![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi Carl, Please see my talk page for a response to your recent inquiry. Bytebear (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
From Talk:Afghanistan: I don't mind a footnote at all for showing that other terms have been used for Afghan. It was not the entry in the Am.Hert.Dict. that was affectation, the use is affectation. The Am.Hert.Dict., as one may note in its introduction, just records usage, it is not prescriptive. --Bejnar (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I could see you were reverting an IP's changes. I recently emptied that category, so now just keep an eye out for anything that creeps back in... Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
i was able to work with u and keep the page that way although i dont like it, i added some info and sources to try to make it better, just wanted to let u no :) Usedfan1989 (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, remember to mark yours reverts as minor edits per Help:Minor edit. Cheers. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 10:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Carl: Your skills as an editor are greatly appreciated. Looking through your contribution history, I can see that the vast majority of your edits are very well-reasoned and rational, and based on your education and subject matter expertise. However, you made a recent reversion in the Survivalism page that I suspect was made without realization that the link that you deleted was to one of the main blogs on the subject of survivalism. SurvivalBlog has more than 50,000 unique visitors per week, with readers worldwide. The blog is considered a standard reference on the subject, and it has deep archives of practical data of considerable interest to survivalists. It is NOT a paid commercial site. ALL of the information at SurvivalBlog is available to the public at large, without any mandatory subscriptions of password protection. It is also notable that this blog is cited in the main body of the Wiki article--not just in the external links list.
If your edit were in a page on Anglican or Catholic apologetics or one of your other areas of expertise, I would defer to your expertise and judgment. But in this case, please defer to my expertise. I am much closer to the topic than you are. (See my contribution history.) So in this particular case, I believe that I am a much better judge of relevance, vis-a-vis Survivalism.
Thank you once again for the many hours that you devote to the improvement of Wikipedia. Sincerely, - Jeff Trasel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasel (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.186.223 (talk • contribs)
Jack did the same thing, yet you don't warn him. Perhaps you should do so.
I see idiots never listen to reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.146.206 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Carl, I wanted to ask for your thoughts and possible assistance in touching up and expanding the page Wikipedia:Other Stuff Exists. Based on your comments in some articles or deletion discussions in which we have both been a part, I believe that you may have a similar viewpoint and be better at explaining the purpose of the page, which is Precedent as it applies to Wikipedia. The essay is in its early form and needs continued expansion (with solid examples). If and when you have a few moments, please take a look at it and let us know what you think or help to build the page up more. Many Thanks! VigilancePrime (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC) :-)
Carl, Why do you keep removing my corrections to the David E. Hughes entry in Radio? To say that he transmitted on SLF is idiotic and meaningless. To claim a Clockwork transmitter is also pretty silly.
The references state that he was transmitting via a simple Spark Transmitter, and receiving via a Detector made from a non-linear contact based on a Carbon Microphone. He used a Telephone Earpiece to hear the "clicks" from the transmitter (in this he was way ahead of Marconi, who initially used a Coherer to ring a bell).
He clearly did not transmit on SLF and did not transmit Morse Code.
His Spark Transmitter was keyed via a Clockwork driven contact (eg his modulator was "Clockwork", not his Transmitter).
References. "A History of Wireless Telegraphy" by Fahie. "The Story of Wireless Telegraphy" by A.T.Story Page 108.
Please do not vandalise my contributions in future.
