User talk:Vanished User 1004/Archive 1

Vandal fighting

Thanks for catching my userpage. I see you do a bit of vandal fighting. Have you ever thought of applying for rollback, it can be very useful for that sort of blatant vandalism. Happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I have the power to grant rollback, and seeing as you are the nice type of fellow who won't use it to edit war, you now have rollback. MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pwnage8 and Sinneed

Being "hostile" is rather subjective, isn't it? I don't care what you think of my name (I don't care much for yours, while we're on the subject), but does that make a difference? You don't even know me. How about instead of being prejudice, you look at my contribs to see what I'm really like. A warning is a warning. That's what I gave, to make it clear to you how I will act, and to prevent further edit warring. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Subjective it certainly is. "further edit warring"... If you were edit warring, you should certainly have stopped, instead of proceeding. But you know that, as you are (looking at your edit record) heavily involved in edit warring. That is, in continuing it, rather than ending it. I have repeatedly proposed and made changes to attempt to arrive at consensus. You, however, revert and threaten. You might consider the difference between the two. What consensus-reaching effort have you made? What compromising edit have you made? Have you, as Erik did, cited a reliable source on Wiki behaviour to back up your arguments? You have not done these things. Instead, you have reverted and threatened that if I don't agree with you "it will be considered vandalism". I find your behaviour amusing, but sad. I do wish you well, and will, after review and consultation, either make further edits or not, as I choose, and they will not be vandalism. Good Day. sinneed (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You have not engaged in consensus building, you have been disruptive. The consensus is already there on things like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR (which your statements about polarization have obviously violated). After I removed them, you continued to revert my changes, eventhough you were in the wrong. Whether you're aware of it or not, it doesn't matter. I remove garbage content when I see it, in accordance with policy, because I care about Wikipedia and its reputation. All you need to do is look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Critical reception to know that "The use of print reviews is encouraged. Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' general consensus of the film. These will be more reliable in retrospect; closer to the release, review aggregate websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic should be cited for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews." So there's your answer. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that Sinebot will identify the source for that unsigned item. (The log shows it to be from Pwnage8)

"in the wrong" - again, the point is moot, those items do not belong in Wiki, in either form. We were both wrong, whoever you are. Thanks for editing, and hopefully you can find a way to separate "disagreement" from "vandalism" and "disruption" in your mind. sinneed (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Boy, do you ever look stupid typing that. It's called "I forgot to sign my post", which happens to everyone. You "disagreed" with me, because you were in the wrong. You should check the guidelines before making changes and then edit warring with people. Smart guy. Perhaps you could tell me how I was wrong, exactly? You haven't been able to show it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't. Had you read, you would have noticed that I make the same mistake and say so. I disagreed with you because I disagreed with you. We were both wrong: the statistics did not belong there in either form, either as I typed it or as you did. Erik kindly (and with a source) corrected both of us. sinneed (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok look, I don't wanna get off on the wrong foot with you, so I'm just gonna drop it. I was just looking out for the page, that's all. But try to see it from my point of view. I deleted content that shouldn't have been there, and then you undid that. So you could see how that can come across as being disruptive. I did not make any judgements about the sort of editor you are by warning that the next revert would be considered vandalism. I have nothing to gain by disparaging you. I did it all very neutrally. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes collect reviews that Wikipedia considers "professional". Removal of that is seen as vandalism, plain and simple. Here's a tip: before making changes that may be considered controversial, please check the relevant guidelines. It saves a lot of BS. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Too late. I am amused that you keep mentioning Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. I did not revert your edit on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. As you say, here is a tip: before making changes that may be considered controversial, please check the relevant guidelines. Instead of simply reverting, seek consensus... try softening the approach. All the best.sinneed (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you amused? I certainly am not. Are you looking for trouble? --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You might spend years studying humor without finding any useful explanation of why humans find things amusing. I am no expert. I am on my own talk page, reading and replying to amusing notes. In a sense, yes, I am always "looking for trouble"... but probably not as I expect you mean it. One point of amusement: "...I'm just gonna drop it." If you were just going to drop it, you would ... just drop it. Good Day. :) sinneed (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Me "dropping it" does not give you free reign to go on with it. Keep being amused. Or whatever else gets you off :) --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, my being at liberty gives me "free reign to go on with it". But... "go on with" what? You continue to post on my user talk page. You have not dropped anything...well except for cutesy remarks on my talk page. I promise I won't reply to remarks you don't post. Do have a Nice Day. ;0)sinneed (talk)

"Go on with what?" This stupid debate we're having (don't tell me it's not a debate). I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by being a smart ass and laughing at me, but you will continue to get posts on your talk page until you stop. Have fun. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"debate" I can assure you with complete confidence that no part of these posts is a debate. "Have fun." Hmm. No. Mild amusement only. sinneed (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that the discussion is off topic, I'm going to leave. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your record with follow-through here is 1 fail for 1 commit. Either way (gone or not gone), I bid you a Very Good Day. sinneed (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Babylon A.D.

The main markups at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are considered reliable. They also have user ratings, being communities and all, but these aren't reliable because they're not as controlled. Both RT and MC have specific criteria for a review to be counted as part of the aggregate markup. With user ratings, there is no such criteria -- you just register and score it yourself. For how audiences received it, you may want to use the CinemaScore markup for the film as seen here. It's a bona fide poll, so it's more accurate, demographically speaking. If you look at IMDb's Top 250, The Dark Knight was actually #1 for a while with so much fanboyism taking hold. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, again, Erik. I appreciate your very useful (and such an excellent contrast) comments. sinneed (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Homer to the Max

The lead is now done! :) CTJF83Talk 03:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope my changes and suggestions are useful. :) sinneed (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

They are....are you going to Pass the GA? CTJF83Talk 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I fear my lack of knowledge of Bart and co. and of Wiki standards/rules makes me a poor candidate as a reviewer. I can contribute a bit to wording, watch out for vandals (UNDO is so much easier than removing paint, you know). I do wish you the best of luck, and am happy to help where I can. sinneed (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

EQ section

Thanks for the welcome. Long time Wikipedia reader but pretty new to the whole editing thing, so bear with me while i learn the ropes. I'll see if i can contribute more to EQ section, it could certanly need some more help. Zmajc (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

I updated the version of it because updating to 3.0.2 is an official event.--Meow✉ 06:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see! You *CAN* see the future! :) Cool. But please, don't do it on Wikipedia. :) sinneed (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Homer to the Max

Thanks!! CTJF83Talk 16:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Everquest

Umm, I didn't delete anything. I put the categories in alphabetical order and added a new cat. --Mika1h (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So I see. Fixed again then, I think. sinneed (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Moises Lino e Silva

I have done what you suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.242.178 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

...not quite... I think. It would help if you were only posting under a single ID, and signed all your talk page posts. Sorry if it seems we are ganging up on you, but we are not... you are however tripping a LOT of possible-vandalism flags, so you are coming to the notice of editor after editor. I would encourage you to sit back, take some deep breaths, and then study the various guidelines we have suggested, before posting further. I am going to place this on both of what appear to be your user pages. sinneed (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not want to live here. Thanks very much. Persecution of the type Sinneed is helping Bongomatic to make does not interest me at all. By the way, why do you want to live here yourself Sinneed? You should be constructive, not destructive, this should be the wikipedia ethos. Please, editors, delete both articles: "Moises Lino e Silva" and "Gareth Doherty". It is your loss and a real shame that people like Sinneed and Bongomatic are making wikipedia an environment of terror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linoesilva (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion by multiple editorsof sex scene added to Macbeth movie synopsis

There seems to be some misapplication of the term "Vandalism" here.

The information added about the sex scene between Macbeth and the three witches has been twice deleted, firstly described as "unconstructive" and secondly as "vandalism." These editors seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that this information is in some way inaccurate or constitutes an attempt to insert incorrect facts. This, however, is not the case, as the film in question does indeed contain a scene in which the character of Macbeth and the three Wierd Sisters engage in an orgiastic sexual encounter, exactly as the twice-deleted edit describes.

The information is thus equally relevant to other adaptive differences to Shakespeare's text described in the article, such as the depiction of drug deals, the Witches as Schoolgirls, Lady Macbeth's dead child etc. The inclusion of a sex scene that is absent from Shakespeare's original play is entirely pertinent to discussing the film as a work of adaptation.

I must therefore ask the following question of those who are making these deletions/reversions: are you simply assuming that this information would not be correct, or do you have you in fact seen the film yourselves? If you would please take the time to watch it, you will see that this scene is, in fact, present in the film.

