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.
Well, technically any disagreement could be seen as a lack of respect, but since when a lack thereof is a crime? And crossing something out is a universally understood way of disagreement expression, so it would be fine with me. Leaving that aside, you seem to have abundant amounts of free time. Why don't you use it up on something useful (instead wasting it in pointless debates)? Like writing an encyclopedia? You see, there's still a lot to be done. Misza13TCE19:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Abusing wikispace for divisive user boxes is not in any way helpful for improving an encyclopedia. Same holds for double standards on images. I use mine in a helpful way: {{user respect}}ROGNNTUDJUU!01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your userbox is as divisive at the anti-EU one (so don't be surprised if you wake up one day just to see that it's gone), so please go back to writing encyclopedia and stop wasting my and other people's time with this trolling. Thank you. Misza13TCE12:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job
I just wanted to commend you for the way in which you've been handling this situation involving ROGNNTUDJUU!. The two images he has been posting everywhere, the crossed-out US and UK flags, have been nominated for deletion at WP:IFD because of their violation of policy (they were only uploaded to prove a point, as he even admitted to on the images' talk pages). Hopefully ROGNNTUDJUU! will learn what is appropriate in this community and things will cool down. But, until then, keep up the good work, and if you want any support in anything, I'm around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metros232 (talk • contribs)
Question
Do you write the revert messages such as "Reverted edits by 195.195.127.253 to last version by Quiddity" every time manually, or do you use some script or template? Thanks, ---Marcus-12:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, obviously. This would be too tedious. I'm using a JavaScript code which does it automatically. It's called godmode-lite.js (should be somewhere on WP:US) and emulates the "rollback" action normally available only to admins. Misza13TC12:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I thank you for creating it. I like to collect such geeky stuff. I don't use PGP a lot (hmmm... do I still remember my passphrase? I keep forgetting it) but it's fun nonetheless. However, I think I'll do some upgrades to the userbox - it could use some face-lifting. Misza13TC22:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. That's what often happens when two people "race for revert" and both are armed only with JavaScript tools (your popups vs my godmode-lite.js) - the long time it takes to revert this way sometimes causes such strange effects. Misza13TC12:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Misza13
I saw your work it's very nice.I was only experimenting and i wont do it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.190.122 (talk • contribs)
Tawkerbot2
Hmm, I wonder if this was another freak networking error, there filter that it was flagged under a criteria what it wouldn't catch. I'll have a look into it, that one is the one in a thousand bug we've been having. Sorry about that -- Tawker17:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do my best to show people that the userbox discussions are sometimes ridiculous. I also couldn't resist expressing my personal dislike to MarkSweep. Too bad he's probably too occupied with his ArbCom case to notice. Misza13TC19:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to say thank you for reverting the vandalism of my userpage! As funny as that was, I'd probably prefer it not to be there... on balance!
What's the problem? That article needs MAJOR cleanup work and I'm taking it upon myself to do it. Why would you revert my edits? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually, from my view you have removed a massive amount of content without specifying an edit summary. This is very confusing for other editors, especially because massive blankings of articles are one os the most frequest forms of vandalism here. You might also considering registering as edits made by anonymous IPs are also more conspicious. Finally, you could use the {{inuse}} template to indicate the fact that you're working on the article. Misza13TC21:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is a matter of me inproperly stating my intentions. I'm all to happy to continue allowing anyone and everyone to make edits to the page, including my work. HOWEVER, much of what's on that page (as is noted on the edit page) is simply speculation inserted based on people's memories of the film. In addition, I don't feel that such an in-depth breakdown of the entire film story - including spoilers - is neccesary for a descriptive page on the film. I honestly feel that my edits make the page cleaner, easier to understand and more direct. I simply don't have enough time to spend several hours fixing everything in one big sitting, if you guys woukld like to add to or modify my edits, please do, but don't simply revert my work. I'm trying to benefit the page, not vandalize it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
No one is questioning your motives here, but the fact does remain that you have already violated WP:3RR and three other editors have found your changes to be unhelpful (and reverted them as such). If you disagree with how the article is written and would like to make major sweeping changes to it, please discuss these changes at Talk:Alien vs. Predator (film) beforehand. There's nothing wrong in being bold with your editing, but disregarding community consensus is disrespectful, and violating the three revert rule is a blockable offense. Can't sleep, clown will eat me22:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but:
1. I did put something about my edits on the talk page, and I did add edit captions to a couple of my reversions saying that I was attempting to HELP the article
2. I was unaware if the three revert rule BUT
3. It only came to that because you guys simply panned my edits as vandalism without so much as looking at what I had written. I'm making an effort to ensure that everything of importance that was on tha page before reamins there, I'm simply removing surpurflous information and rewording what's left. As you would have noted if you'd read my changes before you reverted them, the plot synopsis is still there, as are the facts and trivia, etc... The only thing I've really removed is the speculatory and largly inaccurate overly large breakdown of the film's events - it just seems like I removed much more beacuse that section occupied a considerable amount of space. If the consensus is that the play by play breakdown should remain, then let's re-insert it - but let's do it in clear language and without the inaccuracies.
Actually, my first revert was almost automatic after almost reverting him after this (Ahwaz reverted first) - I just went through his contributions. Then I actually found out that he was referring to the talk page ("AS PER Zmmz"), where the dispute indeed seemed to be solved (to me at least), so I undid myself. Sorry for the confusion. Oh, and yes, I'm not an admin. Why? Misza13TC15:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No the dispute is not over. There's even a mediation case. See this, which has remained unanswered (the personal attack's placed outside the section). They're not supposed to remove the dispute tag, but I'm not going to get into a revert war now. AucamanTalk15:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why are you chnaging my edits? i'm editing based on sources, please read before changing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.118.111.122 (talk • contribs)
I don't care about the content which you have added (actually you have removed more than added). It has been reverted and will be reverted until a consensus is reached on the article's talk page. Misza13TC15:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism?????
What are you talking about? I havent vandalised anything. I never edit, and I dont even know how to vandalise. My friend is the only other person that knows my password, he might have done that. I wouldnt ruin people's things, that is mean and it takes away peoples info.
Thanks. I usually check the diff before reverting but in cases where my Vandal Fighter reports a massive removal of text (this was some 20 KB) I go straight to contributions and revert from there to speed it up. Works most of the time, sometimes fails. ;-) Misza13TC19:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiDefcon 1
Hello! FYI, the WikiDefcon 1 is reserved for really extreme cases of vandalism. If you feel that there is some increase of activity (I did a quick check with CDVF and couldn't spot it) it rather qualifies as 4. 3 and 2 are used when Wikipedia is assaulted by massive attack by automated/bot attack (such as SQUIDWARD). Finally, I don't know if level 1 (formerly known as "Overwhelming level of vandalism. Database lock recommended.") was ever legitimately called. Thus, I have reverted it back to 5. Please be careful in judging the situation in future not to cause unnecessary panic. Thank you, Misza13TC13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes... Sorry... Actually, I'm wondering now which links did I follow to make that mistake. ;-p I'll bug him now then. Sorry again. --Misza13TC13:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't mean to be that harsh. Perhaps you just need a bit more experience on RC patrol (or see for yourself how an actual SQUIDWARD attack looks like in CDVF). Misza13TC13:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recently read your comment on Naconkantari's talk page about putting my cousins pleas to him in BJAODN, and I must say I am insulted. I believe, despite his actions, he should be treated fairly, and I believe an informal apology is in order. Trosk00:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to insult anyone (moreover I don't understand why you feel insulted). If I did somehow, then sorry, but I found the discussion just plain hilarious. I think you should give your cousin a small lecture on "Introdution to Internet Usage" - your computer may be in danger in his incompetent hands. Cheers! Misza13TC10:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Misza13, a couple of weeks back, you had some dealings with ROGNNTUDJUU!. At the time you warned him that his actions were borderline trolling and spamming. Well, the user is back and doing much of the same things. He deleted the comment you left on his user page: [1]. The user continues to delete comments off the talk pages at his own whim and reply to them on other talk pages if he feels like it. What kind of action do you advise from here?--Metros23223:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I though this troll has given up already. As per the usual policy against trolls, I'd say ignore and just vote delete on his creations (if you care at all!). On the other hand, I'm tempted to fill an RfC on this, but then again: an RfC's purpose is to arrive at a consensus (no formal decisions are made) and I don't think ROGNNTUDJUU! is up for any consensus... I'll give a last try and direct him to Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. --Misza13TC10:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I thought he had just left the project all together too. But yes, RfC had crossed my mind too, but I agree, I don't know how willing he would be to cooperate in such an action. If you start one, however, I'll support it of course.--Metros23212:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Le sigh. Your posts to him were removed this morning with the edit summary: "This has been dealt with already and posting it here again is vandalism". So, congrats, you're now a vandal. How does it feel? Oy vey.--Metros23215:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal monobook is appearing in CAT:CSD. Your edit summaries do not appear that you really want this deleted. If you do please make an edit to it, specificy PLEASE DELETE, or leave me a talk message. If you do not want this deleted, please examine it for why it may be getting categorzied for deletion. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talk • contribs) 04:34, March 19, 2006
I think it's because this line contains the deletion template, I have temporarily removed it:
Thanks! I didn't realize it would get interpreted (but since "~~~~" does, I should have predicted it). I'll be more careful in future. Thanks again and sorry for the confusion! Misza13TC10:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop vandalising my page
I explain on my user talk page how I deal with posts. If you do not like it, we have to agree to differ. Reverts on other users' talk pages are vandalism and I expect you to stop it. ROGNNTUDJUU!16:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By saying "we have to agree to differ" you are basically saying "f*** you - I'll do it my way". And you can't deal with posts the way you like, because: 1. the talk page doesn't belong to you and 2. there are rules on talk pages here. Misza13TC16:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rules about talk pages for sure do not say you should revert on other users' talk pages. I explained how I do it, I honour the rules by answering all honest questions, and now please stop your vandalism on my page. ROGNNTUDJUU!16:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many users do not archive but delete comments from their talk pages. Why do you single out this one? I see his point asking others not to cross out flags. De mortuis...17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you are doing userpage renovations and I was wondering if I could get mine renovated. Something like yours would be good. Thanks
Leidiot10:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you done any research or do you know anything about the organization called the Club of Rome?
Quite obviously the initial entry was written by The Club of Rome itself which of course would fail to mention that in fact they are an organization dedicated to reducing the population of "undesirables" such as yourself. They are one of the leading proponents of these draconian New World Order methodologies which include cold malthusian analysis and a eugenics approach to "culling" the population.
Wikipedia could be a very liberating and informative source of real information about the world around us but first it has to have completely accurate information.
Have you researched before you deleted my accurate depiction of the club of Rome?
Well, you didn't specify any sources either (and Wikipedia is not a place for your original research). Instead, you've been adding extremely POVish statements such as this one or this one. Not to mention that edits such as [3] and [4] have no place here and definitely fall under vandalism. And BTW, (and I hope I won't regret asking) under what criterion do I fall under the "undesirables" category (not that I care about some club at all, just curious about your judgement...)? Misza13TC12:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Birthday
^_^ Thanks. Happy early birthday to you, too! Big 18 for me tomorrow, though I still have a lot of work to do 'till I consider myself an adult :) — Deckiller22:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is proper isn't it?
I do believe that my edits to Talk:Quantile are proper.
Could you please comment on some sources I have compiled.
Sorry, but I see absolutely no connection between refactoring and almost completely blanking an article's talk page. That's vandalism. Misza13TC11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is that the objection is no longer valid seeing as how it has already been taken care of for over a month now, plus the fact that the entire post was expedited by an improper edit in the first place. In my mind the very least that could be done is change it to a notice that it is a common mistake to remove it from the article (which I do not think it is). The best reason for doing it is because the discussion as a whole is overly too long for such a simple mistake. I believe that Talk pages should have some current relevance to the current article or provide guidance to those in the future who may incorrectly edit the article. (unless my views are themselves misguided) Wikipedia:Wikipedia_maintenance#Talk_pages correctly summarizes my views of using archives on talk pages; Thats not to say that archives are bad style, because they do serve a useful purpose; However, if someone has the time and is willing to put in the required effort to filter out and compress the content, while still maintaining its' usefulness to the current discussion and article, then it should be done. Thank you for you input, I appreciate your feedback on this matter. (Now I would remove the previous sentence from future archives seeing as how it is superfluous to the main discussion.) (If you would rather this discussion be moved to my talk page, I would not have a problem with it.) 68.78.35.11715:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to blanking (as opposed to archiving) talk pages, be the matter resolved or not. As Misza correctly points out, that's regarded as vandalism. I don't doubt for a second that you are armed with good intentions, but that's just not the way it's done here.
Thanks for commenting. I didn't know if it's resolved or not, so an inside view is helpful. I don't see any reason for the discussion to be removed (even if it's closed) - after all, the issue may rise again in future and the archive is a good point of reference in such cases. Also, why archive at all? The page doesn't look overly bloated with topics... Misza13TC15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't quite suggesting that it be archived at its' current state, but when it does need to be archived, it would be easier to read if it was refactored. I consider "blanking" the article to be a lazy form of refactoring seeing as how it could be reworded as an faq or frequently made mistake; However, I considered the mistake to be uncommon (just a silly oversight), thus deciding to "blank" it all together. Assuming that the subject was truly resolved by all parties, would you be ok with changing it to more of a faq form (as opposed to blanking it outright)?68.78.35.11719:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that settles it; I didn't know it was still unresolved... Although I must say that too me it appears to be resolved, but in either case I'll stop the edit wars.68.78.35.11719:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, about the second reference you are citing, that's definitely not how it's done here. If you fuck up change your mind about something, you should use <strike>. PizzaMargherita15:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments seem to be at direct odds with Refactoring. Do you agree with my interpretation? Plus this it is not a matter of changing ones mind it is about the disscussion as a whole not being relevent to the current artical. (assuming of course that it was truly resolved.) (don't leave out the <del title="reason"> tag. :-) )68.78.35.11719:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Vandalism
Really appreciate the assisstance there. What is it with some people ? Find on my userpage a list of Wikipedia protocol that will be of use to you. Go ahead and make a copy for your use. Again, appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law07:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC):)[reply]
Happy birthday to you also
Finny the birthday panderichthys wishes you happy birthday.
Happy Birthday!*stern voice* Make sure they don't pop! A very happy Birthday from me too! May you be here for every birthday you ever celebrate! (you decide whether that's a greeting or a curse! :D)
Hi, thanx for your greetings: A very kind gesture on your part. I feel bad I did not wish you too on your own birthday. So I have decided to give you my b'day cake present from User:Thethinredline. A belated Happy Birthday. :) Belated greetings...
Dear Misza13: In my opinion, no; I think 48hrs is about enough to give a proper forced protraction from the débàcle as 24hrs wouldn't really be enough to illustrate the gravity of why Wikipedia:Civility is necessary practice. I'd have agreed if the behaviour was less focused towards a particular debate, but in this case the temperature has got so hot that really a slightly longer block is the only solution. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