Gutta Percha (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Gutta Percha
Yes, I apologize for the typo, but it wasn't the first time you changed it. And no mention of the real issues: Why SLF, why Morse Code, Why Clockwork? You even admit you know nothing of the subject. This is the whole problem with Wickipedia Gutta Percha (talk)
Typos matter. They make WP look bad, and I didn't know if it was 1887 or 1888 and since you made the edit as far as I'm concerned it's on you to fix it. I haven't reverted your most recent edit, if you'll notice. You're missing my point from before: "*In 1887, David E. Hughes In 1878, David E. Hughes transmitted..." makes WP look like shit. That doesn't even make sense. It is not a sentence. Quit bitching and accept that I am doing my part to make the encyclopedia look decent. When you write cogent sentences I won't revert them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Carl , I'm Pilot ......... I edited the openning to the article to include the 4 sentences talking about Testament means and is interchangable with Covenant ...... It is an important element , also the terms Holy Bible , Word of God , Scriptures that were added by another prior are as well important elements .......... you say you talked about your edit on the talk page , OK , I saw it tonight ........ no one talked to you about your suggestion much at all , did they ?? .......... I also discussed my edit that I mentioned to you , and there was quit a bit of discussion ..... I gave credible references to cite what I added , and they are valid ......... more , see definition # 4 in this Encarta link which is typical of dictionary , [1] ........ the definition of testament in relation to Judaism/Christianity ......... if you want to revert what I have added , you should talk to me first don't you think , especially since the edit stood and was valid with proper refs. and an important aspect of Old and New Testaments .......... Pilotwingz (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The article on Grendel's mother contains many pictures of seemingly unrelated characters. Thought I'd do the same for her son.Dark hyena (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, there is no need to "compromise" by hiding information where 99.9% of the readers will not see it. Most readers will see the "1" and think it is sourced as the denonym being Afghan and nothing else. Please don't call this a compromise. It's so silly it's actually annoying. Call it what it is, hiding information.
By the way:
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
KabuliTajik (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
While I can appreciate your comment on needing a reference, you should note that all the other mentions of parody in the movie are also un-referenced, such as the allusions to Mark Vanderloo, Star Trek's Mugatu or Robert Moog. As well they should be, parody is meant to be self-evident and is rarely footnoted either on wikipedia or peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Creators rarely mention all the work they parody, even in interviews.
In the case of my contribution to the Zoolander page, Mugler is clearly a source for Mugatu: the names are three-letters apart; his accent and speech patterns are very similar and, most importantly, the clothes worn by Muagtu and his henchmen are all Mugler design knock-offs.
I am quite familiar with proper footnoting and referencing with regards to parody and allusion as a doctoral candidate in the humanities at Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences: Joaquin Terrones jsterron@fas.harvard.edu. Thank you for your input but please in the future make sure your edits are valid and if in doubt post on the talk page first. Good luck with your MA!
--Jsterron (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the edits to the Afghanistan article by AntiFascism who is the latest sockpuppet of either Beh-nam or Tajik. BamyanMan was yesterday's incarnation, which is now blocked. Let me know if this happens again. There is no point in edit wars, but avoiding them with Beh-nam's sockpuppets and Anoshirawan is difficult. They have an agenda apparently, and won't listen to any arguments, rational or otherwise. See for example what they have been doing to Demography of Afghanistan where the citation to Encyc. Iranica for the ethno percentages is totally bogus. --Bejnar (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the latest developments at Argentina and Talk:Argentina? The user is POV-pushing and bordering on vandalism. Moreover, there is a possible case of sock puppetry. --the Dúnadan 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi I reverted a vandal - self-admitted. Check your page histories if you care to review. --Jack Merridew 10:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! My name is Magiko and have been editing wrong assumptions and mistakes made in the History Of Tango article. Please do understand that I am not a "vandal". On he contrary, I am someone that cares about contributing correct and accurate articles to Wikipedia, especially about one of my favourite subjects: Tango. Just to let you know, I am an expert in Tango matters for several reasons: I am Argentine, born in Buenos Aires. I am a professional award-winning film and stage composer living in London and have enjoyed the teachings of great tango teachers and composers in the past (including Astor Piazzolla as well as others). In fact, I am especially interested in correcting the absolutely wrong assumption that Tango has any roots and/or has been influenced by African music, rhythms and/or culture in any way or form. This statement is absolutely incorrect. Argentina (the Tango's country of origin) never had any African people among their multi-racial communities at all. There seem to be a big confusion by many people between what Argentina is (and represents) and what Brazil is (and represents). Tango is not Samba. Tango has its roots in the European immigrants communities present in Buenos Aires at the beginning of the last century. Please do understand that all I am trying to do is to correct a big mistake - and not trying to either produce a problem or edit the articles about tango with erroneous or false information.
