User talk:Liempt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hi Liempt

Hi Liempt, and welcome to Wikipedia! I've reverted a recent edit you made to our "set" article. Please don't take offense ;-) In my opinion the "formal" definitions added to that article are not really appropriate for that article. If you feel strongly about including them, we can start a discussion at Talk:set. By the way we have a very vibrant an active mathematics project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, which I cordially invite you to join. Project discussion takes place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, and you can add your name to the project participants and introduce yourself here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants. Looking forward to working with you. Regards, Paul August ☎ 17:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Message You Sent Me

are my edits bad??? i thoought it was alright to express opinion.. sorry about the st gregory college page edits i just made a sec ago too i just love expressing my desires... Pooh the hat 10:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your previous edits were not within the scope of an encyclopedia, and are considered vandalism. While I'm sure you are avid about what you would do someone's genitals, you have to consider before you add content whether or not the addition contributes positively to the whole of Wikipedia's knowledge. Consider reading the information in Phgao's welcome message; there's a wealth of knowledge about proper Wikipedian behavior. Sincerely, Liempt 10:59, 23 September

so do you dislike me coz i want to squeeze Chris Lawrence, Cooper Cronk, Brett Hodgson's bulge with my foot under the table? Do you now who any of them are??? So im NOT allowed to express my deepest desires?? plus dont just reply with you are sure i am avid about grabbing his genitals okay! Pooh the hat 11:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)(Pooh the hat 11:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

The issue has nothing to do with me liking you or not, and for the record, I don't like or dislike you, I don't know you. I don't know who any of those people are, but what I do know is the fact that you want to touch their genitals does not belong in an encyclopedia. Our deepest desires are something that the public cares very little about, and in the disruptive context you make these edits it is considered vandalism. Liempt 11:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know who Tom Cruise is or Prince Harry, coz i also want to see them sweaty in a gym and i want to grab their bulges while they are working out - injuring them... Do you think iit is alright for a guy to go up to a guy in the toilets andd grab his bulge??? (Pooh the hat 11:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Be sensible, your comments clearly are vandalism and you are aware of that fact. You will find no shock factor here, just swift retribution, so stop; it's not too late to turn around and contribute constructively. Liempt 11:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it alright to say Brad Pitt is a good bloke, he has no problems with gays like myself and does not make a big deal when i grab his ass or, on some splendid but awkward situations, his crotch. He tells me not to but i do again a few weeks later when we see a movie or something (we're good friends) and he just says he'd prefer i didn't but doesn't physically stop me or have a go at me. He just sits there and tries to ignore it. Once, at a restaurant with family and frineds, my foot reached his groin under the table and i made him "excited". He was clearly uncomfortable but hasnt mentioned it for the past months at all. in a talk page coz it isn't for relevant information (it is still a fact). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooh the hat (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Remark

I didn't mean to vandalize, all I did was make a new article about the EP named "U2" by Negativland. I really like their music, and I thought the EP needed an article. I spent all day working on it, and so I reverted your edit. I promise you that the stuff in the article is 100% true and thoroughly researched.--Gen. Quon 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about that. I use a program to pick out recent edits that might be vandalism and then proceed using my own judgment. At the time, it looked like you had vandalized the article because of some key words appearing within the article. Please disregard my previous warning, and have a great day. Liempt 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No Problem. It's good to known someone is out there looking for vandalism.--Gen. Quon 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Huddersfield

Why have you just reverted the reference source I placed on the article a few minutes ago? Richard Harvey 10:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Rich. The email address that you used came up as a common spam email, and from what I saw, it didn't seem especially relevant to the article. Sorry if I caused any disruption and feel free to change it back to your edit. I'm just trying to stop vandalism, but hey, I make mistakes every now and then. (Two so far). Cheers, Liempt 10:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem! But your bot was a bit to quick for me to get back in and insert the '.' that I missed, perhaps you could slow its reaction time slightly, to account for editors typo corrections :0). Note: I'm a VandalProof User myself. Richard Harvey 10:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Marriage proposal

Dear Iohannes Bevin Nathaniel van Liempt II. Unfortunately, today I bring some tumultuous news. Please sit down and brace yourself for the saddening and highly miserable tale. Today, on behalf of the eloquent Riana, I am here to inform you that you have been rejected on your proposal of marriage. This followed a saddening event in which Riana, quoting from her mouth, commented "Who will marry a man who loves maths?" When informed of an imminent proposal in betrothal by you, Iohannes, she let out a inhuman scream and dunked her head in water. Then, aptly and without warning, she married Mimsy, therefore voiding your impending proposal. As said before, I am sorry to bring you this news but.... deal with it :p *runs as Riana approaches* :)--D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, Archive 1! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Blue Harvest

What did I do wrong in the Blue Harvest page?Pikazilla 20:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfD of List of Wii games (North America)

The reason why I created this article is that not all the games are coming out worldwide. I am sick & tired of seeing all the "TBA's" and "Unreleased" words in the Release Date boxes (NA, EU, JP). This cuts down on size, and all of this is why I created the article. Please forward this message for me to the other voters. Thank you. Versus22 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Rukia Kuchiki GA review

Hello. Thank you for your review. I've left a reply to your concerns at Talk:Rukia Kuchiki#GA Review and would appreciate a response. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Can I now modify my userpage and restore it to it's original look? Mario1987 08:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, feel free to restore your userpage. I'm happy that you can put this issue behind us and that you can return to productive editing. Cheers! --Liempt (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if you call creating hundreds of footballer articles that are inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, poorly researched, poorly referenced, often about completely non-notable footballers that he clearly never intends to update or maintain, productive editing, then I am sure that he will return to that. Jogurney and I will be left to clean up his mess and I suppose he will be allowed to delete all requests and advice from his talkpage and carry on regardless as he always did before. English peasant 08:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi English Peasant, I'd like to address some perceived concerns. The reason I spoke out regarding Mario1987's ban is due to the fact that while he has not always observed policies nor always been accurate in his endeavors, he has shown a will to better the project and has sworn never again to abuse sock puppets, which is the actual reason he was banned. While my personal inclination was to deny this as being motivated by saying whatever is necessary to avoid a ban, I thought it necessary to assume good faith, as per Wikipedia policy. I assure you that I shall be watching him intently, and I've chatted with the unbanning admin regarding him, so if he slips up he'll be done forever.

