|
|
Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post.
Keep reverting your changes and mine to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibitions_in_Sikhism articles with no discussion. The words I have reverted to were consensus wording decided by others mods and editors here. Is there anything we can do to encourage this user to be less confrontational?--Sikh-history (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edit I made was constructive, it is in the same context as the previous comments which may not be strictly encyclopaedic. Please do not remove my comments in future. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyboy21 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a place for you to put you opinion on a subject... your edit : He is also well known for his love of food and discusses this on-air, and his co-commentator Mark Church (as above) likes to comment on this, much to Kevin's dislike. falls under that category and will be removed should you put it back. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that an opinionated comment? It is simply a fact which I decided to add to the page. Where does it say "I think" or any opinion related comment?
[1] NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw you reverted my commenting on Root Beer as a traditional treatment for mouth sores, and I'm not sure I quite understand why. It is discussed on the Root Beer page that I linked to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_beer#Traditional_use) for your reference. I did have to follow through to the page on Licorice to find a more formal citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licorice#Medicinal_use .
If it's a more technical reason related to the editing process, I'm eager to learn on that front.
Thanks,
137.112.150.43 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite your source.... off Wikipedia. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!Appreciate you effort,especially for adding the dollar figures(US$ 75.63 million) , but India has its own numerical system which is binary in order.
Thus, it would be 29,69,00,000 (or 29.69 crore) and not 296,900,000 (this figure is meaningless in rupees).
Likewise, 69,29,00,000 dollars doesn't have meaning unless it is considered 692 million dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.171.222 (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, BBC this morning confirmed that it was up to 15,000 please do not revert edit Jdchamp31 (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The numbers have changed so much.... perhaps someone should wait until confirmed deaths are released and not put any bloody number they feel like... BBC gives one... CNN another... I will not change it again but changing it every 10 minutes depending on the news report will get tiresome. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough I will look at them periodically and change as I see fit Jdchamp31 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth does citing Donny Long's own webpage constitute vadalism??? James W. Ballantine (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I was attacking many pages with vandalism, this at first glance seemed like vandalism. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I can see how that would be a problem, especially with such a controversial figure as Donny Long. While I'm here: What is the Wiki policy as to an adult personality's birth name. The reason I ask is that the subject has been convicted several times, under his true name (Donald Carlos Seoane) both in Florida and California, on charges including spousal abuse, battery, grand larceny, burglary and squatting. I can subtantiate this through governmental sources. James W. Ballantine (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page :) I am curious, where are you in Canada? --Creamy!Talk 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Il n'y a pas de quoi.... je suis à Montréal. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- C'est cool :) moi je suis sur la rive sud, à Saint-Lambert. Aussi, je fais des pressions pour organiser genre un Wikimania 2010 à Montréal, ce serait un très gros évènement... Vu que tout les demandes minimales pour organiser un évènement de ce type est présent à Montréal. --Creamy!Talk 18:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya mate can you be a little more careful when reverting vandalism. In some cases you are simply reverting to a previous state of vandalism. Seddon69 (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No many of those happen... but I was trying to get it.... but luckily there are more anti-vandals than vandals. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, you can tell if some-ones a vandal. This a little bit prejudical, but vandalis tend to be IPs. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
|
| I love birds, and here's a barnstar for protecting the Toucan :) and for those lightening-speed vandal reversions that you achieve with no false-positives, and it takes a lot for that! Cheers... Prashanthns (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
- He he...and then, I saw the previous message!Prashanthns (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On average... I don't mess up............too often ;-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shit happens, and cleaning it is sometimes dirty! (Don't gross out on my msg, eh!)Prashanthns (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there LINUX, VASCO here,
Apparently, this must be another FALSE POSITIVE (getting used to them by now), but i did NOTHING INCONSTRUCTIVE on this BASKETBALL PLAYER's article, please check my EDIT in EDIT HISTORY. I sincerely hope it is...
