User talk:Dscos
I hereby present to you my User_talk page. You can write almost anything you want here. However, vandalism and idiocy shall be reverted on sight. Just click Edit this page and add whatever you have to say to the bottom. I only ask (for the sake of organisation) that you separate it from the last person's comments by a ==level 2 heading==. Also, no horizontal rules allowed! Ever! And don't be a Cooch McGooch, sign your posts! Bon appetit!
Vandalism Comment
You made a comment on my discussion page warning me not to vandalize articles. I was not aware that I had done such a thing. Could you please specify which article you were refering to? Thank you! 24.217.114.202 02:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I really don't remember. What's likely happened is that you were viewing a warning intended for someone previously using your IP address. If you weren't aware, IP addresses are not always exclusive, and depending on your Internet Service Provider, it is possible for multiple users to use the same IP address. See the notice on the bottom of anonymous user talk pages:
- This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.
Thank you for protecting. I would however appreciate if next time you would not choose a version for protection that is justified with "an edit war? BRING IT ON, my little monkey". [1] Please notify me at my user page in case you reply as I do not watch user talk pages. Get-back-world-respect 00:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it's not my duty or right to pick the right version. Admins are generally not supposed to "endorse" any particular revision. I'm just following the rules. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#How. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I know it is not your duty to pick the right version. I however think that in such cases at least a neutrality dispute note should be added. And could you please fulfill your duty and protect wikipedia from vandals who ignore not only the three revert rule but also the policy not to attack others personally? TDC was already blocked once, now he even chooses inappropriate language at the page that is meant for mediation because of his conduct: [2]. Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Don't tell me what is and is not "my duty". I choose when to act. I was under the impression that TDC has been warned about this at his talk page by User:Snowspinner. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I know it is not your duty to pick the right version. I however think that in such cases at least a neutrality dispute note should be added. And could you please fulfill your duty and protect wikipedia from vandals who ignore not only the three revert rule but also the policy not to attack others personally? TDC was already blocked once, now he even chooses inappropriate language at the page that is meant for mediation because of his conduct: [2]. Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Protections
I'd just like to note, I really disagree with protecting George W. Bush. I think that it's important to have pages that have a lot of current and fast changes going on open for editing. I think this edit war is stupid and likely to be ongoing, and that protection isn't going to stop it - going to mediation or RfC will, but we all but have explicit POV warriors going on here. I'm loathe to let POV warriors effectively stop the development of pages like that, especially near-permanantly as seems likely to happen if protection of these pages goes on. Snowspinner 00:19, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Snowspinner, I respect you and all, but this has gotten out of hand. There have been revert wars going on in regard to this article for nearly two weeks. We are an encyclopaedia, and as such, our primary goal is to present information. Correct, NPOV, unbiased information. And the information in this article has been changing every 2 minutes recently. That makes us look unreliable and not trustworthy as a source of information. This needs to be resolved before we can open the page, IMO. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for changing that image to .png. Note: To delet image pages, clicking on the delete tab deletes only the comment page. Image:DistributionCoconutCrab.jpg is still there until you delete the image itself at the botom in the image history (deleting the latest version deletes all). I fell for that trap myself a few times. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
vandalism?
They is is not acceptable. The singular "they/their" form has not yet gained suffecient acceptance in formal writing to use it on Wikipedia. Please do not use it on Wikipedia. If you make that edit to a main page template after this warning, you will be blocked from editing.
Are you kidding? Singular "they" is used all over Wikipedia. I don't believe Wikipedia has an official pronoun policy.
If it's vandalism to change "he or she" to "they", then it would also be vandalism to change "they" to "he or she", and there are dozens of articles on Wikipedia that use singular "they".
- Singular they/their is incorrect, and articles that use them need to be fixed. It's poor grammar. Bottom line. Do not do it. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not have any pronoun policy. It's not your place to make judgements about "poor grammar". You say changing "he or she" to "they" is vandalism, and you say the opposite change is fixing... That's not the spirit of Wikipedia. No one made you the arbiter of pronouns. The articles that use singular "they" are not "incorrect" and they don't need to be "fixed".
- I disagree. Singular they/their has been used by educated people in a formal register for a long time. In fact, I have a copy of a British passport application that uses it in that sense. I prefer it sometimes and intend to keep using it. Grammatical rules are fluid and prescriptivists who think they are not can have a stifling effect on discussions and even distort people's perceptions of some groups within a society based on some perceived error in the way they speak. For an encyclopaedic style, all that matters is whether a significant number of educated, native speakers would find a particular usage acceptable. Proscriptions on split infinitives, terminating sentences with preposition and other poor grammar are for another age. Gest 09:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
WTF?? I think you've got the wrong man.
Did you address a message to me today accusing me of valdalism, etc? If so, then you must be sorely mistaken.
I haven't made a broad, "vandalistic" edit in several months (they have all since been reverted as I have learned the rules of the boards).
Recently my only edits have been to the following articles:
1. Fidel Castro (adding a single external link from Freedom House and had a bitter political argument with another user on the DISCUSSION page--hardly a crime).
2. Robert Mugabe (added an external link to Freedom House report)
3. Rios Montt (the article is currently locked due to an edit war between myself and 172, among others, but I am involved in an open-ended talk on the DISCUSSION page about how best to balance the article. I am attempting to make it more NPOV and less like a partisan hate-piece against Rios Montt, the School of the Americas, and President Reagan.)
I don't know who is taking their beef with me to you, and I fail to see how I have overstepped any wiki boundaries about the editing process. Read these pages and you will see that this is all a mistake.
Please respond whenever you can;
ANTI-COMMUNIST
- I really don't remember. What's likely happened is that you were viewing a warning intended for someone previously using your IP address. If you weren't aware, IP addresses are not always exclusive, and depending on your Internet Service Provider, it is possible for multiple users to use the same IP address. See the notice on the bottom of anonymous user talk pages:
- This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.
Same thing happened to me, but the IP address displayed didn't even match mine.
Geogre
Hiya. I noticed you voted against Geogre's adminship nomination. Purely out of personal curiosity, might I ask why? Thanks —Kate | Talk 16:31, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
- Well, firstly, I feel he's too "subversive" (for lack of a better word) in regards to his opinions on numerous aspects of the project and how it is run. I don't want to support someone that might endeavour to get abilities only to try to fuck things up or try to revolutionise something. Secondly, I don't like a lot of his reasoning, especially his recent reasons for opposing Snowspinner's RfA nom. All in all, I just don't feel comfortable at all with him being an admin, bottom line. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- But, I thought admins were just "janitors". How will the ability to block or revert allow geogre to "try to revolutionise something"? Or are you saying that admins are more than just janitors? -- orthogonal 14:19, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Adminship
Not right now, but thanks anyway. I'll see you later; I think I'll be on tonight. Ooh, also, take a look at the screencaps I've added to a lot of articles...you can find them in user contributions. Coronation Street is probably ready for FAC now. Mike H 00:28, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Change of Plans
I am not moving Friday...I'm moving the day after tomorrow. Mike H 22:34, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) ...w00t! Well, good luck, my friend. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Deletions
I remembered to break the tags on my most recent three. I was about to head to the pump to propose changing the instructions to have people put the tags at the bottom of the article so they don't show up in the 'reason' edit box by default, and save us the extra step. Niteowlneils 01:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Cool, cool. Btw, though, I don't like that idea, not really. But good thinking, I suppose. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:18, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"
Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."
However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.
I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.
For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.
I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.
Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.
Since Snowspinner chastized me several days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Well, Neutrality can be a bit stubborn sometimes. You can try to raise the issue on Neutrality's talk page if you haven't already. You can list the article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Peer review to let other users comment on the debate. Or if you really think Neutrality is acting in bad faith and/or contrary to Wikipedia policy, you can open begin a dispute resolution process by listing him on Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. That's my best advice. By the way, not to be nitpicky, but I'm in the mood to correct people's spellings tonight :-P... dialog -> dialogue, guideance -> guidance, chastized -> chastised. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Deletions
I'm sick and tired of nonsense rules. The "delete" is included automatically if it's already there. I'm not going to waste my time to remove it. You can read what's there just as easily with it or without it. Thank you for the information, which I will ignore. RickK 05:35, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Image deletions
Hi Blankfaze, User:SirJective/Image entries without image description pages includes a couple of images where you had deleted the associated image description page, e.g. Image:Cow and calf thumbnail.jpg. You may want to check some of the entries to see if the image should be deleted as well or the description page restored. --- User:Docu
- Yeah, I know, I just recently discovered that deleting the image page doesn't delete the images, just the description page. I don't like that system! Anyhow, I'm just now getting around to going back and redoing it all. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Don't worry, happened to me as well. ;-) -- User:Docu
Discussion moved to Template talk:Spoiler. — OwenBlacker 08:56, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)