User talk:Dylansmrjones/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

People's Movement for Justice and Welfare

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article People's Movement for Justice and Welfare, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Windows Server 2003

Add a section called "Workstation" to the section titled "Variants" of the Windows Server 2003 article, and i will remove it again. It's an intentionally misleading name, as Microsoft has never released a version of Windows Server 2003 with that name. Sure, there was an NT 4 variant with that name, which is where the moniker "Workstation" likely comes from, but we need to be crystal-clear and completely accurate about these things. Just because one can install Windows Server 2003 and use it as one would a client, doesn't mean it is entitled to its own section alongside the actual variants. It's just not that important of a detail. Right now the article needs a lot more help in describing the features of the operating system itself; if you'd like to contribute, focus on better describing the product as it's sold and intended to be used... we can do a better job here. -/- Warren 03:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop

What source is missing? Go do some more research plz and edited.Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for Albania.Dylansmrjones (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude cut the crap,PLZ.I told u so many times,go do ur research!You are more than welcomed to change the sentence with strong sources or references.Thank and stop ur nonsense.--Taulant23 (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take the discussion at the talk page for Albania. Dylansmrjones (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation of conflict of interest

Could you explain why you think I have a conflict of interest with regard to Communism? I think you may be misunderstanding what "conflict of interest" means. I am interested in communism, in the sense that I find it interesting; but I don't have an interest in communism in the sense of deriving a benefit from the promotion of communism, so I don't think I have a conflict of interest. Now, it's also true that I have certain beliefs about communism, which doubtless affect my edits; but that's true of every editor and every topic, and doesn't in principle prevent anyone from observing the NPOV policy.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Claims of vandalism

Lo there, you've made some reverts on Communism claiming rv vandalism, esp. that of Jimmy Da Tuna(?!?) which looked to my eye like legitimatew edits, even if you disagree with them 9e.g. sayign communism is considered the extreme form of the socialist/workers' movement). Unwarranted claims of vandalism could be seen as impolite, or even disruptive. It's more construcive to state why you disagree with a claim, esp. if it isn't absolutely clear vandalism.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NP- cheers.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Environmental racism

Hi Dylansmrjones -- One, you placed a NPOV tag on environmental racism; you need to explain your concerns on the talk page so editors can begin to address it. Otherwise, this kind of drive-by tagging is not helpful, and the tag will be removed. Two, in your edit summary, you made a personal attack on an editor ("(Marked as POV due to onesidedness in references - most editors here are racist Far Left extremists believing in environmental "racism", like the user "Envirocorrector")") -- as I'm sure you know, this is not permitted by WP:NPA. --Lquilter (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong historical data on "Germanic peoples"

Please stop to restablish mistakes such about Frankish forming culture. The sentences that make mention of Frankish culture were utterly wrong as there is none significant impact on these areas except for northern Alsace which whom was refered there. My quotes are more true than your wilful prejudices so please, respect the other's point of view and don't treat me of vandal. Furthermore you're self belieing because this article speaks about dialects all over the map thereof you should have to start to wipe several sentences out. If you disagree with my undid come over there and account for. --Snowballa68 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Germanic peoples. 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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remembe to assume good faith

Edits which aren't helpful in your opinion do not necessarily constitute vandalism, please remember to Assume good faith, and not call something vandalism in your edit summaries if it is not necessarily so.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think actually he may have a point - but his poor command of the English languages obscures it a lot. I have reverted his edits and taken it to the talk page. Lets try to talk us into a solution.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BNP manifesto

I'm going by the copy of the manifesto on the BBC's website.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

WP:ASSUME is a very helpful peice of guidance, getting editors' backs up with accusations of bad faith or vandalism is a poor way to attain consensus. A more positive additude may see your changes to the articles through.--Red Deathy (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Well, my definition of fascism is irrelevent, since I'm not editing the fascism article. On the BNP page I stick by reliable thrid party sources, and stick to defending WP:V. So far as I am concerned my opinions come a distant 6th to the verifiability policy, and I have made frequent edits to articles the effect of which is radically different from the opinion I myself hold on the subject (especially on the Socialism page). now, as I've said many times, find one reliable third party source that says the BNP isn't fascist, and I'll personally remove it from the info box. I'd be really interested to find which edits of mine to articles you consider non-neutral, though.--Red Deathy (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What these people seem unable to grasp is the fact that the alleged sources of fascism are NOT third-war sources. I have proven this. One is outdated and the others come from people that are openly on the opposed end. As for them being scholarly, there is no proof of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTiger86 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: BNP

On my talk page you wrote: "Do not make further edits on the BNP page and please refrain from inserting OR in the article. And before editing PLEASE consult the talk page. I didn't remove the fascism part, but it was removed due to BLP violation. If you reinsert it, you run the risk of being blocked indefinitely. That's why I don't touch the infobox."

