User talk:Objectivist-C
Pro/anti-objectivism
[edit]I deleted them because they were unnecessarily divisive. There are plenty of templates that don't contribute to the encyclopedia, but those ones were blatantly factioctionalizing, so I thought they were harmful. As for similar ones, that may be, but the existence of divisive templates doesn't justify the existence of divisive templates. And, for obvious reasons, I'm not about to go on a deletion spree in what is still a controversial arena. Two is enough for this month. :-) Dmcdevit·t 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- By that standard, the entirety of the beliefs, religion, and political party sections should be removed. I think it's more helpful for people to declare their biases upfront. -Objectivist-C 22:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but I'd prefer to use my deletion tools sparingly, and not cause an uproar with a bunch of controversial deletions. Please do not recreate deleted content. If you dispute the deletion, take it to WP:DRV or elsewhere. Dmcdevit·t 22:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, could you please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac GUI? Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Blood libel against Christians was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, the redirect was done incorrectly, and then I fixed it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I think my browser was playing tricks on me. -Objectivist-C 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
joke?
[edit]"Your honour, please let me out of prison, as I no longer feel like murdering any of those people I killed." -Objectivist-C 03:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha, very funny... not! Pnatt 00:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, analogy. -Objectivist-C 02:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Amusing vandalism?
[edit]Looks more like some people are just taking edit warring to the next level... ha ha. I kill me. :) heqs 08:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Username
[edit]I just wanted to mention that I found your username enjoyable, and was glad to see that it referenced what I thought it referenced. See you around :) — Philwelch t 05:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Information Hound Dog
[edit]Don't delete anything! Censorship is idiotic. You can't destroy the truth - or even another person's opinion of it - merely by deleting the written record; and the electronic written record, no less!
To whomever it may concern: If you indeed have such virulent ideological enemies - as you must think you do, in order to find it necessary to remove their contributions from Wikipedia - then don't you want to know what they are saying? ..The old "know your enemy" proverb, for you.
A possibly better protocol than free-for-all deletions might be to have Wiki material reviewed for whatever merit it may have with respect to scholarship and adherence to truth, with even the consensus "invalid" entries being moved to some kind of "Wiki-editorial page", or browsable "limbo" instead, for possible further study (for widely-overlooked, factual, imaginative, aesthetic, etc, value) by whomever cares to do it.
If a group of scholarly individuals cannot be brought together (virtually or otherwise) to review and edit Wikipedia, then under the rubric of Wikipedia's anarchistic nature, and given that Wikipedia is supposed to be an online "encyclopedia" of sorts, surely more data is better than less.
The only valid justifications for editing an encyclopedia inhere in scholarly or factual criticism, not mere opinion, or wanting to stem "divisiveness", or some other non-rigorous reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.149.65 (talk • contribs)
- what the christ -Objectivist-C 22:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You are listed as a participant in this Wikiproject, which appears to have ground to a halt - I'm contacting all participants to try to get things rolling again... hope you can help! -- Medains 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
MA Userbox
[edit]Today, there was a merger of Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists. This resulted in a userbox {{User:TonyTheTiger/Userboxes/Martialartist}} being added to the category. This userbox is available to you. TonyTheTiger 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:SAforumsFP.png)
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:SAforumsFP.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Iamunknown 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Could you help me write this article?
[edit]Hello,
I was wondering if you would be willing to help me write either Seikichi_Iha or Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan. Tkjazzer 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Nomination of Styles of silat for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Styles of silat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Styles of silat until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)