A nice weekend from PORTUGAL,
VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on the topic, but I'm not sure that it's correct to call intrinsic finality an underlying principle of moral objectivism. I don't think you have to believe that "all beings have a natural tendency to pursue their own good" to believe that there are unversal right and wrong answers to moral questions.
I think intrinsic finality is only one of many possible principles behind moral objectivism. Either that or I don't understand what intrinsic finality means (and it's defined incorrectly).
 Thank you for your excellent work reverting vandalism on Rock 'n' Roller Coaster. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please ensure that users reported to AIV have received a recent final warning, otherwise the page becomes extremely backlogged and real vandals get away with more vandalism. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When it is so evident that they are ONLY vandalizing the warnings are quite frankly useless. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not so. Many many users stop after even a single warning, as have many you have reported today. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'k... I shall tag first... report later.--CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting the edits made by 163.153.24.40. The school district has identified the student involved and has taken appropriate action. --NERIC-Security (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted by edit claiming it was unconstructive. I reformatted the article, the information is exactly the same as before, but I organized it with tables to make it look professional and easier to read, because of that it is constructuve. Please don't revert it again, it took me lots of time to make the article look better and more organized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.7.107 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The info I am compiling is a work in-progress. Please allow some time before a thorough edit is completed.
Thank you- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew1976 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't revert changes to that section. It had serious POV problems. I was just about to post something on the talk page about this. 118.92.65.128 (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I live in district 6. You Know nothing. GET A LIFE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.197.7 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite your source before making changes and please remain polite. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
MY SOURCE IS I LIVE HERE AND I KNOW! I JUST TOLD YOU! Why do certain people think they own this place! YOU DONT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.197.7 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Until a valid (and polite) source can be cited, your edits will be reverted. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What can I CITE TO SHOW THE RACE IS CLOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW IS A CITATION POLITE! IN CASE YOU HAVEN"T NOTICED WIKIPEDIA CITATIONS ARE NOT THAT RELIABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE IT! SO WE CAN SIT HERE UNTIL ELECTION DAY. YOU DON"T EVEN LIVE HERE! YOU'Re CANADIAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.197.7 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work CanadianLinuxUser -- I've spoken to this user before about this edit as well. Keep on WP:AGF and deal politely (as you have been) and hopefully the policies will get through. It is amazing how many people try to fight policies, rules, etc with the argument -- "well, someone else does it". Here in the US (probably everywhere) people try to excuse their speeding on the freeway with, "officer, the other person was going just as fast". Somehow they don't realize it doesn't excuse their behavior, it just gets more people in trouble... heh... Have a great weekend! Tiggerjay (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this editor appears to be here for self promotion there is no way he is a vandalism only account. Please take a bit longer to check the editors history. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to slow down. You just reverted and gave a warning for a non vandalism edit. You are not being careful enough. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version of the article stated that Dann told the reporter to perform an "anatomically impossible act." That could mean he wanted the reporter to lick his elbow. He really did tell the reporter to "go f***" himself. I provided a source, and I just thought that it would sound more informative and less silly than the previous version. Unless Wikipedia is really sensitive about profanity (I don't see why, I'm not using it in the context of a personal attack and there IS an article on the F word, so profanity isn't completely banned), why not just let the edit stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.128.104 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Source ? The link does not work... where is the source? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www4.vindy.com/content/local_regional/338723836012188.php
This is just a copy of the link that I put in the article. According to the article:
"Before that, in late June, Dann told a newspaper reporter to "go ... [expletive]" himself."