Please explain your reason for removing this information yet again. User:PacifistPrimePacifistPrime (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather, I would suggest not adding information without a citation, if it keeps being killed off by multiple editors. There is a STAGGERING amount of sex vandalism. Adding sex scenes to an established article is going to attract notice. I hope my comment on your page was helpful, and am sorry you are having difficulty making the edit you wish. All the best. sinneed (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You already knew why

The article part of Category:Anglo-Afghan Wars, and the Category:Wars involving United Kingdom is already mentioned there, which the article doesn't need anymore. 96.229.193.68 (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So it means you will vote for that guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krimpets Tasty Cake (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok instead of "Bullshit" he said "something that was not correct"

And are you going to vote him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krimpets Tasty Cake (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please

I want not to have removed any label that I just added the "HANGON" Cahiers du jason (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Je comprend. I fear I have not spoken or written French in over 25 years. Good luck with your article. sinneed (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone feels the same way you do about "carbon footprints" Long live beaujolais! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneforanother (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Khalistan

The reason why I changed the wording in the first place was because there was a source for it in a different section of the article, and there was no reference saying it had strong support in the first place. Deavenger (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I know. It's a problem on wikipedia. Good editing to you too. Deavenger (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Yeah my bad. I figured you would know because it was fairly recent. I couldn't remember the entire title page and the script didn't grab it for some reason.

I objected to this part: Whoever wrote this article before was an idiot and didn't know what they were talking about. Obviously not a real fan.

-Atosecond (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. -Atosecond (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia's censorship

I looked up Bash Back (The sodomite terrorist group that attacked the Church in Michigan) on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash_Back) just to see what liberal bias they would have. Under the section "Antifascist action at 2008 Milwaukee Pridefest" Wakopedia says "In response, Bash Back! Milwaukee planned a confrontation of the hate group." the "hate group they are talking about is the NAZIs but then if the NAZIs are a hate group then Bash back must also be a hate group so I edited it to say "In response, The hate group Bash Back! Milwaukee planned a confrontation of the hate group."

Since they also didn't have any topic for the new terrorist attack on the church I added a few lines & was attacked by the Admins. So they added the following paragraph 2008 Disruption at Mt. Hope Church in Lansing, MI

Bash Back! members disrupted a Sunday sermon at Mt. Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th, 2008. They dropped a banner in the church, threw thousands of fliers, made out in front of the congregation, yelled "Jesus was a Homo", pulled the fire alarm and initiated pro-gay chants. Mt. Hope is an Assemblies of God church which holds and promotes "ex-gay" events and preaches that homosexuality is a sin.

I edited the first line of the paragraph to read "Christaphobic Bash Back! members disrupted.... & added the following footnote

"Christphobia (from Greek Christós: Messiah; phóbos: fear, phobia) is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Christianity."

I took the defanition word for wors from Wakopedia's definition for Homophobia & just changed the Homo/Christos & Homo/ Christian parts.

For this I received the following note from the admin

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Bash Back. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Please maintain a neutral point of view. ukexpat (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny how liberals love to censor everyone & then call us evil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.209.136 (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar.

You did a decent job actually, I think he/she was just angry right then, that's all. The only thing I felt could have been improved was to make it a new section. Thanks again, and have a great day! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Intresting point

Intresting point. its possible that you simply went onto a newly created page, an admin then deleted it, then you tag it also accidently recreating it, this is something I myself have done. Sometimes one simply does not notice the "you are recreating a previously deleted page" banner. These cases can be cleared up by checking the deletion log, which should say that the page was deleted only seconds before your recreation of it. Anyway thanks for your comment Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Heresy in Venice

The reason why i deleted this section is because during the counter reformation Venice did enact executions on protestant heretics in venice, but they only did the executions in secret because they did not want to break relationships with trading partners. (e.g Baldo Lupertino he was a Venetian Franciscan friar who was arrested by the Venetian Inquisition for embracing Lutheranism and preaching it to one of the colonies in the Venetian empire, Pope Paul IV ordered him to be executed, so the Venetian Inquisition decided to execute him by drowning him at the Venetian Lagoon at night accompanied in a Gondola only by a Priest and sailer. The Venetians executed him this particular way so that the execution whould be easier to deny Later.). Unfortunatly during the 16th century, a religious Catholic state like Venice is not without its inquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.61.13 (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Pizza edit

You put a note on the talk page for my IP that assumed my edit to the Pizza article was a test. I can assure you it was not, it was a sincere attempt to edit the page and remove what I understand to be a minor bit of erroneous information. If I have followed the wrong procedures for making this change, or you have evidence to the contrary that the information was not erroneous, I apologize. For now, I will not attempt to remake the edit, and leave that decision up to you. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, I am very sorry for my error. I simply read the edits backward. You did everything right except cite a source, and I will search for one. I have made your edit again, but I fear we will need that source to make it stick. sinneed (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(Duplicate reply on my talk page) Agreed. Never has original research been so enjoyable except when it comes to food. Anyway, I also wanted to apologize for not logging on before I edited. In the interests of privacy, I won't reveal my username. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are all anons treated as possible vandals?

What made you think my edits were possible vandalism? --128.211.201.161 (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Anons are not treated as vandals... but many vandals are anon. In this case, please see your talk page, as I was typing my note to you as yours came to me. I hope you and the other editors can reach consensus, and please, always include your reasoning for deletion of content. I explained the reason I thought your edits were vandalism in the rollback message "as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation." You might study that note before asking what it says, in future, or not, as you choose. You might find it less frustrating.  :) All the best. sinneed (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK.. point taken. I over-reacted. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I made one remark in bad-taste and I get a "last warning". How is that fair? --128.211.201.161 (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a last warning, an only warning. Sorry. sinneed (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

I have reverted your recent edit in which you removed what i added until you can show cause BoogieKnight5000 (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia! :) No idea why I did not note the lack of citation. Even though much of the article is PoV and lacks sources, new content needs them. Thank you for noting my error, and I apologize. sinneed (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalizing

It's not vandalizing, It's cleanup. There is no need for the tag anymore as the issue was settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.128.37 (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well. However the Admin who placed the tag still see's that somehow the article is ready for delteion and has purposley kept himself/herself oblivious to that fact that all votes on the talk page go for keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.128.37 (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Jane Air?

Hi there. I'm assuming, we've both tried to revert "Jane Air" back to "Jane Eyre" at the same time. I think that is the original title, don't you? ;-) I do try to be constructive... Have a good one. Audionaut (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC) It seems so. *blush* I thought I saw the Huggle screen flicker, but when I looked, the edit seemed ok.  :,( My apologies. All the best! sinneed (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC) No harm done! :) Audionaut (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Cole

If you took the trouble to check the source of my edit you would see that the changes made to Ashley Cole do not constitute vandalism as they are supported by direct quotations from the party involved in a reputable newspaper. Since no retraction has been printed by the newspaper or any legal challenge of said quotes been made by Mr Cole they can stand as a reliable source of information.

The more civilised among us have actually begun a discourse on these edits on the discussion page in the true democratic spirit on which wikipedia was founded and which you are more than welcome to contribute to. You may find that you learn something about co-operation and multilateral decision making in the process and that throwing unjustified, unsupported allegations of vandalism around is a far more fitting description of "unconstructive" editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.34.126 (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll stand by that vandalism warning, and I added another. I have also proposed an entry that MIGHT POSSIBLY be an Encyclopedia entry, rather than tabloid snippet. I do not want to read about how many times a celebrity barfed during sex, the size of his penis, or that friends of the celebrity sex partner should feel privileged that he barfed in their car. All the best. sinneed (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI Vandal

[1] You gave him a last warning, I just warned him again.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheesesteak

Also, i have once again reverted the edit and added a source, but you have to remember there's alot of food places, how the hell does one source that kind of stuff? Not really asking. BoogieKnight5000 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And you should not have reversed out the deletion. Do not re-add unsourced work when it has been killed for being unsourced. In fact, don't add unsourced work. It is a Bad Thing. Avoiding it can be hard, and one of my favorite articles has what I consider to be BS in it, because there is no source to back up my personal knowledge. *shrug* This is known as life. sinneed (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, your smartass comment about it being life makes me laugh. Also, don't tell me what to do. You just referred to yourself as two people by the way. Since the article is your life i'll let it go for now, since apparently nowhere on little ol' Earth is Swiss Cheese added on a Cheesesteak, you just sound so intelligent implying that. BoogieKnight5000 (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, my comment about it being life was not "smartass", it was regret. I would love to have the truth in Wikipedia... but I can't prove it, so it stays out.
I would encourage you to assume that every who disagrees with you is NOT your enemy. Your diatribe does you no good, and me no harm. All the best.sinneed (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly it makes no difference to me as i don't mean you any harm, and don't really care what does me good. I simply thought you were being smartass over something so silly. I see the section was modified but remains so obviously you don't intent to be my enemy. All the best to you aswell. BoogieKnight5000 (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

