User talk:Digitalme/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

not current?

I see you removed the "current" template from a number of pages. I think you may have done this to too many places where it is not warranted. E.g., for Ernie Fletcher, you removed "current" and wrote "(Not current - no updates since march)" -- yet there were over 50 edits since April 5, and the governor was indicted in May. -- Sholom 15:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you have removed the "Current" tag from Boycott Batelco article. This is a current event, the movement itself was initiated hardly a week ago and its gathering momentum. The article will be updated by people as it goes, i.e. how successful or how unsuccessful the movement proved. In any case, I think it qualifies to be tagged current. It is also a movement against Bahrain's only telco, which has gathered a lot of public attention in the region. I am reverting.

Shijaz 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to pile on too badly but Brett Kavanaugh probably still deserves the {{current}} thingie as he has just come through a contentious confirmation hearing in committee and will likely soon be in a contentious Senate floor debate. Am also reverting --Flawiki

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Digitalme/Archive 3, thank you for your interest in VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're all set!

File:VandalProof icon.jpg

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:UBX/VandalProof}} (this also places the user box attached) or, [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof|{{PAGENAME}}]] to your user page.

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 08:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion.

Benne is the only user asking for it's deletion. He constantly wars with me and other users at any mention of the Assyrian identity.68.62.93.145 That is completely unfair. What if I propose for the deletion of the Jewish article. Would that go through a do process?

User:Benne

He constantly reverts Assyrian articles and violates the three revert rule. He is the only one asking for the deletion of the Aramaic speaking article. Read the article yourself.Shaitan Al Mahdi

Stop it!

You keep beating me to the revert button every single time! *runs to his room and cries* AmiDaniel (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Can you please remove the warning from my talk page? I've already explained in AmiDaniel's talk page that it was a mistake. I'm new to using vandalproof and didn't know it worked that way.--Jersey Devil 03:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

jfk born on may 29

he was bork on the 29th look it up. you changed what i wrote...and now it is wrong —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.245.110.105 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 25 May 2006.

Welcome back

Welcome back digitalme. I hope your exams went well.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Help

May you kindly assist in keeping a watch over the Sathya Sai Baba article for vandalism. It appears that someone, under the guise of anonymity, is assisting Andries to further his POV. Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oral Sex

I removed the images not for censorship but rather POV reasons.--128.235.249.80 13:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Oral Sex

The images depicting homosexual oral sex are POV simply because the defenders/uploaders of the image are homosexual while the overwhelming majority of the human race is heterosexual; also many people oppose their inclusion in the article according to discussions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.235.249.80 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 27 May 2006.

The content was garbage

someone added a bunch of hyperlinks to ad sites, i don't think removing that is grounds for vandalism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.227.28.114 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 27 May 2006.

Mafia

You reverted my edits to "Mafia". And you called me a vandal.

I deleted several crime movies that WERE NOT ABOUT THE MAFIA. "Scarface" was about a Cuban drug dealer in Miami, for instance. There are plenty of movies about the actual Cosa Nostra/Sicilian brand Mafia without adding everyone's favourite gangster film. And you also reverted several grammatical corrections.

I'm on a dynamic IP, don't bother to leave any more insulting messages for me; I won't see them. Feel free to revert my "vandalism" if if makes you feel macho.

Mediation on forms of Byzantine Names

Thank you for undertaking this mediation, which may be all the more necessary as the survey has deadlocked, with 9 users on each side of the issue at present. I would be interested in a more explicit recommendation from you. I think ultimately this comes down to the question of whether Wikipedia should follow "common usage" (and what exactly constitutes common usage here, and whether Latinized forms or ODB forms are actually more common today remains difficult to resolve) or the current standard in the field (the ODB), which is both widely accepted (as a consensus of English-language scholars in the field) and which is not by any means confusing or unattainable for "common" readers, as has been alleged by the opposing side. Perhaps it is appropriate to define an explicit naming convention for such materials, which does not currently exist, again contrary to the allegations of the opposing party. A further difficulty may be the different extent to which Greek names are now "Hellenized" in literature dealing with different periods (i.e., the type of usage current in the ODB may be a bit slower in affecting works on the classical period). Given the unsatisfactory state of the discussion, this may best be undertaken by a third party such as yourself or by a group of users.

If this message properly belongs on the mediation page, please feel free to move it there (I am not entirely familiar with this procedure).

Thank you for your time, Imladjov 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Concordia Newsletter

Community Justice is no more. It has been reformed to Concordia. Membership has been transferred.

Concordia is an organization of editors on Wikipedia that strive to encourage civility and fair treatment among all editors in the Wikipedian community, from the Wikignome to the Wikiholic. The project was designed to have a friendly and helpful environment to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect.

We currently need help in getting going, and making the community understand our aims. We work for civility. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have ideas, let us know at our talk page, or on the IRC channel. We aim to spread civility in every way we can.

Should you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Concordia/Do Not Spam.

Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CCD or come into our IRC channel [1].

- The Concordia council. Delivered by Ian13 13:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of links?

Hello Digitalme,

You wrote: Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --digital_me(t/c) 18:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I did so because it was requested. I followed a link and it said: If you came here through a link in Wikipedia, please remove that link.

The section I removed contained nothing but links to pages that wanted the links to them removed.

What should I have done?

Thanks,

82.215.26.143 18:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

I've added some questions to your RfA. When you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you would take a look. Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of (German)

Why you do not like more precise statement that Nazi who killed Jews in the II War were Germans, and delete the word "Germans" form the paragraph? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.127.113 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 29 May 2006.

changes made to Mail Order Bride

I removed several DUPLICATE paragraphs, that you put right back in.

Do we really need to say the same thing twice? Didn't think so... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.61.23.238 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 May 2006.

Thank you -- mail order bride

Thank you for reverting back to my edits on the mail order bride article. The vandalism being done to the article is very much out of control. Can anything be done about it? The damage appears to be being done by a small group of people led by Michaellovesnyc. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.186.81 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 May 2006.