User talk:Pakaran/Archive 2
First archive at User talk:Pakaran/Archive1 created 10 December 2003.
It does link to the subpage, but that is an interwiki-redirect, so it's actually quite hard to edit the original (not that I would mind if someone did). I only kept it as that link instead of a direct Meta link because I thought it looked nicer in purple than that light blue of external links. Kind of silly, but I figured I'd get it away with it on my own user page. It used to be a subpage of mine until I moved it to Meta. Angela. 03:53, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no tolerance for vandals. RickK 05:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I think sometimes it's ok to leave a stronger message for such edits, but that's just my opinion. I replied at Rick's talk page too. Angela. 06:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I corrected your wiki-link on Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki custom messages because it was broken: hope that's OK. Phil 16:29, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
Hey Pakaran, that vandal struck again under a slightly diff. IP address. http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=United_States&action=history WhisperToMe 23:57, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
What's wrong with <br>? If you take if off the main page, the Anniversaries line just stretches the screen out rather than being in two rows. I've reverted it for now as it looked dreadful and the br has always been there. Perhaps a better solution can be found but I think it is designed for a minimum 800*600. I'm surprised anyone's still using 640x480! Angela. 23:39, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
On the requested articles page, you reverted an edit earlier today (by 142.177.92.201) that looked fine by me. Why did you do that? --Raul654 07:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Re all this Silesian nonsense, I wouldn't say that 24.2.whatever is a vandal, but he/she is certainly a problematical user. Besides getting repeatedly into edit wars with Nico, 24.2 (and Caius2ga) are simply rude and unproductive in terms of trying to work out problems on the talk page, and uses rather nasty ad hominem attacks. As far as which version is better, I'd say Nico's is slightly better, in that it reads a bit better, but in this instance I'm not really sure I understand what the edit war is about. john 03:16, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I just read the article memory manager; you were the only non-anonymous edit. Anyway, I wasn't sure what the article is about. Hate to bother you, but I thought you'd be qualified to translate it into non-tech-speak. For instance, what does it mean to allocate or deallocate memory? What function in the program does this accomplish? Etc. Thanks. Meelar 04:32, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
Linux User Group
Pakaran, it sounds like you are editorializing on Linux User Group about the GNU/Linux vs. Linux issue. Try to remember to keep a NPOV stance on it. Dori | Talk 16:39, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
Nevermind. I was just surprised that the article hadn't existed previously. When it was deleted I thought it must be a mistake, but apparently not. Cheers, Evercat 00:31, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Is that really a good reason to block someone? I wrote the entire US 7th Army article with incorrect information, and that was like 5 paragraphs, instead of two dates on his December 6 edit... it was more likely an honest mistake, and should simply be corrected and explained, not causing a block warning. ugen64 02:21, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't really think you would block him, I was just wondering. ugen64 02:23, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
He had done it like 20 times, so I assumed there was a reason for not banning him... guess not. ugen64 02:30, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
- I also noticed... is that User:Michael? Similar IPs on the block log... interesting. ugen64 02:33, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the copyvio page - no votes can be taken as no objections, so those are ok to delete. Until fairly recently there was very rarely any comment or vote made about any of them. It's only now that Jamesday is arguing for fair use that the page has more traffic. Angela. 03:08, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
No, that's fine. It was just his own talk page I thought I might as well leave. Angela. 03:23, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi, looked at your contributions to the article on Internet-Encyclopedia. Of course there are alternative sympathetic points of view on some matters, for example the article, Continuation War can have two sympathetic views, a Finnish view and a Soviet view. On Internet-Encyclopedia I put them both up, here the partisans, one a group of Finns and a Soviet apologist are fighting it out. On subjects such as Nazism or slavery no attempt is made to present the subject in a positive light, any concept has its limits. Fred Bauder 13:26, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
agreed. Secretlondon 21:49, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
Regarding the Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone: the answer to your question is that the Sovereign makes individuals life peers, though all such appointments are political and therefore are made on the binding "advice" of the Prime Minister. Quintin McGarel Hogg was made a life peer so that he could hold the office as Lord Chancellor.