The Thomas Jefferson article no longer meets the criteria for a good article. The article clearly favors Jefferson as a believer in Christianity or some sort of faith, but the opposite is true. Jefferson himself was quoted as saying "Christianity was a three headed monster," he also went as to far as to write his own bible taking away Jesus' powers and miracles. This by itself makes Jefferson a non christian.the whole theme of Christianity is that Jesus is God period!!!!if you take that away then the person cannot be a Christian no matter which way you swing it. Jefferson's religious section needs to be totally edited, I leave that to you. As people who have God on their head refuse to allow needed changes to that section. They insist on making Jefferson a deist (the best they can do) and refuse to allow his religion or lack of religion to show threw by listing him as he truly was an atheist.the founding fathers of America were atheists and the majority of Americans have a problem accepting that, but that does not change the fact. You even have Thomas Paine down as a deist,please.Professor Dawkins would be disappointed in this article.Themetalgod 06:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themetalgod (talk • contribs)

"I leave that to you"... No, but thank you. Remember to add citations. Avoid putting in conclusions... let the reader draw them. Also, remember to sign your talk page items with 4 "~". I hope you will reconsider, review the requirements for edits, and resume work on the TJ article after you are ready. Finally, everyone who agrees with you is not your friend, everyone who disagrees with you is not your enemy. All the best. sinneed (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I also note that there is EXTENSIVE discussion of that section on the talk page, and you have not contributed. It seems to be mostly squabbling (as your diatribe above) by multiple sides of an argument. The key is to avoid all that by presenting only information from reliable sources. Then the squabble can be limited to how to use them. Much simple. sinneed (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

i am not upset with you. i am sorry if that came out that way. i just happened to choose your name since you were an administrator. i proposed that the good article criteria that the Jefferson article received should be removed until the religious part of the article is cleaned up. i wanted a reassessment of the page but i am not a wiki head and therefore not "hip" to all the codes. that is where the header thing came to be as i thought i was following the directions properly. if you could be so nice i would like a reassessment of the page so the religious content can be discussed. as it is now the page barely goes into Jefferson's religion and doesn't even include all the pertinent quotes that would make the article much more fuller and thorough. as for the quote that people have "God on the head", i meant that any information that is put on wiki that makes Jefferson an atheist or nonbeliever is always immediately removed, this i find disappointing.Themetalgod 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themetalgod (talk • contribs)

thanks!

Hi--someone blanked my talk page and you reverted that--how kind of you! Have a cup of tea on me! Drmies (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias Editing?

Uh? I reverted his edits about his high school as he claimed he knew the ethnic makeup of the school. I didnt add any information about the diversity of the school, i just rolled back the page.--mrdempsey 21:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry friend, internet lag must have bitten us. I will remove the flag from your page. Please accept my apology. :( I wondered where it went when it did not appear on his page. sinneed (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, You can remove my counter-argument as well, sorry for the miscommunication --mrdempsey 21:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT vandalism

Eat one another. I should like to dine upon you. It is that simple. I am sorry. Perhaps you shall have a sample of my user:page. It is a copy of yours, with all the parts removed. I have done as you asked. I have made a user:page. Now let us feast upon one another. Dancouvert (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Siiigtuna and Jennifer Palm

I apologize. I thought that it was just repetitive vandalism. Lazylaces (Talk to me 22:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson

I see attending Princeton is your job for now. My job is running and owning a music store. This is where my feelings come from. I have a lot of customers coming and going. In these talks religion is always at the heart of most of the conversations. Almost all of my customers believe that the founding fathers were Christian or came out of the Judeo-Christian belief. This is obviously not true. I have a voracious appetite for reading and a huge believer in veracity. If the people of the United States really knew what the founding fathers believed they would be shocked. For instance, on his death bed George Washington did not ask for a priest or ask for his last rights. Ben Franklin once said "light towers were more useful then churches."People who do not believe in god (lower case intended) have a persecution towards them as if they are a lesser person. Professor Dawkins along with Christopher Hitchens have started to make it all right for Atheists to come out. Thomas Jefferson tried to establish a separation between church and state. Jefferson may have been a spiritual person but we'll never truly know. In his times, to come out as an unbeliever was a virtual death sentence, politically to speak. People of that era hide their beliefs for fear of retrubution.Remember, we were still burning people at the stake only some 100 or so years before Jefferson's birth. Your correct in that you may not see the bias but it is there. Jefferson's spirituality could have been limited to a "Higher power" which could have been anything. Take a look at Abraham Lincoln who was an atheist. His page doesn't have his religion listed. It has a redirection to a summation about what he could have been instead of what he was. The same thing with the Albert Einstein page. Einstein was once quoted as saying "I do not believe in a personal god."Yet,there are people who are trying to find a religion for him. i am glad that the great physicists of the mid to later 19th century like Fenyman,Bohm,Dirac,Pennrose,Hawkings,Bohr,Pauling,Teller, Oppeinheimer cannot be stolen by religion as they were known atheists, there is no revisionism due to the spread of information.wiki is great and i always go there for information but it's things like this that aggravate me.Check out the pages i mentioned and check out Grant too.By the way what do you study at Princeton??Themetalgod 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themetalgod (talk • contribs)

"I see attending Princeton is your job for now" - turns out not to be the case. Might I inquire where you found that? I keep all personal information FIRMLY out of Wikipedia beyond the reference to "Y2k" on my talk page. Please... please sign your posts. The bot signatures are ugly, and they take time, it is a drag to have to go to the log to see who I am talking to. :) All the best. sinneed (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. StaticGull  Talk  15:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the revert on my userpage! Cheers. --Faradayplank (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 22:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Please note that I have referred edits by User:Jörg ÖA to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. I have listed you as a party in the dispute. Let me know if you would not like to be involved. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Edits by User:Jörg ÖA. You may add a statement of 500 words in this section that describes your experiences. --Linkswechsel (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Linkswechsel. My only desire was to try to bring a wee bit of calm... the editer Jörg ÖA was quite strident and was not going to make much headway as it was going... "censorship" is mighty strong language for a section title about a court case. I don't think I have anything to add to the dispute except that calmness is better than rage. And most everyone involved in arbitration will already know that... the rest will learn or have a bad day at it. All the best, and thanks again. sinneed (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Chili Press Spam

Thanks it had appeared twice before may need to lock that topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayAlto (talk • contribs) 06:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:82.69.60.98

RE: What you wrote on there. I was deleting that stuff since I have no need for it anymore, it dates from a long time ago. I wasn't logged into my account though - 82.69.60.98 IS me 15:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One Team, One Dream

I appreciated all the help you gave me. Don't worry about "breaking" the article...you fixed it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmanning19 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding. :) sinneed (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Times Of My Toadsmen

Apologies, this was something I read about today in the Daily Express, but I did not know how to source it. Then I tried to revert some silly vandalism, and things spiralled out of control. Thank you for sorting it out. Signed Piotr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.76.31 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

o.o o.O O.O 0.0 O.o o.o -.-
sinneed (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

lyrics

Probably that song is long... even you search for the lyrics of the song, That is really the lyrics of the song comment added by Rajalberini (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 November 2008

But you don't understand...

A person who used that I.P. Address replaced all the content of an article with the F-word.
~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 11:05, 24 November 2008 (EDT)

Re: Edit war

Hi, Sinneed. I think you might have me confused with one of the other editors at Sahra Wagenknecht. I recently made a major contribution to the previously existing stub (diff), and I made sure that all my additions included citations.

