User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf

Archives

Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4 - Archive 5 - Archive 6 - Archive 7 - Archive 8 - Archive 9 - Archive 10 - Archive 11 - Archive 12 - Archive 13 - Archive 14 - Archive 15 - Archive 16 - Archive 17 - Archive 18 - Archive 19 - Archive 20 - Archive 21 - Archive 22 - Archive 23 - Archive 24 - Archive 25

[edit] Deletion review for Nonoba

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nonoba. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Rividian (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Logs say it all. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. StaticGull  Talk  16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Twas my pleasure. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

Thanks, KnowledgeOfSelf, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

Thanks for the quick revert. Obviously my friend blackbeltsmelly from the other day. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It was my pleasure! I respected the hell out of him for ya too! ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Lame is an understatement. Tvoz/talk 02:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

True indeed, but I try not to be too rude. ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's back - do you think perhaps short-term semi protection of Michelle Obama would be in order? Tvoz/talk 02:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no, that page is very "popular" right now, any vandalism will be spotted and cleaned up quickly. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your warning to me

I know 'administrators', yourself included are around on Wikipedia. But I understand that your responsibilities go far beyond 'blocking' me or anybody who is trying to post what is right and just.

Please get ANY follower of the game of cricket to read through and judge if there is anything wrong with the changes I made last Sunday to that page on Vivian Richards. Every statement I have made is supported by citations and references. Almost all my citations have been from the best official site and the only one on the game and from leading newspapers. Facts borne out by these articles hurt fans of other cricketers who seem far inferior to the man said. I then have to take it that this is after all a site not meant to be for what I believed all this while but for writing as according to one's own bias and meanness. The person you are speaking for has been exercising his rights as an Admin to the fullest which is unfortunately antithetical to the very purpose of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.216.36 (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the content of the article, rather your rude, and inflammatory comments. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pray tell me then what I need to do in the event of somebody like the concerned person here acting the way he is. He got me into an Edit war last week by reverting twice and making me revert thrice and I was blocked for a day. His contributions to another cricketer's site have been biased and he has allowed some even bizarre references and citations on that page. I spend quite a while getting the most official and correct citations and references imaginable to build up that article.

What is it that I can do then other than warn him? He is wrong to think that he owns this site or something, and that is all I was telling him. He thought he would get me into an Edit war again, and get me blocked.

Being incivil will not get you anywhere. I am looking into it at the Wikiproject Cricket talk page, I have asked Blyguen what issue he takes with your citations. As I have explained on your talk page, if your additions (particularly the ODI greatest batsman thing) are verified by sources, then that is fine. However, Blyguen is very knowledgeable about cricket (the most knowledgeable I have ever seen) and I am willing to wait to hear his side. Nevertheless, while that can be discussed, you yourself fail to maintain a neutral point of view, and you forget that wikipedia is not a fan site. We have discussed this with you on your account and on the various IPs that you use, the tone you write with isn't encyclopaedia, which is another reason why your additions get re-factored. Regardless, I for one will wait to see what Blyguen says, and then we will have a clearer idea of what the issues are. SGGH ^speak! 06:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in in my absence I appreciate it. Sounds like a well rounded and correct course of action. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  :D

[1] delldot talk 02:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)