"As Dann walked from his SUV to a Barack Obama fundraiser in Boardman, he shouted the statement to Steve Oravecz, a reporter with the Tribune Chronicle of Warren."76.188.128.104 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)The link he added works just fine. You are reverting way to quickly and not looking into the edits carefully enough. Pleaase slow down or even stop for a while. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the quote is "go ... [expletive]" himself." That is what you can put no more... and fix the link in the article, because it does not work. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but the link does work. And you should not revert good faith additions. If you think the quote is correct. (and let's face it it almost certainly is) add a [citation needed] tag, but don't undo constructive edits. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The link here is fine... in the article was incorrect until I fixed it and I will not leave profanity on a page without a citation to back it up. Sorry... --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously the link on the page was fine. I clicked it and it worked before the link was even added here. As for the profanity it was a quote . I've done a search on google and it appears all over the web. I'll add a cite for it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you gave User:Hatexyou some severe vandalism warnings for removing prod tags from the articles he created. If it were a speedy tag or an AfD template, it would be different, but he was entirely within his rights to remove the prods if he disagreed with the deletion. It even says so on the template itself, along with saying that if it is removed, it should not be replaced. Since he did object to the deletions, I'll be sending the articles to AfD at some point in the near future. As the one who placed two of those prod tags, I still feel that they should be deleted, but what he did was emphatically not vandalism, and warning him as if it was is entirely inappropriate. I haven't reverted these warnings, but I urge you to strike them out and apologize. Thank you. --Finngall talk 01:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A user the says "Hate you" removing things from articles..... seemed like vandalism at the time.... at any rate.... you got it. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother adding reports - the new accounts are getting caught and blocked as they appear. Thanks. GBT/C 11:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the link to his fight record on sherdog.com... constructive I believe. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.150.8 (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit I changed was MMA to "mixed martial arts". --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove my careful edits to the Rogers Hornsby page? They greatly improved the article, making it more precise, and providing a better chronological account of Hornsby's accomplishments. Also, I wasn't finished with my changes. The current article fails to describe what was really distinctive about Hornsby (e.g., the fact that he was the best hitter to play a position other than first base or outfield, the traditional hitter's positions in baseball), and fails to describe his accomplishments in the first five years of his career. The notion that my edits were "not constructive" is astonishing. Don't you want Wikipedia to have high-quality articles? If so, why would you discourage a new user's contribution like this, when the contribution is a clear improvement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.53.226 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edits seems dubious at first glance. I recommend the creation of a Wikipedia account to avoid such mistakes. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the ABY edit
This edit was constructive as I have also added a page about the website, therefore it must be added on the disambiguation page. It is not vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjboi224 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the link does not work. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IT does now. ABY (website) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjboi224 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The site www.aby.com does not work. nice try. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The webpage does (or at least, did) exist. See Talk:ABY (website) J.delanoygabsadds 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i corrected a mistake, how is this unconstructive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.119.42 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My edit to the James E. King article was legit. If you have such an issue with it, at least check the source I provide (Reuters) before you go around tossing "This is your last warning". I'll let you fix your ignorant mistake.
source is here. What a welcoming community....</sarc> 24.115.224.185 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CanadianLinuxUser. I am slightly concerned about the number of complaints about your reverting non-vandalism and biting newbies and unregistered editors. I am considering whether to remove your rollback, or your twinkle, or both. Please slow down and be more careful. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, been watching the James King page situation. Be careful about 3RR as well. It can result in a block for you. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three people reverting BEFORE me and I am the bad guy for reverting a vulgar editor who harasses users..... ummmm yeah.--CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't harassed anyone. I've made three edits. One on Ottawa's talk page (which he understood later on), one on the James King page + plus reverts of vandalism on your part (the story appeared in a Reuters article, isn't that notable enough for a local lawmaker?), and one on User:Elipongo's talk page (he told me to go ahead with the edit). I know the name of the product is vulgar, but it is what it is. I don't see what your deal is, CanadianLinuxUser. I know you're trying to stop vandalism, but I'm no vandal. 