Most of the debate concerning User:Jörg ÖA's dubious contributions can be found at Talk:The Left (Germany)#"Totalitarian" and "extremist". You're right that the issue should probably also be discussed at the Wagenknecht page. (I initially tried to bring the issue to arbitration, but I received feedback that this action was probably premature.) Thank you. --Linkswechsel (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

re your message at Linkswechsel's talk page, the issue isn't refernces really. Leads do not have to have separate ref tags, if the facts are referenced in the article body. The information in the lead that Linkswechsel and myself prefer, are referenced in [2] and [3], with the exception of the exact title of Wagenknecht in KPF (her own website says she's part of the leadership, though). --Soman (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute does not involve this material, which is relatively non-controversial. Rather, it's additional "extremist" lines that Jörg ÖA is trying to insert without meaningful discussion or compromise. --Linkswechsel (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sinneed. Please stop adding new flags to my page. I have not committed a 3RR violation, as your flag indicates. In fact, I have not reverted an edit at this page in five days. --Linkswechsel (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop the edit war, and there will be no more need for flags. I have tagged the article, as the 3 of you clearly believe it is biased. I have given all 3 of you warning flags on your pages so you will have had a chance to understand you are not doing as well as you might. I am out. All the best, and I hope the 3 of you will stop your edit war and talk. sinneed (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:206.248.248.221

Actually, as per WP:BLANKING and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages, anyone (including IP users) can blank their own talkpages. E Wing (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Project Team

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:C22.2_NO._152-M1984&action=history

Hi, how much does it cost to become a member of the project team? Thanks. 155.198.13.93 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism

Can I ask you if you voted to keep or delete the article on Sikh Extremism ?

If yes, the you are in with the other admins Flewis and DJ Clayworth alongside many other editors. I take it your not admin ?

The pro-extremist editors voted to have the article deleted, but failed. Admin Flewis included the area on Sikh terrorism, I hope you consider the validity of the article without that context. If you want I can post the more balanced earlier article ? Satanoid (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about me. It isn't about voting. It isn't about admins. It isn't about "pro-extremist editors". It is about content. I encourage you to remove your focus from yourself, editors, admins, and place it on the content. sinneed (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Likewise I would encourage you to focus on the evidence, references, news references, intelligence agencies. Incidentally I created the article. Satanoid (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Hope that clarifies matters a bit Satanoid (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. I have made my suggestion on the talk page, and made the few minor corrects I had to the article. The article is not about its title Sikh Extremism but about Sikh Terrorism. While the second is real, so is the 1st, and they are not the same. All the best. sinneed (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well thats interesting, renaming it to Sikh Terrorism might be one outcome, Either way religious extremist behaviour encapsulates terrorist actions (but not always), sometimes the words 'terrorist' and 'extremist' are interchangeable although they were usually referred to as extremists, the term of Terrorists was used many times, here's an example.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6570000/newsid_6572600/6572653.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 09:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Clemens' "Dread Tomato Addiction" has an important lesson for you. He observed that 100% of the people who ate tomatoes more than 100 years ago were dead... therefore tomatoes were deadly and should be banned. Those darn deadly tomatoes. Another thought... every terrorist is alive... therefore life and terrorism are interchangeable. Almost all terrorists have 2 hands... therefore, having 2 hands and terrorism are interchangeable. *blink* Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Satanoid's warning and extortion attempt

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Sikh Extremism. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Please dont vandalise the content, I have reported this matter to admin and I have seen the article vandalised a number of times by those who extremists who wanted facts hidden and campaigned for its deletion. The admin rejected its deletion Satanoid (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What was my disruptive edit? I assure you that restoring the deleted article flags is not vandalism. While restoring flags is not exempt from 3rr, it is not vandalism. I must tell you that your lack of understanding of how Wikiipedia works is inhibiting the development of this article. Please follow the process: warn, and explain. Then warn, and explain, then warn, and explain. THEN last warn and explain. THEN escalate. You have been warned repeatedly not to continue to remove these flags. Your statement that "Sikh Extremism is religious terrorism" is not supported by your source. You are applying the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.sinneed (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi talk this sort of behaviour by Satanoid is clearly not acceptable.Check out his previous history of spoofing.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you fail to acknowledge, that the article had its extremist opponents who want to disrupt even delete the article or hide/merge merge it with political articles. Sikh extremism encapsulates terrorism, such as Air India Flight 182, the indiscriminate killings of civilians, its links to al Qaeda operatives in South Asia. Satanoid (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If Satanoid is attacking any member, he can't use my name. But if he is making any point about the article or sources, he has every right to use my name. --Enzuru 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly as Enzuru said. --vi5in^[talk] 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. As I understand it, Satanoid does not speak for you in threatening to leave his warning in place unless I support his position against other editors. I would have appreciated a direct answer, but at least I have one.

Does that answer your questions Sinned ????? Y/N Satanoid (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The unexplained warning remains on my page. Please remove it at once. There is no excuse for this behaviour. sinneed (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

My wife claims that if I were any more laid back I would be permanently on my back, but even someone like myself gets heated up occasionally. For this I apologise and keep the good work up. :-) Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re

I am not using a bot, and I assessed them based on varying factors. B-class is a notorious class - it's often treated loosely, and people randomly assess it as B to make the article appear better. In regard to the EverQuest article, it often delves into lists, it has somewhat of a lack of sources (that is, the number of sources versus the size of the article), it has trivia, etc. The lists should be discussed in a prose format if possible, which certainly could be done in the expansions section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And in response to the other article, it is almost completely lacking in sources. If someone would source the article, I could definitely see it being a C-class. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why I quit Sikh extremism

I came to this article originally and came in contact with User:Satanoid, who despite his rudeness and incorrect actions, had many good points to make on this article. I also agreed initially with User:Sikhhistory and User:Roadahead that if they disagreed with using Global security as a source, I would be more than happy to use other sources, because if we couldn't find other sources to defend the article in its current state we would be breaking WP:Undue. So I created a sandbox that was then moved to user:Vivin's userspace. I spent an hour looking up good sources just to start off the article with just two sentences, you can see that version here. Instead of accepting the work, they stuck by their positions that Sikh extremism is completely irreligious in nature, and is solely political and is only related to the Khalistan issue. You can see that taking place here. They continued with their usual arguments which debunked any sources we used, including sources from the BBC or research journals. I don't want to assume bad faith on anyone, but Vivin made a good point when he noted that any source we used was simply unacceptable, especially if it conflicted with the predetermined belief that Sikh extremism is solely political. So, while you work on this article, please keep that in mind. I have very little patience to contribute much more than what I've tried. --Enzuru 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good point Enzuru, I hope others take heed, although I wouldn't hold my breath over the pro-extremist bunch since as you point out they are hell bent on deleting or disrupting the article with overuse of tagging which takes me to your question sineed.

The article was overly tagged before you arrived, we had those tags deleted shortly after the 'no-concensus' issue without problems. Over due course the article had seen really good editors (non-extremist) such as LeaglEagle, Vivin, Enzuru, Flewis, DJ Clayworth put up with the the trash spewed by Roadahead and his mascot Sikh history debunking all sources as pov including BBC, Globalsecurity, CBC News even the journalist Terry Milewski's first name was deleted so readers wont know the truth. If you can acknowledge in fairness what I and Enzuru and Vivin have said I think we can comply with your demands ? NB. I do agree with Enzuru I can be blunt and frank, but I lack patience with vandals. Satanoid (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

There are no sources because this is all hearsay from highschool. It's not even definite he did play basketball in high school. I will be marking the article for deletion.Streetwise414 (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

• Sorry I vandalsied some pages. I know it doesn't achieve anything. I was simply bored and unable to sleep. Sorry again. Goodnight and I appreciate the work you do here on Wikipedia. Thanks.

81.152.242.225 (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)I am signing my post with four tildes81.152.242.225 (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Learning

I'm sorry if I'm seemingly not being terribly helpful around the site. I'm trying to learn the proper method to bring things to light and to edit them on wikipedia, and I thank you for helping me with that.--Streetwise414 (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, you seem to be doing fine.  :) No one is perfect, and no one expects us to be. Well that isn't true, but the ones who expect that are showing their own imperfection. :) sinneed (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I was in the middle of editing the reference and was being lazy. I was going to insert the new reference in the existing tags. :-) --Sikh-history (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies again for my rudeness, I will try better next time. Thanks.--Sikh-history (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note the following Sineed. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You should consider joining the Warcraft Task Force

See WP:VG/WC. You seem to be interested in making sure the World of Warcraft article is better. Personally, I think Warcraft topics on Wikipedia are a lost cause and focus on WoWWiki, but in case you decide to keep focusing on Wikipedia... --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you. :) No, I am just chewing on the WoW article from time to time. Over the long run, I hope it will get better. I see many more knowledgeable editors' improvements and suggestions, and learn from them. Between vandal-fighting and getting distracted by random articles that catch my attention (sikh extremism, mule day for example) I am using all (and more) of the time I can afford to burn on Wikipedia, the MMORPG. :) (that was a joke) All the best. sinneed (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, maybe we should do an article on going "cold turkey" from WoW (as I have). Took me about 2 years. Nihung - Warrior Arms - Proud ex-memeber of the Alliance. :-) --Sikh-history (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah. I just sign up for 1 month, cancel immediately. Then if I still really want to play, I sign up for another. I started this when EQ was young, and it let me keep the addiction under control. ;) sinneed (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well don't sign up, don't join a guild, don't get to know guild members (you may become friends), don't become well known etc etc, aand that will ensure no addiction to WoW. I have always wanted to try EQ. I started my RPG days first on teh Atari Adventure. Then on teh Sega "Wonder Boy in MonsterLand" (awesome and mother of all RPG's). I then play the Zelda, and Secret of Mana, and Secret of Evermore titles on the Nintendo. Then it becomes a blur with me playing lots of RPG's, culminating WoW (now retired). :-)--Sikh-history (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. Since I killed the addiction-monster, I find it relaxing.

