User talk:Ju66l3r/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1 | Archive 2 →

NOSSA page edits

How can you call my updating of the NOSSA webpage with legitimate news (from CNN none the less) as vandalism? Perhaps my opinions in the discussion page are a little harsh, but I am cutting and pasting directly from CNN as well as posting the link to the story.

Your edit primarily fails the neutral point of view policy that is necessary to create encyclopedia articles free from bias. For the content that you quote directly from CNN to be put into the article it would first need to be specifically about NOSSA and not about the court case of another person in which a NOSSA board member made a public statement afterwards. NOSSA was not involved in the actual court case. Furthermore, as I investigated this further, as a result of his comments, the person was removed from the organization, so that the CNN article is no longer validly applied to NOSSA. Finally, I'm not sure that NOSSA succeeds at the notability factor and I may suggest to the editors that the article be deleted anyways. On a side note, please use 4 tilde characters to sign any comments you make on Talk pages and such out of convenience for the reader. Thanks. ju66l3r 03:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and appreciate your feedback but disagree on one important point. This statement to the press regarding this case was made directly by an officer in the organization who was being quoted as such. Therefore I feel this should go on their webpage. I’ve just added their official statement from the organizations webpage if you feel that balances the story and better provides closure in regards to that officers current status (or lack thereof.) Further as I mentioned on the discussion page; their statement only says they have removed him as secretary, not his membership.

I added a "Recent Controversy" section to the page and linked to the 3 important points of the controversy. Namely, the initial sentence being placed, the comments from Joe Mangano, and the response from NOSSA. Do you agree that this works to maintain both a NPOV and accurate portrayal of NOSSA for the article? ju66l3r 04:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do; thank you very much for your help and feedback. I will delete my comments in the discussion as well. Your points were well taken.

Ok, you are welcome. Remember, in the future, it's helpful to the reader on talk/discussion pages to use four tilde marks after your last thought to "sign" the comment. Just type ~~~~ and you will get: ju66l3r 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man's armors

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism! Dr Archeville 12:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It gives me something to do when I'm not writing my thesis...unfortunately, my thesis is not related to Iron Man or his armors over the years. :) ju66l3r 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHOIS

For anon IPs that we aren't sure are shared, the template {{whois|OWNERNAME}} is typically used. For confirmed shared IPs the convention is to use {{sharedip|OWNERNAME}}, or {{sharedipEDU|OWNERNAME}} if the shared IP is coming from an educational institution. You can find similar templates listed under Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Hope that helps! -Loren 06:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. ju66l3r 06:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New England

thanks! I put the darn refs thingy in there for preview and forgot to take it out. D'oh. --iMeowbot~Meow 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. I was trying to see what all of the fuss was about and it was like: "wierd...how did these get here." :) ju66l3r 05:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Userpage

If you don't already, I recommend placing your userpage on your watchlist. You have a friend[1]. Yanksox 05:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. It is/was on my watchlist, but I didn't get any message yesterday. Thanks for the rv...I'll keep a better eye on it. ju66l3r 05:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High energy weapon design

This article high energy weapon design is not about nuclear weapon design . It is about nuclear physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmayes1965 (talk • contribs)

The nuclear weapon design page includes most of the same nuclear physics that you purport to include in the text that I removed from the high energy weapon design article. Any more information you might have on the topic would surely be appreciated in the nuclear weapon design article as it does include nuclear physics (in fact, at the bottom is the template for looking up more information on nuclear physics). There is no need for both articles given the significant overlap in the two pages. I think your efforts would be best in helping add to the nuclear physics information on the redirected page rather than recreating the other article. ju66l3r 19:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

It was, sorry I forgot to leave a message. VandalProof automatically sends "you are approved" messages, but Moderators have to manually place the declined notice, and I just forgot. Please request approval when you have reached 250 article edits. Thanks, and my apologies for my mistake. Prodego ^talk 21:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Ju66l3r/Archive 1, and 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 and install it, and you're all set!