When I say "return to productive editing." I was trying to be encouraging, and was only supporting the edits that comply with Wikipedia policy. While the user has behaved in a questionable manner in the past, I'd encourage you to give him the benefit of the doubt, at least until he messes up again, as it'll be his last time. Anyway, I hope this clears up some issues. Cheers! --Liempt (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again

Sorry to bother but could you please tell me where can i report an user who keeps harassing me about football player articles i've created because he keeps telling me that the articles are misleading, innacurate and other things like that. He sent me many messages and i left a message back to him to erase them all if he is not satisfied, he added PROD tags to many articles and other users didn't agree with him but he dosen't give up. Recently i found this message on a talk page. I know that my past actions were regretable but this user is just incredible. I hope you can help me. Regards Mario1987 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want i can provide many more links to talk pages where the user keeps attacking me. Mario1987 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mario. While you have a couple options at your disposal for dealing with repeated abuse, I'd like to suggest a few things first. While a personal attack is a very serious matter, I think it's important to note that English peasant has the best interest of the project at heart, and is simply trying to stay within the guidelines for notability and factual accuracy. While it could be argued that he does so with too much fervor, I believe there are alternatives to reporting him at this stage. One of his major issues was factual accuracy; What I would do in this circumstance is, instead of treating it as an attack against me, treat it as constructive criticism. If I were sure that my articles were factual, in spite of his claim to the contrary, the logical thing to do is reference them! I think in this manner you two could possibly play off each other to build up a strong stream of well referenced articles.

Another major complaint of his is notability. I personally see people who make complaints about the notability of articles as people dedicated to maintaining the quality of the encyclopaedia. When an article of yours goes up for deletion, I'd simply wait for the community decision. If your articles are truly notable, odds are that they shall remain in Wikipedia, as several of them already have. As for these percieved negative comments towards you, I'd suggest honestly to rise above it and ignore them. Try to avoid becoming personally affected and hostile yourself, and keep in mind that many people, including yourself, do questionable things with the quality of the project in mind.

If, after all this, you still feel it necessary to take further action, you have several options at your disposal, most of them within the dispute resolution process. Consider informal mediation or contacting a third party to give a hand. If an attack is extremely disruptive (such as a physical threat or whatever) you have the option of reporting the abuser to the administrator's noticeboard, but I would strongly advise against this as immediate fighting after the release of a ban is not going to look good for you, further, I don't think he really deserves to be reported in any way shape or form. If you're still interested, consider reading the no personal attacks policy, don't call the kettle black and assume good faith

Good luck! I hope you two can resolve your dispute peacefully and work together to build strong football articles, something you both obviously want to do!--Liempt (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

For keeping me informed. He is not the only editor to create lots of unreferenced and inaccurate football articles by any means. But definitely one of the most prolific and the least responsive to suggestions from other editors. If you look through my contributions you will see that I spend a lot of time and effort cleaning up other peoples work. Most people take my suggestions on board and become better editors, others delete my comments, accuse me of attacking them and complain when I fix their shoddy work. Hence the exasperation. English peasant 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your comment on my talk page, in addition to your support. That was kind of you. I was waiting for that kind of defense coming from the support section, hehe. I'm not sure what the future holds for me and RfA, but I will strive to better myself and respond to all of the comments layed out before me. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Liempt. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. β^_command 04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, Liempt/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Bewareofdog 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Captalization of pronouns

Regarding your changes to Requiem, I reverted them, because Wikipedia already has a policy about capitalization: don't capitalize pronouns referring to God. Tb (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok now, though the Latin does nothing to suggest special pronouns for God. It would be better to drop archaic pronouns entirely rather than extend their use. Tb (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments added to Altar Crucifix per your request

Hi! I've added some comments to the article, as you requested. There are issues, but don't feel overwhelmed. Rome wasn't converted to Christianity in a day!

I'm not a member of WikiProject Catholicism, so I'm not 100% certain I'm following their guidelines, but I doubt I've written anything much of out line with what they recommend.

Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Prayers template

Thanks for making the Catholic Prayers template. It looks great. I was wondering if you had any ideas for a better way to categorize the prayers. Many of the prayers in the common prayers section are also indulgenced, and the template gives the impression that those common prayers are not indulgenced. Perhaps there's a better way to categorize them? Or perhaps they do not need categories at all. Regardless, I just thought I'd mention it to see if you had any ideas. Again, the template looks great and thanks for making it. Dgf32 (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dgf, I responded to your concerns on the talk page. I understand where you're coming from. I have no idea how to order them otherwise, though. I'm thinking we can either keep it the way it is and add some special formatting for the indulgence granting common prayers or perhaps organize by subject matter, location where they are said or something of that nature? In any event, it's nice to know that my work is appreciated! Cheers! --Liempt (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)