User talk:AccurateOne

Rules of my talk page: As always notes from other people expected and responded to responsively. AccurateOne refactors and removes what he likes. I might need the space. Refactoring does not produce false attributions. Refactoring may produce derived authorless wisdom. See the original wiki. Refactoring does not argue by deletion.

==

Welcome!

Hello, AccurateOne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Allan McInnes (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Im new, ..... here, but not wet. AccurateOne 02:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is Kurds. I changed my username. Please go to my new talk page instead of my old one. Thanks.

By the way, assuming your IP address is 202.164.205.96, yep its me, you probably should explain why you changed "WWI" to "WWII", I reverted your edit simply because there was no explaination. The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 07:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I wrote the WWI originally and on poking through the history of BS as I can find it on the web I decided it was on the balance of opinion wrong. I have also spent considerable time reviewing avariety of users "User contributions" and developed a feel for how people edit pages they are actually working on. People who find out things add things and fix them. They rarely write down on the talk pages how or why 1601 changes to 1602 or the like. It is entirely possible that most wikipedians and wikipedia artciles are edited differently to that.

I however accept for the moment to follow KISS I should modify nothing on BS as that would muddy the waters of a discussion if we have one. Fixing the actual error I thought fell outside that. AccurateOne 09:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heh, I was just wondering why you did it.. since it was kind of vague (usually there's a small explaination on the edit summary).

Oh, and also, please don't put the long string of ='s after everything. I'm not exactly sure why you do it, and generally looks bad on the final result. Coolies. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 09:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my browser I dont see along string of ='s anywhere after anything...(double-verifies fact after all I am the AccurateOne) oops found one after the entry at the top of Bullshit Talk Were there many others I should revert?

Yep thats a bad effect.(wont do that again(probably)) Do yuo know, is there a Bakus Naur grammar for wikipedias syntax. The wikis I have been on before worked particularly hard at making special sequences hard to type accidentaly and at making the rules required to remeber how to avoid it easy.

Wikipedia has many many more special purpose display features that the primarily text and abstract content oriented wikis Ive been on before. I imagine if I wrote a mathematical formula and used square brackets and happened to need to nest them it would turn into a broken link. I Imagine there is then another syntax or even a HTML tag that says do not interpret this as wikipedia special syntax etc. The Backus Naur grammar or the pages that linked directly to it would speak to me in my native tongue, geek.

I do it out of habit in text environements to break things into bits. At a the top of BS talk I did it to end my stuff, that I hoped would end the edit war or at least prompt a dialogue. I expected to later delete everything down to the ='s

Ah, well breaking things into bits is easily solved by creating new sections with double ='s. Or you can simply use a horizontal line (four hyphens creates a line). Wiki syntax is dodged with the <nowiki>tag. Nesting a bracket within a bracket on a math formula shouldn't cause problems. The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize)

A little Invite . . .

Hey I just read the discussion on the BULLSHIT article and also some of the case study on the mediation problem. I'm also new to Wiki but have been using it for years. In my time being a user I have seen some arugments, but nothing I have seen compares to the dispute happening on the Bullshit article. Even thought I am two years late in reading the discussion, I would like to say that I sympathize with your view; even though I might not be smart enough to appreciate it fully. Whether it be a view you still hold, only your response to this will tell.

In either case,if it does of it does not, I would like to Invite you to talk on my talk page under a new topic of mine titled "Can Wikipedia Change, Should it Change?" Also feel free to invite anyone else you think can contribute to this topic. Go all over Wiki is necessary. I'll try to do the same to. I thank you for reading this even if you don't respond to it. And if you do . . . Yaaaaaaay.:~)-BTJM--AKIRA70 (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]