User talk:Thue/Archive8

Please leave messages in sections. Thanks!

I am an admin. You are welcome to ask me to do admin-type stuff, but depending on the time of day, what I'm doing right now, or the circumstances in my life, I may or may not have the time to help you :).

Archive: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Leave me a message in a new section

Diploma mills

Ta for picking that up. Mind, I think Belford University is probably in a worse state now (outright rant against diploma mills). Morwen - Talk 10:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kutaragi

I'm requesting your opnion about this dispute. Lot of POV-Pushing, the article is currently blocked. --GroundZero 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably not the right one to ask, as I am not very knowledgable in that area... Thue | talk 21:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not true!

Please don't post things about Bush and disambiguation pages that isn't true. Thank you for your time. --Wookiebaca 22:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. What have I posted where? But as a I always try not to post things that are untrue, then there should be no problem. Thue | talk 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Thue/Archive8! Hope it's a wonderful one! (happy New Year, too!)--ViolinGirl^♪ 15:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Saint Nicholas

I'm sorry, I just double-checked. He wasn't removed from the roster of saints, his feast day was simply made optional. I'll change the "decanonized saints" category back to the "saints" category. -User:Asarelah

Image request

Hey, while it's cold and dark outside, you should go try to get good pictures of the Danish Crown Regalia. My attempt when visiting in 2003 was a failure, the dim lighting needs long exposures and all the ones I took were fuzzy. Other artifacts and furniture in Rosenborg would be handy too, lots of the articles on antique objects are unadorned or have nonfree images. Stan 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will at some point, but they take 85kr for entrance :(. Thue | talk 19:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRH Prince Emmanuel de Cériz, Prince of Ceriz and Virkantzya...

...wants to thank you. As you was the unique defender of the article about His Royal Higness on wikipedia.

Sir Wallis E. Budge

As I remember I deleted that article... Thue | talk 14:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federer

Hi Thue! No, I did not misread the licence. I was indeed trying to show that the image Image:RFederer.jpg cannot be used for any purpose, as stated.", and therefore that the licence tag it had was not correct. I also think that the image must be deleted, because commercial use is clearly not permitted. Thanks, --Mschlindwein 22:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course :). I was confused by the fact that the copyrightedfreeuse template was still on the picture. Thue | talk 22:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I let the original template on the picture because I do not know how you from the Wikipedia in English manage such cases. --Mschlindwein 22:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gracias

Thanks for taking the time to revert vandalism[1] to my article :)

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes good Idea add the link if you found it. Qatarson 08:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich University

I removed both your "notorious degree mill operator" description of Bear, and your opponent's "world-famous education author" description, because they obviously indicated a situation where consensus was required. In an attempt to achieve consensus, I placed a message on the talk page and created a stub on John Bear. Please don't revert to your "notorious degree mill operator" version again until we have reached a consensus on the talk page. Snottygobble 07:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not my opponent, and it is not "my version". I just per principle revert any uncommented IP edits which change articles of alledged diploma mills into glowing reviews (This has been happening a lot). Thue | talk 07:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, but you reverted my subsequent edit too.

You seem to have an interest in diploma mills; I would appreciate any help you can give to John Bear, which really is an awful stub. Like I said, I only created the article in order to broker a consensus between two diametrically opposed views. I really know nothing about the subject. Snottygobble 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't notice your edit :(. I have just made a somewhat throughout google search, and as far as I can tell John Bear seems to be legit. Though some people on usenet flame him for being a fraud, there seems to be no firm evidence against him (and the flamers don't seem to be trustworthy), and my feeling is that he is not a fraud. Thue | talk 09:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointment River

Yes, sorry. should be merge. --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 14:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you could just have merged instead of tagging it "merge" :). (Yes, I know, I did not merge either). Thue | talk 14:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 14:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]