Jump to content

User talk:Cube lurker/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette

For the most part, I have ignored these particular editors. More so than anything else, I want it to be clear to someone neutral what is going on, i.e. that the same handful of accounts who come to frequently attack me are ones who refer to others on and off-wiki as "slackjawed retards," "keepmongers," and various other insults, who come to AfD with userpage declared agendas that leave no room for open-minded and objective discussion, who lash out at others with swear words, or who re-arange talk page headings in a less than friendly manner, i.e. I am attacked with stones by those with glass houses or who have an obvious bias to squelch the opinion of someone who succeeds in rescuing articles they want deleted. I said as comprehensive of a definitive statement as I could (while leaving out some real damning gems of diffs from them that can be used only if needed down the road) and hope to be able to go back to my effort of following WP:DENY with regards to those particular accounts as it is absurd for anyone to acknowledge someone who swears at you, thinks you're a "keepmonger," thinks you're a "slackjawed retard," etc. I do accept sincere apologizes, but I do not play games. Now at least, I am confident, that should they persist in swearing at, insulting, and hounding someone who is for all intents and purposes avoiding/not letting himself be baited by them, it will make it clear what is really going on and such neutral editors will act accordingly. I have said there and in the other threads what needed to be said. Others are aware of the incivility and bullying from these accounts. Hopefully, they are wise enough to not antagonize me any further as doing so will only make them look the aggressors and hounders for picking on someone who is having nothing to do with them and while no swearing and insults towards anyone comes from me. If they are not, someone neutral will see it for what it is. Thank you for your time and comments. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Talk:Climate_change_exaggeration

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climate change exaggeration, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

I didnt vandalize youk

that is real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.182.186 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

can you help?

I have a yorkie that is or WAS trained to use the puppy pads. But recently he is peeing in like 6 different spots in my house and completely disregarding the pads. I live in Ohio and it is cold and we have quite a bit of snow for me to take him outside. He just stands there and shivers and so do I. Any ideas why he stopped using the pads? I love him dearly but I do not love cleaning up his pee every day. What happened here??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rog L Meckin (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, can't help--Cube lurker (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How could you?

I find your comments hurtful and callous.

I was merely trying to make the game more fun for everybody. Before, you could find the hidden pages through any of the many methods that Wikipedia provides to make finding subpages easy and convenient.

Now you have to go through the whole challenging gauntlet of becoming an admin before you can see them! Isn't that fun and playful? DS (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Cube lurker. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Your message

Thanks - I understand that.

I'll be contributing more in future, but I've been an avid, inactive reader for a long time. As luck would have it, I'd actually followed this saga, just from chancing across the ANI thread - and formed an opinion - and that made me comment.

I don't really care if my opinion is given little weight - I'd care more if I'd resisted the urge to offer it. That's just my way.

But I do appreciate your taking the time to offer your help and guidance - many thanks. Begoon (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Hello

In case you hadn't noticed, I don't really contribute much any more. That is solely down to Giano. If I feel like quoting him on my user page, then that is what I'll do. I've not taken him out of context, nor do I attack him. His quotes are his own, and I don't make them up. What I've got on my user page is a true reflection of his attitudes towards Wikipedia as a project, his ideas of himself and his attitudes of others.

I have removed your comments from my talk page now. I acknowledge you don't like it, as is your right, but I also reserve the right to add his comments to my user page. I'm sorry you think it uncivil, but I rather think that its not. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your time. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that it so much offends me. It's that IMHO it makes you look bad. That said, you can't help someone that doesn't want the help.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
OK. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

For Polargeo

I offer this. [1]--Cube lurker (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 20:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Comments

Would you agree that his statemnt yesterday that "I feel like the 5% on my edits which are contensous are so minor, its laughable" may perhaps tend to reflect a lack of remorse, and a failure to appreciate the gravity with which those who have warned him, those who have blocked him, and those who have commented on his behavior view his infractions?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Software magic? or tired brain possibly

A few minutes ago my talk page seemed different, could be some magical software or my tired brain from my busy work schedule, not sure, and I don't have time for the pain. I am sorry if I raised anyone's blood pressure. I need to get back to some work and a busy schedule of wikipedia edits! I will admit I'm getting a bit tired of this guy off2riorob who has called me a SPU, tells me ina parental manner that I need to discuss my edits first on an article's talk page and keeps reverting well-sourced and notable information on the public policy positions of a congressional candidate, Keith Fimian. Sorry if I wasted your or anybody's time. CriticalChris 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem on my end. Best of luck. Sorry I don't have time to look at the actual source of the conflict, but I'm on and off today.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

talkback

Hello, Cube lurker. You have new messages at N419BH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Har

I didn't specify who's trollfest it was. Jehochman Talk 16:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Hannity

I saw what he was doing as well.. I should have left a more clear edit summary. My bad.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Thanks!

Thanks for that info! Bit obvious really! Nathanl1192 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fedor Emelianenko

isn't tecnically Fedor ukrainian? bacause is shown to be russian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.177.42 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

/* Admin recall */

I find the best is simply to say on their talkpage that you have lost trust in them as an Administrator and that you request their recall. That way you make yourself clear to the admin and others can also comment if they also have lost trust in their admin actions. Thinking arbcom will deal with it is perhaps mistaken, I prefer to assert my feeling to the admin without feeling any need to refer it anywhere. If other users comment they they also have lost trust in that admin then there is no way for them to avoid that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found your method ineffective. That doesn't mean that there are more effective methods, rather it means there is no effective method.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
When you go to their talkpage and explicitly tell them you have lost trust in them as an Administrator it is totally effective, never mind waiting for some faceless bureaucrat to work around it for month or two, you have said it and that is a fact that they can not avoid. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Tell that to the admins I've told that too yet are still abusing their tools.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The thing is to tell them and to raise it again the next time and to keep raising it until others notice it as well. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
That falls outside what I would label as "effective".--Cube lurker (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I assure it will make you feel better, which is a good thing. Have you lost trust for Yellowmonkey as an administrator? Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
If you take a look at the RFC you can answer your own question.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It's OK to say it out loud...I don't see you here ? Fuddy duddyin around will usually get you a fuddy duddy result as appears to have happened here.Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
(ecx2)I'm on Quigly's and Serpents Choice. When I read yours it had that unfortunate line about blocking him and making fun of him which I couldn't endorse.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That is actually a reflection of the way we tend to skirt around the actual facts. That unfortunate comment was exactly what Yellowmunkey had done and yet users objected to me even suggesting that it should be done to him, instead they wanted to flim flam around and waste their time typing and quietly skirting round their feelings about it, and what the weak attitude of the objectors does is to strengthen other poor administrators by asserting that even when misuse of tools is clear the objectors will just flim flam around and won't even be able to say out loud, "you have lost my trust as an administrator and I request your recall". Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We're rolling back in to why the current system is in my opinion ineffective. Somehow the opinion that an administrator has abused his tools on many occasions and that if the admin has repeatedly misused his tools the tools should be taken back is viewed as wishy washy. In a functiong system I shouldn't have to douse myself in gasoline and light myself on fire in front of the foundation offices for some action.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I totally agree, that does still appear to be the case, I can assure you that wouldn't have been the case if myself and Giano had been successful in the arbcom election. Arbcom are effectively saying, he said he would do better so give him a chance to do better, which is very weak indeed and sends out a message that discourages even reporting any problems. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep, Overall we're more in agreement than not.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Cathedral of light

Seriously I've no idea. I'm a bit worried that the talk page is going haywire, though I haven't really followed goes on, a bit too much unproductive arguments in my taste. The question is how to stabilise things without causing major grief. walk victor falk talk 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. In the section below on the talk page, I brought up WP:SYNTH and WP:OR again. Hoping that if it's followed we can at least lower the number of large paragraphs of discussions that have no real connection to the actual article. Other than that, guess we'll see what happens. But I also haven't had the will to participate in every disagreement that comes up on that page.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Deleting my Userpage:Kenatipo

Hello. Were you trying to tell me that if I move most of that stuff to a sandbox that it would solve the problem? --Kenatipo speak! 00:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're gathering examples to be promptly used in for example a request for comment (WP:RFC/U) or arbitration case (WP:RFARB) you have some leeway to do that on a subpage like a sandbox. Instead of pasting whole sections you'd want to link the diffs that you intend to use to demonstrate behavior that is impropper (see WP:DIFF) and add a note as to what the diff is for. But it's supposed to be a temporary evidince gathering page. It's not to be used as some sort of 'wall of shame'.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

FYI

[2] Just thought you'd like to know. --Kenatipo speak! 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

A short reply.--Lsorin (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Your (meta) viewpoint on the Rodhullandemu Arb Case

I understand you may have feelings regarding the situation, however I would like to request that you redact your statement. It provides even less insight than my "clerkishly filling out the template" statement. Please elucidate for me as to why you believe your statement should be associated with the filing? Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To ErrantX

I certainly would never speak for the purpose of trying to provoke a reaction. It's dissapointing that you'd ascribe false motives to me, and doubly so that you chose to do so in permanent edit summaries. Did I have a point? Certainly I had a point. There's no reason to speak unless you're trying to make a point. However be clear. although I had a point, that's far different than having a WP:POINT.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Yep, good thing I wasn't holding my breath" was the point at which it no longer felt constructive. Apologies if I have simply misinterpreted the point you we trying to make with that. (and for clarity, as you say, I was not referring to WP:POINT) --Errant (chat!) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Not to provoke, just a point. Where were you when the attacks went the other way. I'll accept that the comment got added right after you logged off. But then where were any other admins. Do you really think no admins saw that posted on the ADMINISTRATOR notice board? And none of them thought it was wothy of comment? Well there was one admin who commented. However it was to throw more gas on the fire, talking about genuflecting to Giano.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is a problem. Pissed me off a bit if I had to be honest. FWIW I thought Conti's comment was sensible and is basically exactly what I said to Rod this morning (if a little more strongly). --Errant (chat!) 15:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and Conti's not an admin.<s\>--Cube lurker (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually my bad, I missread his userrights.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeh, that threw me also. He's been admin for a looooooong time (2004) - from before data loss. Hence no current log entry --Errant (chat!) 15:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Sincerity

