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

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →

Top | Talk (new message, archives) | User page | Contribs | User log

This is an index of all 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. A full list of talk page archives can be found here.

June 2006

; Archives index
	May 2006; June 2006; July 2006 (175 KB); August 2006 (244 KB); September 2006 (126 KB); October 2006 (135 KB); November 2006 (82 KB);

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage. I owe you one! -- DakPow e rs (Talk) 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian unification

Hi. You added a cleanup tag to Italian unification. It is customary to explain why you think this is needed in the talk page. Will you, please?--Panairjdde 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, but it was just my attempt to make "***THIS PAGE NEEDS A MAJOR CLEANUP***", which admittedly might just be drive-by trolling, look more NPOV. I didn't really have an opinion about the article's quality. I don't mind if that tag is removed -- I was just trying a compromise with what I thought was a harmless disclaimer. -- Omicronpersei8 15:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper tagging for speedy deletion

The article that was getting tossed about, Tank 513 should be put under AfD procedure, rather than SD (see [[1]]. Once I finish putting the deletion process together for the page, feel free to share your opinion, that the article should be deleted. Thanks! W e s!  ^T _c 07:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how is a kid advertising on Wikipedia his first attempt at writing not worthy of speedy deletion? -- Omicronpersei8 07:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved -- Omicronpersei8 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:203.166.99.233

Hi Omicronpersei8!
This user has also vandalized my userpage yesterday. I think, with the huge amount of warnings he/she has receieved, the user should be premanently blocked. --Fir0002 22:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shared IP for a school, so I don't think that's the best course of action. -- Omicronpersei8 00:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diet of Ancient Greece

Thansk for being on top of that - quick catch.Bridesmill 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Coleman

No worries - and msg me for sure if it happens again! - Glen Stoll ery 16:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Nagara373

I see you warned this user earlier on... and shortly afterwards warned user:220.210.191.110.

I'm pretty new round here, but even I could tell the latter is a sockpuppet of the former. --Dweller 21:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and? Under the new account, he wouldn't get the messages meant for the prior one. -- Omicronpersei8 21:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not what meant, but my fault for not being clear. No worries. --Dweller 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't tell if you're scolding me or not. I realize that they may be the same person, but if the person created an account and logged in, the message intended for the IP would not get to him (as far as I know). Also, the same edits does not automatically mean the same person -- it could be a coordinated vandalism between two or more people. -- Omicronpersei8 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all over the shop tonight. Not my place to scold anyone. Thought you were an admin and might want to consider blocking. Perhaps I should consider sleeping and coming back to Wikipedia in the morning. (Or perhaps I'll keep going for a few more hours because I'm hopelessly addicted like a great big saddo) --Dweller 21:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry for the misunderstanding. Have a good rest. -- Omicronpersei8 21:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You kidding? Still here, still editing, still addicted. Anyone cited Wikipedia as grounds for divorce yet? ;-) --Dweller 00:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions list says I've been editing off and on for about eight hours today. I think I should probably get a reality check. -- Omicronpersei8 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism reverting

I have seen you reverting vandalism serveral times. Have you considered becomming a WP:VandalProof user? It's WAY easier. Just put your name in the "asking to be approved" list. --mboverload @ 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ronnie Coleman Vandal is Back

He's created a number of sockpuppets. I've already put in one block request. Just a heads up. Yankees76 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on keeping on top of that. It's amazing the lengths this person is going to for something so ridiculous and worthless. -- Omicronpersei8 10:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanoli

Thanks for keeping watch over and reverting back the page after it's vandalism bro. I'm getting kinda tired of it, but any and every help is appreciated :-)--Raja 10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ménage à trois

I was just wondering why the changes were made to the menage a trois article. It is a redirect from threesomes and is being considered for deletion because it is too slim. I add more details on threesomes to bulk out the article and within minutes it is removed. Surely this is counter productive? AWD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.120.61 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While I understand your desire to add to the article, my edit comment pretty much spelled out my concern: rv; this article is quickly becoming a wannabe "sexual dictionary". This article should define what a ménage à trois is, but the edits you made, defining "spitroast" and "double penetration", while types of threesomes, are probably too "in-depth" and possibly over-elaborate (not that I'm intending to censor). This article has already had several reverts in the interest not of keeping it "clean", but in adhering to the intended environment of an encyclopedia. Perhaps the edits you made would be fine if linked to from this page, but detailing every form of sexual act involving three people would be gratuitous, exhaustive, and would encourage the addition of nonsense.

This is all my opinion. Thanks for dealing with my edits so civilly, and if you must revert them back in, you can find them here. -- Omicronpersei8 02:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WW1

Revert to revision 60289542 dated 2006-06-24 04:38:00 by Wikibout is that the rollback edit summary or did you just type all that? Wikibout-Talk to me! 04:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback summary by Popups. I just started using it, so that should explain to anyone reading why I'm making lots of mistakes today. -- Omicronpersei8 04:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Wikibout-Talk to me! 04:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear VandalProof is pretty good too, if you want to give that a try sometime, but I think you have to have at least 250 edits first. Good luck with whatever you decide on. -- Omicronpersei8 04:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried popups for a few minutes. I didn't like it. Thanks anyway. Grrr it's weird not being able to move stuff and not have the edits when you started over a year ago... Wikibout-Talk to me! 04:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPG Hack-n-slash

I think the genre of a few games should be clarified correctly. That is why I put the hack-n-slash comment on the world of warcraft game. I will change it again, please leave the corrections. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.80.52 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's alright, I'll put them back. I just suspected some kind of vandalism. -- Omicronpersei8 06:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem, keep up the good work keeping our wikipedia pages vandalism free. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.80.52 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian Flemming

You seem like a nice guy so I'll tell you why.

