User talk:Kaustuv/archive 2

Atlantean inquiry

What sort of personal attacks have I made? I attack nobody, I am a peaceful Aryan man and I use my words and not my sword. I made an edit to bring the truth of the Atlantean soul to the surface and it was deleted, an uncalled for act. I was sent a message that I may discuss the removal with the one who did such act. I did, and now you are threatening me? I would like to speak with the owner of this site, as this is uncalled for provacation on your part. Return my dialogue with the remover at once, and keep out of my affairs. ~ Aryan Traveller —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.31.224.121 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-24 07:49:07 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. Unless you can back up your claims with verifiable sources, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If you disagree with the NPA3 message, please feel free to bring it up in WP:RFC/USER. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

American Civil Responsibilities Union

Sorry, no hoax. I was in Quartzite when I saw this matter. Go to www.acru.com to see this matter yourself. Martial Law 02:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the prod already. –Dicty (T/C) 02:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The organization is literally opposed to the ACLU on many matters. I've compared both organizations. Martial Law 02:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

While the ACLU favors criminal defendants, this favors crime victims, thus is one of the reasons to incl. the opposition organization to the ACLU to Wikipedia. Martial Law 02:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I removed the proposed deletion tag already, before your first comment here. –Dicty (T/C) 02:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

AIV

Hello, Dictyosiphonaceae. You forgot to put the vandal's name in the template on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. -- Kjkolb 11:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did. Kcordina removed it because it redirects to a NSFW image. Check the history. –Dicty (T/C) 11:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather, it appears that Kcordina simply made a mistake in removing it from the list. –Dicty (T/C) 11:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I see. I don't need to check the history because I wasn't accusing you, I just needed the name before I could block or investigate. :-) Kjkolb 11:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Exploding animal

Seen the deletion review, didn't agree with it. Added a prod to see if it would get through. Not going to take it to AfD though. Viridae 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what? It was never deleted, so why should it have ever appeared in WP:DRV? Can you link to what I should be looking at? It is clearly a controversial candidate for deletion, so you should really reopen the AfD. WP:PROD is only to be used for uncontroversial candidates for which an AfD is more or less guaranteed to decide to delete. –Dicty (T/C) 03:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - not deletion review, the AfD page. I do realise that an AfD would be the better path for a contentious article but I wanted to {{prod}} it to see if anyone cared about it - I was fairly sure it would get removed and I will leave it at that. I didn't want to take it to AfD because I knew it would get knocked down, that doesn't change my opinion that it is unecnyclopedic. Viridae 06:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

On Sea World

Sorry mate, we're working out the kinks in the program. Its currently in V 0.0.6rc3 . Thanks for letting me know! We'll use this information to improve it. --Steve-o 08:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On Sea World (again, but from Mike this time)

Hello, just like to tell you, that the message on the talk page was never actually "overwritten". I am a developer of MWT, and i'd like to say that your feedback is very much appreciated. We're looking into the problem with the article. MichaelBillington 09:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, sorry, I didn't mean to say overwritten, but rather overridden. Too little coffee in my system this morning. –Dicty (T/C) 09:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WRH deletion discussion

It seems to be open for editing after the discussion closed. The last remark appears unsourced to ip or user. Do you think it wise for the discussion page, once a thing has closed, to remain open for subsequent editing? Surely the wrh stuff won't be the only admin subject that permits people to feel heated action after the fact is legitimate. I figure there's good ways to restore the record at point of closure or wiki couldn't survive, but why present the opportunity for the hazard? Roukan 20:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure why you're asking me. I'm not an admin. Sorry if I gave that impression. –Dicty (T/C) 20:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As it happens the specific thing I mentioned is now sourced, but the discussion continues. I'll try the admin listed at the top of the page. Thanks. Roukan 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I just left a note in his/her page, actually. But feel free to add your comment too. –Dicty (T/C) 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, what can be added? Heh you're fast, maybe you should be an admin thanks. Roukan 20:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

talk page

Why did you request that your tak page be deleted? Circeus 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this was an "alternate account" that I used purely for experimental purposes for a week or so. As you can see from the material on this page, there isn't anything controversial worth preserving. However, if it will make you happy, I'll archive it under my main account. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)