24.115.224.185 (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying you are a bad guy, but you must consider edits on their merits, using explanations and lack of vandalism templates where appropriate - and this is not an isolated example. Maybe it will help to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Vandalism again. But you really should slow down because your judgment will be impaired and you will continue to make avoidable and ill-considered mistakes at that speed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Edits that three others made before me... an article that according to the last sentence of the Reuters link itself ".... won't be an story in a few days" so was not notable... add to the fact the "polite" nature of the editor.... let me see... how on Earth could I have made a mistake on that one? (end sarcasm) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But if you had an issue, why didn't you attempt to talk about it, instead of continuing to revert? I knew you were just clicking "undo" in the article's history and attempted to ask why you were reverting in the edit summaries. Then you went and slapped "vandalism" notes on my talk page. You need to understand the difference between an edit you don't agree with and vandalism. That's when I approached you on your talk page. I had been accused of vandalism and was very frustrated. Excuse me if I was less than courteous to someone who told me "This is your last warning". In my mind, continuing to revert an edit without offering a reason why IS vandalism. This appears to be an issue with you, as other editors have brought up the fact that I'm not the only one who got prematurely slapped with a vandalism template. Most people aren't here to vandalize Wikipedia. Just because you don't agree with the wording or content of an edit, doesn't mean that person is a vandal. 24.115.224.185 (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Most people are not here to vandalize Wikipedia...." Maybe percentage wise you are correct, but check my edits [2] and the Recents changes [3], the quantity of vandalism is astounding, and an editor attempting to add an article about testicals to a politician is simply one attempting to ridicule him. There is no notable content there, it is someone who wishes to make someone else look bad. I call it vandalism, there is probably a more accurate description of the type of edits you were attempting to make. Whatever you want to call it, the edits such as they were written, have no business being there. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your opinion in that the fact isn't notable enough for an article. I think Wikipeida's standards should be consistent (there are many facts more trivial that mine that appear on thousands of Wikipeida entries), but I'll leave it off anyway. I do also understand how tough it must be sometimes to detect true vandalism and I could understand your confusion when a new editor is starting out by making an edit about truck testicles, but I took offence to having it called vandalism. I tried to make the fact as neutral as possible, but if you own a set of "Truck Nutz", you're going to look bad no matter how un-skewed it is presented. 24.115.224.185 (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said on my talk page that my edits to Dillagence were "unconstructive." Please explain how. I noticed that in your undoing of my edits in the entry itself, you didn't say it was vandalism, in fact you didn't even leave an explanation. Before I revert my edits, I'll wait for you to explain how my edits were unconstructive. 216.185.5.254 (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The edits had weird character ... "?uestlove confirm" so they had to be reverted. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say Hello and Well done on the recent changes patrol! I seem to be tripping all over you reverting this morning... ponyo (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to be of help... trying to avoid any false positives. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you removed the link from the article. I would not have re-added it, though I understand that that might be hard for you to believe given my track record.
But I am disappointed to see that you also removed my comment from the talk page; please explain why? 80.93.173.35 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder why you labelled my previous comment on your talk page as nonsense and removed it, but I hadn't honestly hoped for a response from you. 80.93.173.35 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would I keep the someone telling me....."One day, I think, you'll look back and realise the futility of your actions."? Like I said... nonsense. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- hmm, yes I see your point. My apologies if I caused offence- it was unintentional. I merely wanted to engage in dialog rather than appearing to you simply as yet another faceless vandal. And the FOSI issue? 80.93.173.35 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no issue.. do not put Warez sites on Wikipedia... end of issue. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no issue with your removal of the link - I said that. But why remove my opinion from the talk page? 80.93.173.35 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I barely looked at what you put on the talk page. All you wanted to do it put a Warez site on Wikipedia so I guessed it was the same stuff. Please go ahead, try and defend your position of why a Warez site needs to be here. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust you are aware that the page I added the warez site link to was an article about the warez site in question? I ask for clarification. That aside, in the talk page I was mentioning my interpretation of the wiki policy about copyrighted works, that while direct links to copyright infringements should not be encouraged, I read that policy as being at least ambiguous when it comes to linking to pages that themselves are not infringements of copyright, but which include links to infringements, eg the fosi site. I find it totally acceptable that wiki policy is against linking to copyright infringements - it is essential to the future of this great resource that it is not founded on stolen words. I find it more difficult to believe that it is against wiki policy to link to sites that link to copyrighted material; this would I think cover a great many sites on the web. I believe the spirit of the policy is to encourage editors to find legitimate sources rather than linking to pirated material. Perhaps you might interpret "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors" as supporting the removal of the link, and while I agree that in general that would hold, I say that for an article whose topic is itself a page that illegally distributes someone else's work, I personally do not think the link sheds a bad light on Wikipedia - it is a natural complement to the article's content. If your contention is that FOSI is not notable/appropriate content then that is a different discussion entirely. I would disagree if that was the case, and looking at the talk page it seems there are others. 80.93.173.35 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (EC)If as you say you barely looked at his comment then you absolutely should not have removed it. Removing other people's talk page comments is disruptive editing and I have blocked people for doing it in the past. I know I've asked before, and I do know you are trying to be helpful, but you simply must slow down and take more time over each of your edits. Vandalism never lasts long on Wikipedia, although we do get a fair bit every day we also have a large number of people checking recent changes. There is no need for you to feel that you have to personally deal with each and every one. Slow down. Take time to read the edit, ensure it really is vandalism and not a newbie error or even simply an edit that you don't agree with. Remember that if you fail to revert a vandalism edit it is no big deal because someone else surely will. But making too many errors in your reverts is a big deal because you are newbie biting, removing good edits, or making work for someone else. Please head this warning because you are going to lose some tools soon if you contine at this rate of errors. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My rate of errors.... would you care to put a number as to the number of errors I have made in comparison to the number of edits? Please take the number of my vandalism reverts that are in error and divide them by them number of true vandalism errors that should give a percentage of errors. If you look at it like that you will see that the error quantity is reasonable. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think it is necessary to do that? Could you not simply take my advice on board? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am taking your advice, I will be careful, but errors will occur and I will correct them when they happen. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I'm watching your edits for a bit until you learn the ropes better. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel I should add, for completeness of view now that others are involved, that I had indeed been vandalising a different page prior to making this edit. I do not wish to be an irritant. I still stand by my FOSI edits as legitimate. 80.93.173.35 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, please don't do that. If you want to have some fun do it on my user page (make it funny though, there is nothing worse than lame vandalism) but not on the encylopedia. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are free to interpret your edits in any way shape or form you choose. Please remember, if you add a link to a Warez site, it will be removed. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's already said he's fine with that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to add my opinion back to the talk page as food for thought for a future editor, but I won't edit the article. If you have a problem, please message me so we can discuss it. 80.93.173.35 (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...is born in Laconi, Sardinia! --78.12.217.211 (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite your source please. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [4], [5], [6] --78.12.217.211 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I should have said cite your source as to the place of his birth, the last one was the only one containing that information. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated the charts as the new chart was released 11th May 2008, feel free to check the BBC 1 Radio Chart source provided 79.75.178.230 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, that was a false positive on my part. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Acknowledges Response) 79.75.178.230 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you recently reverted Special:Contributions/82.81.135.91 at Konami Code, they are a new editor, and I presume doesn't understand or chooses not to understand wiki process. He's reverted your revert, and is up to his 3 reverts. I want to try to get a response from him on the talk page. Figured I'd let you know considering you last reverted his edits. Cheers, AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then since you started, please continue. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I messed up trying to add the source to the ArtCar Museum page, and got a second warning because the link didn't show up? It's factual and it's here:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5770875.html
Since I don't want to be called a vandal, I'd appreciate it if somebody who knows how to do it can edit the page with my correction, which I've already tried to add. Thanks.Sad but too true (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be factual, but the way it was presented sounded journalistic instead of encyclopedic. Just the facts, no additional comments is the way to go. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, whatever, can you please fix it? Our entire community is upset about the death of our friend at the hands of a three-time DUI driver and I'm sorry you didn't like the way it was written, but every word I wrote is factual and I did include a source. I don't think I did anything wrong, but calling me a vandal and my edits "disruptive" still doesn't get the facts out about the case. Then again, if you think it's better to have an incomplete article, that's fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sad but too true (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Sad but too true (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I thought:
"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. We work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. We as people want all to have the correct knowledge."