Wikipedia vandal-fighting is my new addiction. I spent too much time BY FAR on it last month, and had to cut back a bit. I keep being shocked at the sheer volume of "Mr. x is teh wrost techer ehvar!" and "Sally loves Joey and Joey loves BEN!" that gets stuffed into Wikipedia. And zomg the EDIT WARS! I have seen 2 IPs revert each other faster than I would have thought the database servers could run. One set burned up, I think, 3 different sets of addresses before they quit squabbling and went and did something else.

Back on the gaming thing, I still have friends I met in EQ. I've seen marriage form, break, and reform from them. So there are pluses and minuses. Life is like that, I think. :) All the best. sinneed (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we will meet online one day, away from lunatics, vandals, and people with a POV. :-)--Sikh-history (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism Sources

Hi, Sinneed I keep trying to add in refrences with ISBN numbers but they keep getting deleted eg A History of The Sikh People -Dr Gopal Singh ISBN-10: 8170231396 page 701 - If, however, India was to be divided, the Sikhs would demand and independent sovereign Sikh state with its own Constituent Assembly. Why? This refrence is valid and a "Constituent Assesmbly" is a democratically elected body that decides on the constitution of a country. I think this answers the question as to what was envisaged if Khalistan ever took shape.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. When there is an edit war like this one going, what I do is do a diff on the latest change. Then I click the "previous edit" link on each edit, to see who did what. I am very disappointed that sources are still being killed and killed and killed instead of discussed. *shrug* sinneed (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Satanoid's insulting personal attacks reported

Dear editor, tired of explaining and warning Satanoid of his/her repetitive personal attacks, I have filed a report at ANI. Your views will be appreciated. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My main beef is the puppetry, and that has already been addressed and is fine.
My 2nd is his/her/its warning me, and that has already been addressed and is fine. His refusal to explain the warning template is rude, but hey, we are allowed to be rude. The template was vandalism, I warned him, life goes on.
I believe that no admin in his or her right mind is going to get involved in this edit war and it associated squabbling and insults in multiple directions.
There is very little good behaviour here... I don't see *ANY* excellent behaviour from active editors (I do *NOT* hold myself up as an example). I'll just keep plugging along. Eventually, things will improve through frustration, boredom, blocking, or simply growing-up. sinneed (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed the link to the report, it was filed at wrong place. The problem is that Satanoid is intentionally insulting other editors and doing it even after several warnings. I don't think anybody other than Satanoid is intentionally insulting or hurling personal remarks. I have been involved in the discussion on the article from a long time, there are several editors involved but none of them as adamantly (and intentionally) insulting like Satanoid. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think anybody other than Satanoid is intentionally insulting or hurling personal remarks" - I can't agree. At all. Satanoid is perhaps the most overt, but this is only a matter of degree. Again, I am claiming no high ground here: I don't see *ANY* active editor who has avoided the insult trap. sinneed (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I kinda disagree with you here, I feel that other editors (even those with opposing views) are not hurling direct personal remarks. I guess personal insulting remarks directed directly against other editor is straightforwardly nonconstructive and no no. Its even worse if one continues direct insults after explanation why that is wrong. Anyway, I appreciate the hard work that you have done during last few days. I'll continue reading more on this topic as time permits; presently it feels like appropriate to move the content to Punjab Insurgency. Whatever, we do - I cannot escape noting and appreciating your hard work and time investment. Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 03:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with me is no problem at all. :)

• A wise teacher taught me that if you agree with someone, all the time and about everything, then at least one of you is redundant.
• Another said that if God had wanted us to all be alike, he would not have made so many of us.
• Still another said that there will always be at least as many opinions about something as there are people involved, and almost always more, because humans almost always have more than one opinion about something.
• He argued that the most hidebound people were those whose multiple opinions about things confused them, so they resisted the idea there might be more than one "right" answer fiercely.
  

sinneed (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

... enlightening thoughts indeed! Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 04:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sineed, can you take a look at this mate

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_extremism&action=edit&undoafter=259396905&undo=259418230

I checked your feedback on the edits I made especially to the word 'crushed' which you say is too emotional, incidentally another admin, moonriddengirl said we can't use exact words from the BBC, so we need to replace "rooting out militants" - I mean its not too different to 'crushed' ? The reversal by sikh History includes many mistakes including blank references so I re-edited. Regds Satanoid (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Unknown editor speaks

Why are you reverting my edits to the Sea Shepherd page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.250.105 (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are you and what am I saying in the revert? Are you the person changing the note from "direct action" to "eco-terrorism"? If you are, either source the change or stop. Thank you.sinneed (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

- understood. I'm curious though, are you a WP employee or something of a designated admin. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.250.105 (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Just a quick question. If the references do not contain any relevant facts AT ALL, whats the best measure ? Thanks Satanoid (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I fear I can't understand your question. If a reference doesn't seem to support whatever it is attached to, it is an excellent thing to ask about on the Talk page. Hope that helps. :) sinneed (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

People who call themselves Wahhabis

I'm interested in that (I see it very rarely though it does happen, and like I mentioned before, no organization or group uses the phrase, most tend to use Salafi). Do you know more about it? --Enzuru 05:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I regret that I made that off-topic remark. I keep a very very very firm line between the world out here and the world inside the discussion areas where I speak through "Sinneed". I know of no way to maintain the privacy of friends and coworkers if I discuss them and their beliefs here, and will not try. My apologies for mentioning them, as I know that is frustrating. I erred. sinneed (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What is unconstructive about the additions I made to Martin D. Weiss page?

I documented the information. I think it's important for people to know. Don't you think investors who listen to this guy would like to know about the previous litigation against him?

69.81.91.127 (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you have corrected the problem, I think you know. You had mangled the the references.sinneed (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Sinneed. You certainly improved that section of the entry. I will keep reading the wikipedia references and try to do a better job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.91.127 (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Damdami Taksal

Please be patient, I know its becoming a pain in the a** but at least correct the spelling of Dam dami Takhsal to Damdami Taksal - just because others have been over editing incorrectly (imho) I do think you ought to look closer to the points I have raised, regds Satanoid (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day Of Winter!

Happy First Day of Winter!

A stand of Pine trees beautifully coated in winter snow.

Wishing you a Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Winter 2008! Mifter (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Summer not Winter then I wish you a happy First Day of Summer 2008!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Winter}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Holiday spam

Moonriddengirl ^(talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks for your efforts to media in tricky situations. Good luck with it, and keep up the good work. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Polanski

Polanski falls well within the definition of the term pedophile. In 1977 he raped a 13 year olf girl, the term applies. You should also see the talk page for this article.

"Wikipedia pages are not designed to chart every single event or occupation a person has ever had. They are however supposed to chronicle those things for wish a person is most known . Roman Polanski is well known for being a rapist. There is even a movie about this. There are many other famous people who are also very well know not just for there careers but also for events in their personal lives. One is OJ Simpson. He is very well known for his crimes and this is listed in the very first sentence of his page as well. Would you change that? Will this be changed 30 years from now when people have decided to forget about how much they talk about it now? Polanski is no deferent in that his crime is something he is well known for having done. This is an important and pivitol aspect of his character that still has an influence on his life and the lives of others. I am sure that at some point in his life he held a job other than those listed in the first sentence of his page, or even anywhere on his page, but those things are not as important or relevant to him and how he is known. Being a rapist however, is very relevant to how he is known, and as such should be included in those things for which he is most recognized. I suggest that if you feel this moment is not relevant to the fact that he does not return to the states, was also relevant to the fact that he did not even accept his academy award, and that if he does return to the states he will be arrested then perhaps you do not understand the impact that such an event has on a life. Rape is an event that never leaves a person. They will live with that event for the rest of their lives. It becomes an integral part of who they are and everything they do, regardless of being the rapist or the person being raped." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.108.47 (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please practice saying "Neutral Point of View" over and over. In your opinion he is a pedophile.sinneed (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Polanski's actions fit within a definition of pedophile, sex offender, rapist, sodomite, and a wide range of other terms, if you feel that some other term would be better please make a suggestion in the talk page.(98.122.108.47 (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

ce...is CopyEdit?

