User talk:TParis

Dad

Hey, you're a father too! Congrats. It's fun. My boy is a lot prettier than me and I hope the same goes for you, haha. I set up a Facebook celebrity account for my five-month old son and he's getting more play than I ever did. To prevent it from going to his head I post embarrassing photos of his daily activities. Later, Drmies (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:JoshuSasori

Hi, thanks for your recent help on the harassment issue.

I noticed that since the user was blocked, an anon account appeared and posted a move request to revert a move I made 12 hours earlier.[1] This account's awareness of Wikipedia guidelines etc. is suspicious for someone who had never made any other edits, and it's very odd that someone would just happen to request to revert a recent move as their very first edit to Wikipedia.

This seems awfully suspicious to me, but is there anything to do?

elvenscout742 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this

...Unless you consider CIR... I admit I was tempted, but it's not worth the drama... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the drama.--v/r - TP 15:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yo, TP, I think you put your response in the wrong place (Kosh screwed up the indentation a little bit, so it got pretty confusing). I moved it for you; here's the diff, in case it's not what you meant. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's alright, he wouldn't get it anyway. The guy was using unrelated comments from 5 years ago to support his case today. I finally figured out whom he was quoting and I'm tempted to point John (talk · contribs) to this so he knows what he is being quoted for. I understand now why Beeblebrox said what he said now. Kosh keeps dodging the clue stick and doesn't know how to drop the one he's beating the dead horse with.--v/r - TP 19:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a run-in with Kosh (forget the context, but I remember the impression I got of him, aye, remember it very well.). I know the feeling. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see this discussion...

... Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Remove_deleted_edit_count_from_everywhere related to your edit count tool! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Your actions/comments at RFC/U

(1) you're acting as a clearly WP:INVOLVED admin; and (2) your commentS was patronising; (3) that you are repeating the point that I have explained out to you above and repeatedly says that you are having WP:IDHT issues. That you acted without even trying to discuss the issue with me is deplorable for an admin. I am within my rights to respond to WP:POINTiness and allegations of bad faith. I suggest that you self-revert. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your're right, I am acting as an involved admin which is why I haven't used my tools. I reject your idea that factual statements are patronizing. I further suggest that I am not the one ignoring consensus at ANI to further my point; so you might want to review whom has WP:IDHT behavior.--v/r - TP 16:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You moved commentary from an RFC/U. While that's almost using your tools, as almost anyone else wouldn't get away with that, and then shortly after posted a thinly veiled threat. Or would you, as a user not an admin now accept my moving that thread back?

You then asked, after it should have been pretty clear that I was making the effort to respond to an allegation, "I'm sorry, did you not know that the motivations and factual actions of the nominators was also in review?" which is definitively NOT a "factual statement". Then you went on to repeat a misinterpretation that is now getting to the point of looking deliberate. You again and again return to the ANI, but even you admitted that it wasn't clear cut. Since then, Epeefleche has continued, and it seems that the general feeling in other quarters is that his actions aren't OK. Including Graham87, another admin by the way, and others. Clearly, you're letting pride, friendship or off-wiki canvassing get in the way here - which is it? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)