Sorry if I implied you might not be sincere. I am usually very sarcastic and others often don't know that I am not being sincere, and I have recently been editing at alt med articles and there is alot of sarcastic joking by many editors, so I am used to assuming sometimes that a person may be parodying some position. :) PPdd (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

User talk:Armbrust‎

Sorry for accidentally nuking your comment there. I should have gotten an edit conflict; not sure why I didn't. 28bytes (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I figured that was what it was. Not sure why sometimes it doesn't handle the conflict correctly.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Colin Hatch

Hi, I have nominated Colin Hatch to be restored as the AFD result was a clear No Consensus vote. Join the discussion if you want to, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_April_6#Colin_hatch.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm not 100% familiar with this situation, so if I don't comment, it's likely because I didn't get a chance to look into it. I'll attempt to find the time though.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution

Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll try to check it out.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Egg

Thanks for your concern, but it's already dealt with. DS (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

wb

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:WikiManOne's talk page. You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:WikiManOne's talk page.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:WikiManOne's talk page. Timestamp for archive.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

re

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Swarm's talk page. Timestamp for archive.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

The details

You once commented on the devil in the details; please include your thoughts at the preliminary stages of developing this proposal, WP:ALTRFA. Thanks - My76Strat (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Will try to read and comment when I have the chance.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Triple negative

I am confused too, now that you said you're confused by my vote. I said:

I disagree that users blocked for reasons independent of the election should be disqualified from voting.

which means:

You implied: [those] users, [who are] blocked for reasons independent of the election, should be disqualified from voting. And I disagree with what you implied.

... or did you think I wrote:

I disagree. Users blocked for reasons independent of the election should be disqualified from voting.

which means exactly the opposite? Deryck C. 18:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes you're correct. I believe that all users satisfying certain contribution threshold should be allowed to vote, even if they're blocked, as long as they aren't confirmed sockpuppets. I don't like the idea of discounting votes of people who are blocked for election-related matters (otherwise there's a slim chance of someone abusing the rules), but that's less important. Deryck C. 20:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

The Signpost: 7 November2011

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Lawrence Taylor

Please revert Lawrence Taylor and block 94.171.166.129 from editing it as they appear to have vandalized it again. Thanks 71.176.54.180 (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone's already reverted him. Thanks though.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

A kitten for you!

cubelurker im sorry :(

Adam West 69 (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

my apologies

I would like to inform you that my account had recently been hacked by a friend of mine i assure you that those editions were purely accidental. i am truely sory for this inconvinience. Adam West 69 (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Adam West69

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Cube lurker. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

Info was helpful. Thanks Cube. ProfJustice (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, anytime.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

DRN Barack Obama

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV". Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'll probably make a comment.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama stuff

Just a note that I have no reason to believe you are part of the problem here. I listed you because you have been involved with the article, but that's not the same as being part of the problem. William Jockusch (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Boston Wiknic

 Great American Wiknic - Boston

The Second Annual Great American Wiknic will be an opportunity for Wikipedians across the Greater Boston area to meet for an afternoon of Food, Fun, and Fellowship. Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about upcoming activities, and just enjoy a day at the park!
Saturday, June 23
1:00 PM – 5:00 PM
Boston Common
  • Food
  • Fun
  • Fellowship
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/Wiknic/2012!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Meetup/Boston at 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Mitt Romney

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

semi

Note, still semi-retired--Cube lurker (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

For archive

Just adding this temporarily so old threads get archived.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sha-na-na-na-sha-na-na-na-na

Woh, dip-dip-dip-dip-dip-dip-dip-dip, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom, get a job. 208.122.65.254 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be editing from a school. Please focus on your studies.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Touche if there ever were one. Good day to you, sir. 208.122.65.254 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
And to you.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My head must have been under a rock

I can't believe I was unaware of this until today. I strongly hope you may see this comment, and beseech the strength of your character; that if you do, you'll return here to help make this place better. Either way, I will definitely be revisiting this. I'm called a poor writer on Wikipedia; if I reached you, in some way that did right this wrong, and get you back; to the actual leadership role that I remember of you. Well, that would be a proud example of effective writing.

The reason I even came here at all, was to ask you to consider commenting at the RfC.

Read - timestamp for archive --Cube lurker (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cube_lurker/Archive_3&oldid=1149831134"