I promise I am not being cute but...does that mean just "I made an edit." or does it mean "I changed the wording but intended the meaning to stay the same." or ? If this is a silly question, my apologies, but it just isn't obvious to me. Thanks in advance for any response. :)sinneed (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sinneed, I have my preferences set so I always need to use an edit summary. I use "ce"(yes, copyedit) as my "simplest" or "default" edit summary when I make an edit that I feel doesn't materially change the article but is more changing a word or phrase or whatever. Since you ask, I could probably use "better" or "more accurate" summaries but I'll admitt that I am sometimes lazy about it. I feel that about 1/2 of my editing is copy editing but a good New Year's resolution would be to use better edit summaries. Also, a review of WP:COPYEDIT tells me that I should also say WHAT ce I made. Actually, thanks for the comment since it does remind me that I should use "better" or more accurate edit summaries going forward and not just "cop"yedit "out" with "ce" :) Cheers! --Tom 04:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

check yourself before you wreck yourself

Calling someone a racist isn't libel. Intentionally misstating facts is libel. Characterizing Joseph Farah as a racist is, at worst, an opinion statement you disagree with. Please brush up on your policies (and grammar) before lecturing me again. Also, please don't make the assumption that just because I"m editing as an IP address that I'm new to Wikipedia. Judging from your list of contributions, I'd say that I predate you. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cute. No more than that, though. Did you have a point beyond cutesyness?
I honestly don't care if you have edited a week or a century: I make no assumption. Remember that the block of links is on an IP page. Whoever uses it will get its benefit.
You need that benefit. Your edit is not appropriate and not sourced. It would be "controversial" and "unsourced or weakly sourced", and it is about a Living Person.
Grammar: Since you did not care enough to tell me what the error was, it must not have been important to you.
Now to the only point I saw: I will "lecture" you any time I see you doing Bad Things, like violating wp:BLP. I will do this with anyone at all. If Jimbo went into a BLP and made such an edit, I would "lecture" him too. I would do it with my jaw dragging the ground, in profound shock, but nevertheless.sinneed (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken in several respects, and intentionally missing my point. Joseph Farah is a racist: generally accepted characterization. My edit was not to a BLP but to a BLP's talk page, attempting to bring up an idea for discussion. Clearly it's not a reliable source for inclusion in the article, but the screenshot of the google search is demonstrative of a point that we need to source and include in the article. Unfortunately, everyone at wikipedia is so scared of this dude's barratry that we seem to have given up trying to write an accurate article about him. Shame on you; grow a pair. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Way cool, you are a mind reader too? I mean you know that I am "intentionally missing my point" - wp:assume good faith
"Shame on you; grow a pair." that would be a personal attack. I'll drop by to give you a warning.
Now, I would point out that you state that you have a long experience with Wiki. Great. Gather the sources and make the edit, if you feel it belongs there. If I weren't assuming good faith, I would think you were ashamed of your position, and that you were trying to get someone else to do your dirty work for you.sinneed (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'll notice, the article is protected, and I'm an IP user. Even if it weren't protected, that would still be the sort of edit to discuss on the talk page prior to editing the article itself. Check the tumultuous page history to get a sense for what I'm talking about. But we're not having the discussion; I'm being wholesale excluded from the conversation based on a collective fear of this dude's saber-rattling and a generally dismissive and condescending attitude (endemic to Wikipedia) directed against IP editors. I apologize if you thought that "Shame on you; grow a pair" was a personal attack. It was not, as it was directed at Wikipedia as a whole and the editors who are responsible for turning the Joseph Farah article into a Joseph Farah love-fest in particular. An article about Joseph Farah without mentioning his racial additudes (or Swift Boat, or Vince Foster, or the rest of his shenanigans) is just a bad article, plain and simple.24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you don't understand that "Shame on you; grow a pair" was a personal attack. Please learn that it is, count it as an important lesson learned, and move on. I don't see anything else in there that needs a response.sinneed (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't wish to engage in dialog, don't initiate it. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• blink*I ... can't imagine what to say. Hmmm. How about "I have no idea what you are talking about, but I agree with your words. I just don't see how they apply to the exchange at hand. If you don't like my response, I consider that unfortunate."sinneed (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• blink* I... can. But I won't. Attempting to address your concerns has been an incredibly frustrating experience due to your arrogance and condescending 'tude. It's fairly ironic considering that you're the one bandying "personal attack" charges against me, but you're just not worth the aggrivation to continue this. See ya around; I won't be replying to (or reading) this thread anymore. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I truly have no concerns you need to address. I have let you know what you have done that is not acceptable, why it was unacceptable, and pointed you in directions where you can learn more. It is unfortunate that you find my responses not to your liking, and I was a bit bad with the "cutesy" and "mind reading" things. Hope all goes well for you in the new year.sinneed (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Rooster edit

check your sources, i even provided them down the bottom this time. I was being informal not bias or vandalisn. I hate to be rude but visit their and other websites like my sources omg stop giving me warnings for things I havent done!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.90.103 (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks…

…for your help on the Family Foundation School article. It's good to have an impartial set of eyes. Happy New Year! - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 14:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What in the world is a large block?

What do you mean by a 'link block warning' and a 'welcome block warning'? TopGearFreak 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't apologize, I volunteered and I wasn't clear at all. I have no idea what anyone else calls the welcome messages that wp:friendly puts into articles. I meant to say "Please write me any time." welcomeg is the large block of links. I use it most often. Someone showed it to me, and it is a great way for someone to find a lot of key information. I use it to find things after a year here.

I added the note to my edit review. Hope at least some of that was mildly helpful. Good work, keep slogging. :)sinneed (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Polanski = Sex Offender

Not one person had made any valid claim as to why adding sex offender to the title sentence is not appropriate, other than their just saying that it is. I have made several valid points as to why it very much applies, and not one person has stated how it does not. I have made the point on several levels, I have given examples of other articles that are the same and have read all of the BLP to find why it would not apply. NOT ONE PERSON has specified any part of the BLP that would restrict the adding of a relevant adjective describing the individual and a main portion of the article in the title sentence. You have not been able to, and have no reason to do so other that your position of authority to do so. You have not changed the OJ Simpson article or any other similar article. If a specific article is given any special treatment than this IS a violation of the BLP

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Also since it is a main part of the article as are all the other adjectives given to him in the title sentence then it applies. (98.122.108.47 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

"It would certainly be appropriate to include this in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)" (98.122.108.47 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

Your statement about our responses is untrue. It gives undue weight, among other objections, noted on the talk page and in the repeated removals. This important event is thoroughly covered in the article, including the lead-in.
There is clear consensus not to put it in the lead-in 1st sentence.sinneed (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no claims for removing sex offender from the title sentence other than just not liking it. There are many things that people do not like about the truth, that does not make them more or less valid. The greatest lies are the ones that we refuse to acknowledge as a group. Just because people do not like it does not mean it should not be there. I knew nothing about Roman Polanski until I read this article, it just seemed that since him raping a little girl was a big part of the article it should be a part of the main title. This is the sort of thing that people are supposed to learn in English 101 in college, I guess the people attempting to stop this edit never went to college.(98.122.108.47 (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

Your statement about our responses is untrue. It gives undue weight, among other objections, noted on the talk page and in the repeated removals. This important event is thoroughly covered in the article, including the lead-in.
There is clear consensus not to put it in the lead-in 1st sentence.sinneed (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

US Presidential Election, 2012

Why did you undo my edit? One of the two changes I made was to make the article conform to the consensus on the talk page (see "'Other' Candidates"). The other was to undo the removal of a candidate who has announced that he is running for president, with a source. I described both of those things in my edit summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltedCracker (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It was entirely an error on my part. When I looked at the change log, I saw no edit summaries, yet they are there. There is an image link that needs to be fixed, I noted it on your talk page. I have restored the edits, removed the warning, and can only offer my profound appologies. sinneed (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, no problem. In case you are wondering, I put that image there simply because that was the image there previously. I merely copied the code from before Rockyobody removed Thomas Knapp, since he gave no reason for removing a confirmed, sourced candidate. I'm going to try to track down an image we can use.SaltedCracker (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: My name :O