On a separate note, I am flattered that you should choose to contact me about the issue regarding peerage. I thank you for your kindness. -- Lord Emsworth 22:34, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
I have a feeling that User:What most surprised me was the arrogance of the administration may be a previously-banned user. RickK 05:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't know, really, though EoT was just re-banned yesterday, but he/she came out of nowhere and immediately zeroed in on VfD. RickK 05:05, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Mormons as transhumanist, theists
Not particularly relevant, just a point of interest: in some sense, it's almost fair to characterize Mormons as transhumanist, theists given their belief in exaltation or theosis...AND as a Latter-day Saint myself, I find it ironic that transhumanists are generally agnostic or atheist. B 01:46, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
Time to unprotect Golan Heights? --Zero 02:00, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why are you reverting unoffensive edits by anonymous users on other people's talk pages? I find it a rude disrespect of User:Angela for you to censor what she reads. -- Waveguy 22:26, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- The edit I reverted to Angela's talk page was by a banner user, EoT. All edits by banned users are to be reverted. Pakaran 22:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I am bewildered. On what basis do you conclude the identiy of the user? What due process has been satisfied? Waveguy 22:42, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Hello. This is wikipedia. We don't have due process - we have itchy trigger fingers. Your friend, Morwen 23:06, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for looking after my talk page. :) Angela. 23:43, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- 216.254.160.220 made these statements 21 Dec 2003 (UTC):
- You changed the user's page and began reverting articles. Where is the justification?
- I don't think these are the same people. Please state justification and link to some evidence of this.
- Policy requesting "Please do not reinstate any edits made by this user" is problematic and controversial.
- Based on above, Pakaran concludes 216.254.160.220 is EofT ? I don't see the connection. please inform me. -- Waveguy 03:05, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Pakaran - is moving the question to my talk page (that you asked me) a way of telling me you no longer wanted an answer? If so, saying so is clearer. Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 02:11, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Which question? Pakaran 02:12, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, that clarifies it for me. The Fellowship of the Troll 02:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
THANK YOU. Edit warring with religious cranks is so tiresome. —MIRV (talk) 02:15, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'd kinda prefer if you left this page protected for a bit, and give us some time to decide in talk what changes should be made, etc... before unprotecting. The page has had a horrid past (take a look at the page history!) and seems ever so much better at the moment :). If nothing else, I'd like to have a couple of people (not ONLY mr. vogel) request it unprotected before you make such a decision. Thanks, Jack 04:30, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You tolerant, mecrank, thank you !
Thank you for letting me breathe while editing my non nocere stuff. At least now you have something to cut or redirect. Thank you, thank you ! Crank irismeister 18:46, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)
I'm the one who should be sorry, I missed the incorrect caps. Always nice to meet a fellow Atheist. Bmills 16:36, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Haggii
No, there isn't a haggis animal, and the plural of haggis is haggises. We do, however, like to kid tourists that a haggis is a elusive mountain dwelling ducklike animal, with one leg shorter than the other (to allow it to run along a sloped mountainside). The truth, however, is far worse. -- Finlay McWalter 17:39, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, go ahead. :) Angela. 20:45, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry... :-/
OK, sorry, I'll stop... I had just discovered the wiki project and I wanted to try its seriousness. I could see it is quite well protected against vandalism : well done !
Putamadre
I only know Puta as "whore", but I suppose it could be bitch, too. RickK 04:13, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The Wall
I have no familiarity with the subject; I was just doing minor editing, not giving the interpretation my stamp of approval. Revert if necessary. Cheers, Cyan 04:44, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Angela's advice for the day
Never get in a move war at 4am.
It's very confusing. I completely lost where the ridiculous page had gone! :) Angela. 04:56, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you don't mind but I moved some of your text from m:The wrong Version to m:Edit Wars as the issues of religion etc apply much more widely than page protection. :) I couldn't think of a good section heading for it. It's just under alternative view on that page at the moment so if you have any better ideas, you might want to change that. Angela. 19:52, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)