1) I don't like it when people revert stuff that isn't IMHO vandalism 2) I'd like to know why my edits were reverted first. 3) I suspect the vandals may be one of his lacky's.

132.241.246.117 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits would probably not be considered outright vandalism, but have an obvious bias. This isn't keeping with WP:NPOV. Whether you realize it or not, you're forcing opinions on the reader. If you could rephrase your edits so that they sound more impartial, they should be fine.

Also, "the taxi driving Curveball"? And which vandals? -- Omicronpersei8 00:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sigh.....you're right I guess.

ftr though curball does drive a taxi. 132.241.246.117 00:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Coleman Vandalism

See the Talk:Ronnie_Coleman page. Another admin doesn't feel the page needs protecting, and sure enought 'dat dere cell-tech' is back only a few hours after the semi-protection was removed. Please add your experiences with this vandal on the talk page. Thanks Yankees76 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What exactly is the big deal about keeping that page semi-protected? -- Omicronpersei8 03:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put. W/regards to the protection - keeping it semi-protected just keeps the IP vandals from adding that gibberish "dat dere" statement (which they will keep doing over and over again). Registered vandals are easy to block - we can nail them as socks or vandalism only accounts.) It's a pain the ass to constantly revert the same edit over and over again - I'd prefer just to leave it, but there's got to be some integrity. BTW that same user also vandalizes the buttocks page as well - so it's not isolated vandalism. Yankees76 03:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for taking care of the request for protection. -- Omicronpersei8 04:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark Complete Nonsense

I'm interested to know why you reverted my addition to the Noah's Ark Search page. Everything written was purely factual, no personal opinions or viewpoints were added. For those genuinely interested in the subject matter, my contribution was both relevent and concise. The only conclusion I can draw from your actions is that you have a personal opinion about the subject matter and want this page to reflect your views. Is this really what Wikipedia is about?

I restored my comment, but simply assuming my comment had been removed inadvertantly by someone else's submission (i.e, a race hazard). After restoring it it occured to me to check the history. And there I found your colourful synopsis of my contribution. I also discovered an ealier contribution on the same lines had also been revoked by you. Thecowster 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it personally -- it wasn't your contribution I was dissing, just the very spurious reports it references. The only opinion I have given on this claim is one of skepticism of Bob Cornuke, not of the religious links behind it. Like I said in the edit comment, the source web page and the author speak for themselves. I don't really approve of "poisoning the well" or whatever, but this looks like a good start. And really, fossilized sea creatures in the ark?

My questions simply revolve around why you had to message me about this when I have not touched your replacement of the edit, and why you think I've edited the article before (or have any sort of vested interest in it), when my searches indicate otherwise. -- Omicronpersei8 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reader reference, here's the edit in question. -- Omicronpersei8 23:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed much controversy regarding Bob Cornuke, but this can't preclude his (albeit controversial!) offerings from even getting a mention on this impartial page? The Wiki page already deals with much controversy on this subject. I would add a comment to the contribution regarding the controversy that surrounds this man, in order to encourage readers to do their own questioning. Would you agree with this? (in the mean time I fixed a few typos and tried to better enhance the neutrality of the contribution) Thecowster 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your questions - I simply wanted to resolve any editing dispute. I was surprised to see how quickly my first Wikipedia contribution vanished into the ether, and expected that my re-submission might also follow the same way pretty soon. Direct discourse seemed an appropriate way forward! Regarding your second point I mis-read the history. Sorry :-/ Thecowster 23:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't apologize, it was an honest mistake in retrospect.

Here's how I see it: I was too hasty in reverting the section (probably because I'm so used to reverting vandalism and in other cases expecting that people who feel I have been in error will revert it as needed), as well as too superlative in my assessment of it as "complete nonsense". The "complete nonsense" verbiage referred to the article, not your writing. The fact that Bob Cornuke has no accredited degree in archaeology, that the article in question has obvious biases of its own, and that the whole concept sounded silly to me, regardless of religious beliefs, made me confident in my edit. To automatically assume it is "the ark" also trips my B.S. alarm.

My ideal image of the edit would involve a warning of spuriousness, but that's just my opinion (again). Rather than reverting it, I could have edited the passage or expressed myself on the talk page, but as I saw the idea as implausible, I decided that it was more suited for a newscast than an enyclopedia (and in truth, still do), and deleted it. I hope you will find it at least as good as a compromise that I won't edit your paragraph out again, but I can't predict how other editors will feel. I am not trying to espouse my own beliefs here, and usually only keep to vandalism reverting, but I was just trying to do my best to keep things factual and believable (that's what I feel Wikipedia is about). A good argument for your side would be asking me to prove that most links on Wikipedia are sound, a challenge to which I would fold.

Thanks for trying to edit it into neutrality, thanks for proving yourself interested in making sound contributions to Wikipedia, and thanks for the civil dialogue. -- Omicronpersei8 23:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, in retrospect, given the paragraphs above the addition, I guess that page might be the best place for such an edit, substantial or not. I also approve of your newly edited paragraph much more now than I did initially. ... I am going to stick to vandalism reverting for tonight. -- Omicronpersei8 23:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →