bit puzzling, since what you wanted to achieve could be handled by an ordinary merge, which does not need admin help. You are welcome to add your own opinion to the thread at WT:AFD. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Come on, you know no-one would block me for reverting on current eventing Doctor Who pages. Besides, we're on the same side, right? Will(talk)17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, To be honest we have about as much information on the third as the first two, it would be number four i'd resist to start, but if this is the way you want it to be I'm not going to stop you, may I suggest we revert this closer to the date to prevent my time from being wasted,
The redirect has been reverted. Frankly, TT, why did you do it? I could see maybe suggesting "don't do it" before the article was created - but after? Yes. it is a stub, but it has references, even information on the DVD, and the episode airs in a few weeks. --Ckatzchatspy08:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand you don't quite want the artical yet, this is fair enough, but I did spend rather a lot of time creating the artical last night only to have all traces of it unfindable this morning, can I note for the future its good pratice to keep these articals in a sandbox until a time when the exact same artical is excepted, I understand this certantly wasn't done on purpose but it would have been nice to be able to have reverted it back at a later date rather then having to completely recreate the artical.--Wiggs (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, I was redircted to the list of series page then went to the artical (at the top) from there and then to the hitory section, I must have been on the previously created page, (when the Ood episode was annonced someone created an artical under the wrong name "Planet of the Ood (doctor who)"). Thanks, I do know how wikipedia works, its just I confused the previous artical with the current one both of which redirect to the list of serials page.--Wiggs (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, you don't need to speedy it, but if you still want to, I'll help figure out how to format it so that the speedy doesn't tag the article as well. More in a sec. --Ckatzchatspy21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't take it personally if there is an opposing view... I can't speak to the other stuff that seems to have occurred today, but with regards to the template I think that some of your ideas can definitely improve the existing "future" template. (As for the speedy, a) don't feel you have to nuke it yet if you don't want to, and b) I reverted it only because I noticed that it was also making the Pompeii article pop up in the "speedy" list. I think there is a way to format it to avoid that happening; if you still wish to speedy, I can help figure out what to do.I see you've found the formatting.) --Ckatzchatspy21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Don't begin to understand the issues that everyone's got hot under the collar about, but do understand very well that people get hot under the collar on Wikipedia. Generally, (not saying that's the case here) it's over something amazingly banal, that if you tried to explain to your friends would leave them bemused, if not amused.
A Wikibreak's a fine idea. I'd be somewhat saddened if you didn't return, but that's your decision. Hope to see you back refreshed when you're ready. --Dweller (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Inappropriate use of the rollback button
Hi. In regards to this edit on Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), please remember that the rollback button should only be used to revert simple and indisputable vandalism, not as a convenience in edit wars. Inappropriate use of the button may result in that privilege being removed by an administrator. Thank you. --B (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, when I left this message, I was going through the AN3 report and didn't know that it had already been removed. If, after a reasonable period of time (like a month), you would like to have rollback restored, come to me and provided that there is no recent edit warring in your history, I will restore it. --B (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The GRBerry post is about that email I sent you and GR where Matthew said he was going to start an edit war with you. Sceptre(talk)16:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