Being called a vandal for reporting the facts doesn't seem like good faith to me, but then again, I don't spend much time here, so maybe I'm wrong. I just wanted to update people about the legal charges against the man whose car killed our friend.Sad but too true (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to read WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:BLP. Then you may understand how we do things here. Although everything you wrote may be true, it definitely was not presented in a neutral way which is how we do things here. -MBK004 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, CLU, that was for Sad but so true. -MBK004 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, maybe when I have time and I'm not at work. In the meantime, I find that politeness in life goes two ways and name-calling is never productive. I've never been called a "vandal" before in my life so hooray, you're the first. In fact, forget it, let the article stand incorrectly so that you can win your game. The words I used were "shocking and tragic" and evidently, that's not considered encyclopedic enough for me to be treated politely by Wiki staff. Have a great day. The rest of us will cope with our mourning in any way we can. Sad but too true (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Conflict of Interest? You're kidding, right? Sad but too true (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.S. Oh, and as for your living persons policy, here's his DUI record as reported by the Houston Chronicle.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5770875.html
So, yeah, to an outsider, it looks like the reversions are a heavy-handed power trip (not saying it is, just that it appears that way to someone who was just trying to report on a friend's death). Thanks for all your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sad but too true (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that "Aliens will come to earth in 2055" how the hell it is not constructive?
I know the person, who put it there and he did it just to test how credible Wikipedia is.
Seems not very. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.208.11 (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry 'bout that... that article was in the middle of what I call "tag team edits". Multiple users making a mess... I just reverted your edit that was trying to fix the mess as well. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out the warning which you left on Liguria's talk page because it was not appropriate. Liguria is the creator of the article who accidentally created a duplicated article and was wanting it deleted. Regards LittleOldMe (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Univeristy admissions policy that denies some on the grounds of religion is sectarian. How is saying so 'unconstructive'? Surely a Protestant/Catholic University would be called sectarian if it did this, so why not an Islamic institution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.58.34 (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You will notice I reverted my edit almost the same time as I did it. Sorry for the inconvenience. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:Patent nonsense before tagging articles with this CSD. Invalid CSDs are invariably rejected unless another CSD is readily apparent. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how my edit was unconstructive. The current version of the section of notable players talks about player origins which deserves it's own section. also the current section is out of date and just express opionions of various hockey pundits. i added to these to show different points of view. such as the fact that the european style has not totally been aadopted and the current style of the NHL is an amalgum of many different styles of hockey. i thought this was an encyclopedia wirtten by people. I provided referrences and everything what more do you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtw416 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, This is your edit.... "Should not notable player include wayne gretzky, bobby orr, mario lemieux etc. Maybe someone should write them in here not me I don't have the time -->" I recommend you attempt to edit Wikipedia when you have more time. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that was only part of my edit if you don't want to have that in fine it was just a thought and didn't appear on the page. apparently you didn't read it all did you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtw416 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I can show you my whole edit is you want. to accuse me of vandalism is ridiculous I love this site. I just thought that the section if biased and out of date and needs further editing.[reply]
- As I stated, I recommend you attempt to edit Wikipedia when you have more time to make constructive edits. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine I will summarize my edit. here we go.
My edit Included:
-Informations on the amount of canadian coaches bringing the north american style of game to europe. This is in contrast to the broad statement on the page saying that european game has taken over the NHL which is not true. There has been amalgamation of styles in the NHL.
-Information regarding the possible ending of the NHL sanctioning the olympics and allowing the players to go to them.
-Information stating that their has been an increase in american born players in the nhl in the past few season's. and a decrease in european and to a lesser extent canadian players. (I was also thinking of adding information about the transfer agreement problems which is partially to blame for this)
-Also notable players and the origin of players in the NHL should have different section no?
So respectfully i think that I did make constructive edits.
- Your article began with nonsense, "Should not notable player include wayne gretzky, bobby orr, mario lemieux etc. Maybe someone should write them in here not me I don't have the time -->" so the rest need not be looked at, as for the rest, discuss it on the talk page of the article. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No No No No No No No! His edit started with a comment inside a comment tag that does not appear on the article! If you don't like the comment you can remove it but reverting a constructive edit and leaving a vandal warning template on his talk page is not on. You are not assuming good faith on his part and you cannot ignore the rest of someone's edit simply because of the first bit. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, well thats fine I will put it up on the talk page for the article and see what people think.