Thanks ! I'm not sure entirely what was going through my head when I made my name, but the amusement is a side-effect I suppose. Have a great day. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 04:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

IP troll

I'm affraid this will probably do more damage than good. You have given him two final warnings and an only warning. This guy already thinks he's invincible! You should have really reported him to the admins by now. I'll also keep an eye on him and glady help out if he continues his vandalism and trolling. Happy editing :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid he should have been blocked long ago.sinneed (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Heh. ARV. It and I are just not friends

LOL - I've only just started using Huggle! It makes the vandal fighting so much easier. As for ARV, i'd hate to have to type up a load of links as well as making the report! You'd need wordpad open as well to help out :D John Sloan (view / chat) 22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Dutch Dirty

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with me. Did I do something with Huggle that relates to it? - Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh right! I've removed the incorrect warning from the users talk page and apologised. Thanks for letting me know :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know here that I have placed the speedy tag back onto this article. You were right about it not being declined. In fact, it was removed by a sock of the article creator. John Sloan (view / chat) 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I warned the editor on the mac account as well.sinneed (talk)

You did the right thing. Keep up the good work :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 17:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tidying up

The excisions were made because of multiple repetitions, the remarks about skull dimensions and height ratios were repeated four times in the article, I think that the excision of such repitions was justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.93.237 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. And it still isn't "tidying up". sinneed (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Otters

You really otter get help. :-P Seriously, you're having a lot of pun, I can tell. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Muahahaha! I started a pun avalanche. ;0)~ sinneed (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A good pun is its on reword. I see even User:Treelo is getting in on the pun. She rocks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Har. :)sinneed (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Aw, how cute. I really need to go down to the river. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Family Foundation School links

Ok, so if the link in question is deemed "relevant" then any link regarding "at-risk teens" and the abuses suffered at programs like FFS would also be relevant, even if not articles about FFS. As it is right now, the link in question may pertain to the topic, but it does not say that FFS is a good solution, nor does it even say that FFS is A solution. Therefore, as it is, it serves as an advertisement to "get help for your out of control teen." If you also deemed the suicide article regarding a death AT FFS to be something not to be included, then why are we posting external links to something not affiliated? If this is the case, then, as stated, any articles about deaths, abuses, etc. at "Therapeutic Boarding Schools", or more specifically, schools affiliated with NATSAP would rightfully be included as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.167.172 (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"so if...then any link" - no.
"Therefore, as it is, it serves as an advertisement to "get help for your out of control teen."" - no.
"you also deemed the suicide article regarding a death AT FFS to be something not to be included" - it is included.

• Struggling Teens report on 2004 Suicide at The Family School
  

"If this is the case"..."any articles" - no.
And please sign your posts.sinneed (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake

i just was traslating that template to Spanish wiki, sorry if i modified the english one. Locos epraix (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User:CoreEpic is at it again.

Apparently unclear on your "check yourself before your wreck yourself" admonition, User:CoreEpic has again made the same edit, here, here and here, while making the absolutely incredible claims that 1) you are vandalizing the article, 2) that somehow consensus has been reached on this line of reasoning, and 3) accusing both me and new editor User:Threeafterthree of vandalizing the article here. IMHO, CoreEpic needs to be shown the door. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 16:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a TPS here. But you may wish to file a report here if this user continues to edit war. You don't have to break the 3RR to be blocked for edit warring. If it gets really out of hand, you could also request full page protection. I must point out that I have not reviewed this situation to deeply, but I would say incorrectly calling you a vandal is a personal attack. Hope my talk page stalking has provided some help! Happy editing :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

if you have a problem with the edit please participate in the discussion. CoreEpic (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

I was just about to file a 3RR report as well. However, if he is right, then i'll have to scrap it. Also, if he starts any serious sock pupperty, that would certainly require more serious action to be taken. John Sloan (view / chat) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, i've already started a sock puppetry case against CoreEpic. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CoreEpic. Please feel free to join the discussion there. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 20:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, i've given it a mention. Thanks John Sloan (view / chat) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me and my ignorance if this is an impertinent or pithy question: How many "last warnings" does CoreEpic get, before the boom gets lowered on him? He clearly cares nothing for the process and shows no signs of following it. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

His gloating about the sock puppetry case being closed has shown he has no desire to be constructive here. Any more edits from his suspected sock, please let me know as this will probably be enough to re-activate the SSP case. Cheers John Sloan (view / chat) 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, how about this one and this one? - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 22:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Those edits show he has not learnt from the SSP case. I'll file a report with the closing sysop. Thanks John Sloan (view / chat) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, if he still fails to be constructive on the talk page and making questionable edits to the article. I suggest taking it to WP:AN/I instead of WP:AIV. John Sloan (view / chat) 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

An editor gets warnings until:
1 - someone objects formally to the warned behaviour *and*
2 - an admin determines action should be taken
If someone else objects to the behaviour, they can choose the best forum and pursue it or not.
Since I am now in the content dispute with him, I don't think I should, and I am not going to.
I have influenced the decision twice before, when the editor was vandalising. At the moment the editor is just misbehaving... edit warring. The editor has accepted what I see as a factually correct statemement of what happened... no more BLP violation, no more OR... the only issue remains the content dispute.
Sadly, the editor's behaviour has decayed. But in the larger sense Wikipedia does not care. If the violations of civility are serious enough, someone will object.
If the editor breaks consensus and violates 3rr, I will object. But I am not going to revert the edit, even once, so long as all it does is "be rude". *sigh* Signed --sinneed (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Luckystrike315

FYI, reported Luckystrike315Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported Gerardw (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Constructive"

Please, you obviously have no understanding of what "constructive" means in the terms of what I'm doing with this article. The article has been moved itself, and so the discussion page must also be moved. That is all. --24.151.22.136 (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, in English connective words such as "and" and "of" are kept uncapitalized, even in a title.--24.151.22.136 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:

If I remember correctly, vandal edits made in the sandbox would be reverted. Maybe I'm wrong, idk... Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed, I want to comment on this If I can I just really don't see blanking a sandbox test page should be warnable. As I stated to Montgomery I looked through the History and an IP User did that same thing and was off the hook. But I don't know I just find it weird to warn after a user usedd the sandbox--Chase25 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

'Kay thanks for the heads up. Have a nice day!
Sincerely, Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

MEDRS

No need for deference :) All the best and happy new year, Verbal chat 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogs

Sinneed, Sorry for not giving a reason for the delete/revert. The reason was because the blog sited was not an external site for Sovereign Grace Ministries, nor is it a site for former or present members. Because it is not an official site for the organization, nor a published source, I did not consider it a reliable source in the sense of giving validated biographical information or resources about the organization in question. Is that a valid reason to prevent the blog from being posted in the future? I'd appreciate any help you'd have to offer here.

FenderPriest (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pooktre

Hi this is blackash, You may be interested to know that pooktre and Arborsculpture have been merged into a page call Tree Shaping [4], which I think is a good move. There is a discussion on the talk page about the over all name.[5] Blackash (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently...

...I like to watch my parents shower. I can't forget my love for life.

Sound familiar. and lol funny? Yeah, that's what the IP user wrote when he/she/xye vandalized on my userpage. Thanks for reverting it. --Call me Bubba (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC) You are quite welcome. Glad I could help. All the bestsinneed (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm a question.