1 You have NO right to tell me not make no further edits on the BNP page or any other page.

2 You accuse me of inserting OR into the article - where?

3 I did consult the talk page (and if you had bothered to consult you would see that I left a lengthy message there).

4 I never said you did remove the fascism part.

5 The BLP reason is a pure sham, as I made clear in the talk page which you have accused me of not consulting.

6 To threaten me with indefinite blocking is (a) not your job and (b) extremely unlikely given the consensus that has built up on the article.

7 What the hell has "I don't touch the infobox" got to do with anything? Emeraude (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at your discussion page. That said I'm not threatening you. I'm merely telling you that the rest of us have been warned against doing so. Dylansmrjones (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That bit in the box was the concession that was proposed and for a while was made because it is clear that the BNP denies the charge of Fascism while the only sources that support it come from the perspective of opposition or are outdated or both and seem to lack the scholarly credentials that those who want the Fascism bit in claim they do. I already stated this on your page but I seemingly am obliged to state it time and time again because of how these people try to ignore it without even endeavouring to refute it the argument. All they resort to are empty assertions and nit-picking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTiger86 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

BNP and race

Although the BNP does not focus on the issue of race as much as it has in the past and because it focuses on Islam does not mean that the party is no longer racial. Logically, would the party favor the repatriation of non-whites from Britain and would it exlusively accept whites into the party if it were not racially-oriented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTiger86 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Then find a proper source for it. The manifesto from 2005 clearly states that they only believe in the possibility and that they admit they might be wrong about it. That's all the source is saying. If you want to claim they assert racial differences, you MUST find a source for it. You haven't so far. Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source that shows a memeber who is speaking for the views of the BNP and which undoubtedly shows a belief that racial differences go beyond appearance. Nick Griffin also asserted in an interview with Nick Ryan that there are patent racial differences that go beyond skin color. This was printed in a book titled "into a world of hate, a journey amogst the extreme right" in the chapter "electable and presentable. http://youtube.com/watch?v=BRKk2K3fMk0--WhiteTiger86 (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hey, man, I didn't mean to offend. I actually meant to ask what knowledge you have, and how you got by it. Your user page didn't say anything about languages, so I asked. Jeg er forresten norsk, så jeg regner med at du kan forstå det hvis jeg skriver på et språk vi begge kan forstå? : ) Så, jeg mente intet negativt med det jeg skrev, det var ikke noe retorisk spørsmål, men et faktisk spørsmål. Det er alltid spennende å treffe andre som er interessert i språk. Så, alt ok? --Alexlykke (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Old talk: "Danish tongue" comment

I was looking at the talk archives for Old Norse, and I noticed that you claimed that the term "Danish tongue" was not used by native speakers of Old Icelandic. No one ever replied, but I'd just like to correct this. The term "dǫnsk tunga" (Danish tongue) is found in Grǫ́gǫ́s, i.e., the Gray Goose Laws, a 12th century Icelandic legal document. That would be Old Icelandic. As well, you stated, "Old Norse is all of Scandinavia before the middle ages." The middle ages are defined as the 5th to 16th centuries. Even Proto-Norse was active until the 7th century. Furthermore, the dialects of the language were in fact almost uniform from the Proto-Norse period up to the 12th and 13th centuries. The Old Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish dialects then emerged, but were still mutually intelligible, and probably more similar to each other than American English is to Australian English. Perhaps you confused the middle ages with the time of late-medieval languages like Middle Icelandic. LokiClock (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I reread it, and I seem to have misinterpreted your words. You are using Old (Dialect) as referentially distinct from Old Norse. As far as the article goes, I'm pretty sure we're going with the definitions of the terms as the regional varieties of Old Norse at all gradations from initial uniformity to Middle (Dialect). That is, as of the 8th century Old Danish = Old Norwegian, etc., and as of the 10th Old Swedish and Old Danish begin to diverge. Evidence of this usage is found in statements like, "Old East Norse, between 800 and 1100, is in Sweden called Runic Swedish and in Denmark Runic Danish. The use of Swedish and Danish is not for linguistic reasons as the differences between them are minute at best during the more ancient stages of this dialect group." I don't know how that differed from the article's state at your time of writing, but it should be good to know anyway how it is now. For posterity, here's your original comment. LokiClock (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated, I see you also have qualms about the normalized spelling of the name. While the letter Ǫ may not have been used by other Scandinavians, the u-umlaut itself probably was. I'm not a fan of the standardized spelling at all (barely content with the UCS, in fact), but that's the only spelling you're likely to get people to agree to use, and assuming u-umlaut is preserved, it does have the advantage of representing a phoneme that eastern spelling would have left to the assumptions of the speaker. LokiClock (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2