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/VandalProof}} (this also places the user box attached) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] 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 07:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Therapy

You beat me to the revert :P Viridae ^Talk 03:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually in my watch list because I'm a major contributor. I went through the process of reverting but when I finished you had already done it. Viridae ^Talk 03:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for catching an IP delete from my page. However, it was actually just me, not signed in. I would appreciate it if you removed the warning from my IP. Thank you. — The Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 17:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — The Mac Davis] ญƛ. 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for the reverts to my userpage. It's really nice to see others looking out for my stuff =). Alphachimp ^talk 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to ditto Alaphachimps thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page, it seems I have attracted a dickhead. regards DavidCane 23:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank for reverting my page. I appreciate it greatly. :) --Coil 04:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My page too. Altho it wasn't exactly vandalism, I'm amazed you noticed and got it fixed so soon. Thanks. Baiter 23:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too

Thanks for reverting Cohen's Kappa, I hope it lasts.

So far so good with Cohen's Kappa. Can I ask you to review this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Design_of_experiments as well? I am planning to add some content in future (there isn't much content currently) but for now a link to the Design of Experiments Terms could be useful. What do you think? TIA

Sorry to be back, this is the response I got from AbsolutDan: "This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did in Design of experiments, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)"
Your opinion will be very much appreciated in this case.

Femto reverted your revert. And so it goes. Vigilantes rule.

WCVG

How odd. When you go to their website, they are still live-feeding urban gospel over the internet...but for whatever reason, it's not actually their current playlist over the AM band (like most radio stations). Live and learn. Thanks for removing it after my reversion. ju66l3r 15:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, I wrote the the WCVG stub based on an article that I found and then made my edit to the list without being aware of your revert from the day before. I'll have to tune in next time I go through Cinninnati and see what's going on, but there seem to be several articles, so I don't know what to make of the Live365 station. Thanks for the note. -MrFizyx 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Power

How can you go and say who is right and who is wrong? Man, I have earned my doctorate already, and you if anyone should be better than that. If you read the discussions those two are 100% hard headed against any outside discussion of who is included. They bully others, and when the tables are turned in the discussion, they run saying personal attacks. They are not protecting that page or protecting Wiki, they are protecting their ultra-Nationalistic ideas with regards to Germany and India. 71.106.195.5 08:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what your intelligence level is. I am looking at the prima facie of the issue. You are running right through all of the stop signs of an edit war and ignoring any use of the talk page to settle the issue. Whatever you may think of the others, your actions are those of someone in violation of the 3RR policy, the civility policy, and a handful of other policies. If you continue on this tack, I will consider your blanking of that sentence to be vandalism, as you have been alerted multiple times as to what the correct method(s) for handling this situation are and you have chosen not to use them. ju66l3r 08:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tell you what my inteligence level is. If you believe a Ph.D. is an end all indication of an intelligence level, you may have some ways to go my friend. :) As someone who is apparently doing research you should also probably realize that you don't just look prima facie at an issue and then jump. You obviously didn't realize that sentence was discussed -and- removed by Brendel in fact. You accuse me of breaking policies, but you do not mention the methods these two editors use. I'm fine to discuss things rationally and in a civil manner. But when these two act as they do, they abuse Wiki in the most clear sense. Believing it is black and white -- is a mistake. But that is yours to make. I'll say again. Listing all G7 Nations as obvious Great Powers on this Earth is a simple compromise. Singling out Italy, as they have done, is offensive. You have one "proud German" and one "proud Indian" dreaming of his future superpower, and both walking over everyone else. Take care 71.105.97.133 08:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in discussing the merits of your edits with you. I am uninterested in the content of this article; only that the rules of wikipedia are followed. I only want to see you use the discussion page to decide an edit war issue and have a good consensus with people after discussion has come to a close (give it a few days...not minutes). If you continue to edit war on the page with renewed IP addresses, I will ask for a block of your IP subnet. You may want to say your piece on the discussion page and walk away for a few days to see how it goes. ju66l3r 08:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, block all of Southern California if you want, that is your prerogative. If you would of taken the time to see how these two push their views, you might have a clearer and more open mind for this discussion. Clearly you can not do that, you just play the dumb cop -- and take sides. Good for you. I'm not impressed. You are the one who is now reverting edits that were agreed upon, and that part is truly hilarious. Have a nice life. 71.105.97.133 08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) 71.105.97.133 09:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]