{{helpme}}OK I swear I read a note that citations and ELs must not lead to cites requiring registration or a fee. Was I dreaming? It isn't at wp:cite.sinneed (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. You're looking for Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Let me know if you have any further questions. Best regards. --Chasingsol^(talk) 06:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Paper folding

There isn't a need to delete an entire statement just because the current reference isn't good enough - that's a reason for requesting a better reference, not wiping the information entirely. (Having said that, I am finding it bizarrely difficult to find an online reference that isn't a blog, but I am still looking.) — sjorford++ 10:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm still not clear why "it was needful to delete the entire statement". Could you clarify please? — sjorford++ 13:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see what you mean. I agree, it is a thought experiment. I never intended to say that it was possible to fold a piece of paper 100 times - in fact, I was trying to point out the opposite! (The point is that people's intuition is often wrong here - often people think that 100 folds would produce a stack of the order of 10s or 100s of metres high, not a billion billion billion metres high.) Still, I'm not sure that it's necessary to ask for a citation for the "almost as high as the universe" statement, as that is surely covered by the internal link to 100 yottametres. — sjorford++ 15:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nerf

Sorry about that, you can discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. The editors there agree that "nerf" and "gimp" are both similar, partly unreferenced, and therefore candidates to be merged into the game balance article. I don't really see any reason to keep the articles, but if you do, feel free to explain why.--_ZXCVBNM 05:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WoW Content Info

Hey, thanks for the post... I felt that having an introductory sentence that mentioned multi-player content without any further clarification was bad style, I noticed the text you mentioned farther down the page, but I prefer to keep related topics together. My personal vote would be to keep it where I edited it and remove the lower reference, as it is less useful there. I'm not sure what would qualify as a cite-able source for something that's an integral part of the game mechanics, still new to that aspect of Wikipedia, so feel free to bring me up to speed. Cheers! Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cholodecki edits

Thanks for your edits, they have made the articles more readable. --Milicz (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Latin lesson

I frequently use the English translation of this maxim, but never saw it presented in Latin before. Thanks for teaching me something new/old ;-). - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 11:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Warnings" on my talk page

Hi. How about you escalate this, rather than continue to apply bogus "warnings" to my talk page? Thanks, and consider yourself now banned from my talkpage. Best regards, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you return.
Rest assured that the warnings were not bogus. You have not, in fact, addressed the statement that only Christians and Jews adhere to the tenets of Young Earth Creationism. You must not remove article flags without addressing the issue.
You have also earned a 3rd warning, and my simply not being able to post it to your talk page does not affect that. You are out of line. Wp:no ownership of articles might apply. Your post here might well be covered by wp:TE. In any event, please feel free to post here in any appropriate way.
I have restored the fact flag, as the statement remains unsupported (a polite way of saying false). That puts me at 3 for the day, and I am done. Do please remember that 3rd warning, and refrain from removing the flag without addressing it.
Why in the world would I escalate? Do you plan to continue to misbehave? If so, and if needed, I may follow up with an ANI or AIV as needed, but I see no reason for that at this time.sinneed (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it would be amusing to see what WP:AIV would make of this, I encourage you not to report me to that forum, as it would likely turn out in a bad way for you. WP:ANI might be more appropriate, although their advice would likely be that you start an WP:RfC or other such. At any rate, your persistent "warnings", particularly the one about Young Earth creationism being a biography of a living person seem quite hollow. If you had ever planned to act on these warnings in any meaningful way, then I encourage you to do so post-haste, rather than to continue to populate my talk page with them. I have clearly been "warned" enough that the time of reckoning is nigh. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As I say, I don't expect you to continue to misbehave, so I am sure that won't be needful. All the best.sinneed (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I intend to continue to behave in the way that I have been. If that is "misbehaving" then you clearly have an obligation to "report" me. Shall I start an WP:ANI thread on your behalf? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Should your behaviour merit one, you are certainly free to do so, but certainly, that would be on your own behalf. I have seen it once before, when an editor felt compelled to make a 4th revert in a day, and turned him/her-self in for 3rr violation. I would expect it to be rare, though.sinneed (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You have continued to insist (three times? four times?) that my behavior warrants administrative action. Let me state here, I intend to continue to misbehave in all of the ways that you have persistently threatened and harassed me on my talk page about. You now have an obligation to follow through with your warnings, since I obviously show no sign of changing my ways, and should be banned from Wikipedia. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

3 warnings, yes. Banned? At the very most, it *MIGHT* merit an admonishment, and I doubt even that, certainly not a block, absolutely not a ban. I would point out that chattering away on the talk page of someone you formally have stated a desire not to hear from seems to be a bit rude. You are, nevertheless, welcome.sinneed (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Perhaps you should ask for an official admonishment then? However, since I avowedly do not intend to "reform" my behavior, the obvious solution is to ban me. I don't understand why you are so reluctant to follow through with your threats warnings on my talk page. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1st - normally no admin is going to involve themselves in some minor content dispute, they have important work to do. 2nd - it would require 4 warnings, including a final warning. I have made my last reversion, and if no one else ever feels it needs to be flagged, then it won't be, and you won't revert it. If you do, and they pursue it by warning, and then you do it again and someone pursues it by warning, then they may or may not pursue the matter as they choose.sinneed (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Welcome to Wikipedia. Now, may I ask that you please stop with the persistent "warnings" on established editors' talk pages over "minor content disputes" (in which you are clearly in the minority). Starting off a discussion by claiming that Young Earth creationism is a WP:BLP, and then flagging a relatively uncontroversial claim as needing a source, and then deleting that claim in fairly short order after it had been sourced, all the while issuing talk-page warnings to another editor, seems a bit of WP:POT, don't you think? I realize that you are a Huggle user, and that may tend to give you a view that most other editors are largely intent on sabotaging the project, as well as a rather inappropriate general methodology of how to deal with content disputes in general: by issuing "warnings". But let this be a lesson to you: don't make "warnings" unless you believe that you are actually on solid enough footing that you can get a block if necessary. Also, we won't go into how calling my behavior here "misbehavior" is not assuming good faith, since you have already assured of course me that you always do that, whereas (according to you) I do not, and I make personal attacks, and so forth. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"But let this be a lesson to you: don't make "warnings" unless you believe that you are actually on solid enough footing that you can get a block if necessary." - not at all. I am sorry that you seem to feel that warnings are somehow a prelude to blocking. They are not: They are a way to help people see when they err.
Behaviour is what it is. I have every confidence you are proceeding in good faith, but poor manner. As, for example, banning me, yet coming here to talk over and over.
Poor taste. But clearly good intent. You are attempting to bring me to your point of view, which I am confident you think is correct.
"may tend to give you a view that most other editors are largely intent on sabotaging the project" - not at all. I find most edits I see fly past Huggle to be made in good faith.sinneed (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit to add)"flagging a relatively uncontroversial claim as needing a source, and then deleting that claim in fairly short order after it had been sourced" - I would most certainly not do that, and have not. The statement that only Jews and Christians adhere to YEC beliefs remains unsourced.(Thank you, user:Hrafn for reminding me that such discussion belongs on the talk page.sinneed (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the bit about the talk page. You have banned me, and I will most certainly honor that ban. sinneed (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Young Earth creationism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You are edit-warring against the WP:CONSENSUS on this article. If you think that the consensus is wrong, then call a WP:RFC on the issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Normal content dispute. I have fact-flagged a statement, which is unsourced. The fact flag has been repeatedly removed. I have been reinserting it, since it does in fact need a source.sinneed (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And it was a normal 3RR warning. This part is important: Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. In other words, you do not have the "right" to make three reverts in a day in order to game the 3rr rule. It's the spirit, not the letter of the law that matters here. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not. And removal of article flags is not an exception to 3RR. If some other editor agrees with me, they will eventually flag or correct the text. If not, it will stand as it is. Thanks for the comment, in any event.sinneed (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, do you have a source for any non-Christian or Jewish young earth creationists? I would assume as you as so adamant there are some you would have a source... Aunt Entropy (talk)

I have struggled to find a courteous response and the best I can come up with is: You have departed from the subject for this talk page. That might be appropriate for the article talk page, but unless some other editor pursues the matter, I believe the point is moot. All the best.sinneed (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanksi

I don't see why you thought my edit was not constructive.--194.80.206.103 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

meantime...

Edit war! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Hi. I saw your name at the Guild of Copyeditors, and I was wondering if you would be interested in copyediting the article The Return of Dr. Octagon? It is currently a good article nominee, and I may nominate it as a FAC soon. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Wowscape -

Hey thanks for sorting out the Wowscape page I created - I feel that it is much better just redirecting to the official WoW page and I am glad it was credited with that instead of just flat out deleting it ><.

Thanks again, always nice to see a wise wikipedian :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leylu (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Fellow de-orphaner!

I noticed you added your name to the list of participants in WikiProject Orphanage. We really appreciate your help! The first things you could do to get started with us are:

1. Read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage page, especially the section marked "Criteria". The page contains a lot of good advice to get you started, as well as the standard procedures we are using to de-orphan articles.
2. Look at {{orphan}}, {{do-attempt}}, and {{articleissues}} closely and make sure you know how to use them correctly. (It's not difficult, but it is easy to screw up. Trust me, I have.)
3. Keep de-orphaning! Category:Orphaned articles contains all orphaned articles organized by month. Right now we're just trying to keep up with all the new orphans being created, so please start with the current monthly category. Once those are cleared out, we can start working on the backlog in reverse-chronological order.

Of course, you may have already known all of this, in which case sorry for the spam. Either way, let me know if there's any way I can help you contribute more to the project!

Aervanath (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for fixing that typo, too. :)--Aervanath (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)