I am sorry to bother you.
also - "Nonsense" really well thats such a strong term for a mere thought that was not going to appear on the article anyway. if you are some sort of monitor for the page, you might want to be more thorough in you reading of an edit and more constructive in your response instead of just crying vandalism.
I look forward to hearing more curt responses from you in the future. Until then ... adieu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtw416 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole edit of the article was reverted first by User:Djsasso, then once by me, then twice by User:Djsasso again, then fixed before any 3RR war began as noted by : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Hockey_League&action=history and according to his edits : [[7]] he is a better editor on that subject than I. And I see the comments now, so only comments were filled no uppercase for names. That was a red flag for me because I actually thought you were putting that in the article not in the comments..... Still in the comments, it looks like nonsense when such care is taken to not actually putting uppercase letters. I also recommended you edit when you had more time and take it to the talk page for conflicts instead you put the same thing back up and was reverted twice but not by me. Whatever the case, add the edits you want to, and discuss in the talk page the parts that were removed by User:Djsasso as I had nothing to do with it. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prohibitions in Sikhism
If you can prove that in Sikhism it specifically STATES that Kosher meat is banned, then thats fine, but it only SPECIFICALLY states HALAL MEAT, because it was the Muslims who came into contact with Sikhs not the Jews as sometimes incorrectly stated
- Looking at it again, I agree with your interpretation. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This guy is a famous vandal who excels in pov pushing. As regards jews contact with sikhism, their book is mentioned in Guru granth and also one story from old testament is mentioned in dasam granth in 'charitropakakhyan'. Their were jew and christian bussinessmen in India during 15 century. Also this user is operating lots of sock puppet accounts. You should run checkuser on him. Don't interpret anything unless you have profound knowledge about sikh scriptures. you cannot get it from western scholars, you need strict guidance for that in Punjab India in native language.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.131.206 (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ROFLMAO !! --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i know what i did to the T. Rajendar page. do u want reliable sources to back my edits? Do you even know anything about tamil film actors? because if you do, you will know he is called karadi just like how Joseph Vijay is called illaya Thalapathy and Ajith Kumar is called Thala. You may not even know what karadi means thinking it is a bad word. so please remove the warning you left me and revert your edits. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.19.250 (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i noticed from your talk page that you have made a lot of reversion mistakes. this is bad. i feel you are not competant for the job. it is very dissapointing to see the way anonymous users are treated for trying to help out. and after notifying you in a polite manner i never even received an apology or at least an acknowledgement. although many anonymous users do vandalise, please don't generalise all anonymous editors as vandals. there are many of us too who are here to contribute constructively. i understand as a vandal patroller you can't know everything. but as a friendly advise, don't undo edits that you are unsure of. thanks. --118.100.19.250 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you are simply trying to increase your EDIT COUNT. no point quantity if no quality. --118.100.19.250 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No source for "Karadi" resulted in that part removed. And the rest was removed because you are not using uppercase for "Titles"
Also this edit:
T.R :
-
Director
Cameraman
Music Director
Dancer
Choreographer
Milk Man
Tea Boy
Light Man
has no meaning as the T.R. abbreviation is not explained.
--CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You recently submitted three sockpuppet reports; Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nbvhu, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rfvbn, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bgtre, none of them not listing any socks. Are you trying to say that those three accounts are sockpuppets of each other, because, if so then they should only be on a single report page. Icewedge (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The report was incomplete as I used the Gadget Twinkle and either I entered the parameters incorrectly (most likely) or the tool has a glitch (not likely). It happened because of the mass attack on George W. Bush article around 19:04 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&action=history someone used multiple accounts and was banned as he went by an admin luckily. There is a long history of the same edits. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hyperlink for Dad's Army in Collins file is Dad's Army (film) not Dad's Army —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.88.50 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed and reverted my change just a few seconds after I made the edit. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