Also, please be so kind as to let me know how to edit the above mentioned article in such a way that it can remain in Wikipedia without beeing deleted time and time again. Thanks you very much for your help and cooperation.
With kind regards,
Magiko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magiko (talk • contribs) 15:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You removed my categorisation of Pole dance under dance equipment. The main point of the article may be to describe the activiy but there is a good description of the standard pole and it would be silly to split it off. I think it is something which people looking up dance equipment might want to see. I'll stick it back in for the moment, perhaps you can point to something saying that categorization must be of an exact is-a type for articles? Dmcq (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I realise that you have since rectified this issue, but may I ask why did you delete the link in the first place? It has me quite perplexed. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw your comment here. It is interesting that you are studying about this in a university/college. Can you recommend to me some literature that discuss the economic (not political) side of jizya? Please respond on my talk page. Bless sins (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
What are all these 3 second unfounded "accusations" of spam? Please reads the links carefully and get to know a user's past contributions ans the effort they have put into editing many pages before making sudden accusations as judge/jury/wikidefender all bundled in one. Is this a new paradigm for wiki-justice being tried out by you guys, or is this an automated bot doing this?
I pointed out a free book that I had just printed myself, after another user edited de Montfort's page and his link interested me, and I found a better link. I printed the book for myself free an hour ago or so, and thought others may want to know that too. Here is what I wrote back to Andrewc who posted that message:
Please consider apologizing to me. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
PS: By the way Carl, please READ the Louis de Montfort page as you have left it now. It has a "free on line link" by the previous user (who pointed out to me it was free) but his link is not formatted right. So you took a well formatted link that I had and restored to a porly formatted free link that the previous user had left. Please read "carefully" before reverting. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries my friend. I think tye spammers had got on your nerves before, so you wanted to banish them all, so you acted quickly. Have a good evening. Regards History2007 (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, in the long run, all this will be history. I think you spend effort doing this (unpaid) because you want to do soemthing positive. So no worries at all, it will all work out. The key is not to get too upset for calm and peace are key ingriedienst to good health anyway - nervousness and arguments do little good. take care History2007 (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I am just trying to see who is more stubborn.... I think each person should have control over their own talk page. What you must remember that real spammers can just start new user names at a starbucks and do not even need to worry about talk pages. So all these assumptions about identifying spammers etc. seems to me to be undue policing and very ineffective policing at that anyway, for it would make for a comedy of some type. It is really hard to detect spammers if they set their mind to it - and they don't even need ot be geniuses. So I think you are getting worked up for nothing. The fact that you have to over-react to things is an indication that the current anti-spam techniques at Wikepedia are too manpower intensive. I wonder if I can actually suggest a better anti-spam strategy. The first thouught that comes to mind is a database of spammed links, so they can be looked up, but even that could be easily bypassed by some semi-clever redirects. I think a better use for your time would be to seek my help as an expert computer science type to help you banish the spammers rather than fight trivia on my talk page.
So do you want me to help you fight spam? History2007 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I just object to being monitored with inadequate and crude techniques... And you seem to like to monitor... I think I have said what I have to say... In parting, let me venture a guess Carl that deep down you had at one point a supressed desire to be a policeman or a correctional officer... Now it is manifesting itself on the web.... You want to "do right".... It reminds me of one of the two Ritchies: he was a theology student (his Wiki bio missed that fact) then a correctional officer, then a big time trader, still trying to "do good". Maybe one day you will also find your way to the trading floor... good luck my friend... History2007 (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to include the PPP GDP for France in the introduction but user:JdeJ is fiercely pro-French and won't allow PPP to be added in the intro because France is only seventh in terms of PPP GDP. The PPP GDP ranking of the UK has been included in the UK's intro. Just a helpful tip that they don't accept any edits that might make France in anyway look bad. Signsolid (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. --Aleenf1 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion here involving you. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |