This is an archive of past discussions with User:Onorem. 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.
All the sources I've seen this morning say he was fired. I don't see a reason to describe it otherwise unless new sources come up that call it something else. --Onorem♠Dil15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, the bay9 report has fired only in the header in the article they are a bit more reserved... Florida football coach Jim Leavitt will not coach the Bulls next season. The school has cut ties and they cite the details only to an un named on line source. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I read the school cutting ties and the school firing him as saying the exact same thing in 2 different ways.
Google news results page is dominated by 'fired' but does also include some softer versions about being let go or being told that he is out. Early reports could be wrong, but there's dozens of reliable sources that say he was fired. I don't see a reason not to say it, and the sentence you prefer seems awkward to me. --Onorem♠Dil16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Fired implied that he was guilty of assault and that the school terminated his contract, that is a big step, we don't need to say he was fired, cut ties is plenty. Fired also means that he has gone immediately and yet I read only that he would not be the coach next season, personally I see no reason not to be a bit reserved, anyway I have taken it off my watchlist, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Fired implies nothing except that the school decided that they no longer required his services. It is being reported that he was fired. Where's the controversy? --Onorem♠Dil16:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
problem with another user
Dear Onerom,
I seem to be having the most profound difficulties with another user, a Paul Wicks. He seems to have taken the rather odd notion that I am not Richard Kanaan. Obviously he is has produced no evidence for this. You can see his posting on my talk page. I am increasingly annoyed by a minor edit I have made on conversion disorder, I sat on the DSM review panel and know a great deal about this subject. If wikipedia is to benefit from expert help I wonder if you could help resolve this matter.
Yours,
Richard
blocking
But you can't block people. We all just log on elsewhere. Anyway I only did it to get a reaction from Paul Wicks. We are laughing our bottoms off- why does he respond everytime? so bloody funny. (PA removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.84.58 (talk)
But Dear onerem- I use a dynamic ISP so you can't block me. If you do you'll take out half the UK. Also my ISP are joining with talk talk- so when you block me next time you'll take out most of the UK. If you don't find the Richard Kanaan situation funny then you are clearly as nuts as Paul Wicks. Anyway- going to flick my router to reboot and get on with some editing- Now?? no of course not, I'll bide my time. Then I'll laugh my face off at Wicks again- its like badger bating but environmentally friendly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.84.58 (talk)
Yes. You are the first disruptive user in the history of Wikipedia that can get a new IP. We've finally been beaten. --Onorem♠Dil20:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
yes you have, You can't block anyone who uses a dynamic ISP. Last time it was tried against me with a range block- half the UK went off line- lmao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.104.195 (talk)
so your just an averge joe reporting pepole just to rank up in the eyes of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockof5 (talk • contribs)
"Ranking up" has nothing to do with it. I'm just trying to help. I'm sorry that your YouTube isn't notable. I have no idea why you believe that admin's who have their own YouTube get to post them here. Do you have any examples of pages that you don't believe are notable and that are only being kept because they belong to an admin here? --Onorem♠Dil23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding SPCHS IP-based vandalism, particularly the most recent 'incident'
I'd personally like to apologize for the stupidity of my fellow students.
We're idiots.
However, I'd just like to say that the (most?) recent edit, made by myself, was not intended as vandalism.
I removed a reference on the Yahoo! page, under the Recent History section, to a (nonexistent) image, 'Naruto.jpg', which was completely unrelated.
...Yeah.
Thanks! and sorry again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.20.53.245 (talk)
I did notice that one of the edits was productive, and have removed the image again. Thanks. 3 other edits made since were blatant vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil16:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Onorem. I haven't listed the dispute on WP:30 because there are more than two parties involved. Would please transplant the entire section on the relevant noticeboard as per my request here. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
And again[1], not sure what his deal is... I don't think I've ever discussed anything with him and I only periodically comment on the article of his obsession. Morphh(talk)19:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't be rude now. It is true. I know this hard for a cult member like yourself to accept. Anyway...
As I seem to have rattled your cage I shall just keep on reverting- very little you can do as I think I've said before- I am on a dynamic ISP and rangeblocks just bring down half the UK's access to wikipedia editing. I also have multiple accounts that I continue to use either editing constructively or destructively. Resetting my isp now.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.109.31 (talk)
Thread moved from my Talk page following my policy stated in at top of my page which states. "Please be prepared to identify yourself to me, if asked, and do not bring conflict.".
Why was my extension inappropriate? If you're going to hide discussion because it's off-topic, why not include your own off-topic statement which started the bickering? Your, as Comet Tuttle put it, grammar nagging has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question, and I'm failing to understand why it should be treated differently. --Onorem♠Dil00:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. If I have understood you, you support Comet Tuttle's claim[2] that I should be "scolded" (his words) for a post of mine because it is "grammar nagging" (his words) to ask an editor, here Nil Einne, about text they posted. You claim that doing that is off-topic. You claim my doing that to be the beginning of bickering which means "a quarrel about petty points"[3]. If you will confirm that I do understand you properly then I may give you a substantive answer. In passing, what do you think of Comet Tuttle's proposal that one should edit errors in another's post without asking? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to say that you need to be 'scolded' right now, but I do think your post was unnecessary. In many cases, I think that those being corrected feel like they're being called out in public with the intent being to make them look stupid. Why not just leave a polite note on the user's talk page that mentions you noticed a few errors they might like to correct?
As to Comet Tuttle's proposal, I don't think that fixing obvious typos and grammar problems is a good idea. If they're obvious, they don't need fixing because people will understand what was meant. I don't see that fixing them would be a net positive.
I don't mind the conversation being moved, but what policy are you referring to in your note at the top of this section? --Onorem♠Dil02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to comment on the 'beginning of bickering' portion. It's my opinion that your original comment provided the petty points for the quarrel that followed. Without that point to start from, there is no bickering. --Onorem♠Dil02:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I take your point that a note to a user's talk page can be to consider their possible feelings about which we can only speculate. I do expect a native English speaking long-term editor of English Wikipedia such as Nil Einne (with thousands of contributions over 2 years, including critical ones) can be approached robustly. Regardless of their reasons, editors are often reluctant to make any change to their own posts. Since the prime concern should be the accuracy of our collective response to the OP (Original Poster), and of what will be archived a few days later, I find it right to ask for occasional clarification immediately the need appears, and to do so at the source. All Wikipedia users are invited to volunteer responses at Ref. Desks and that openness would be meaningless if there were always just one perfect response that any single user could give. That is obviously not the case and therefore in reply to OPs we have typically several voluntary responses that complement and interact with each other.
I rebut as follows your opinion that I provided points that are petty[4]. If, repeat if, the answers are Yes then in all 3 cases mentioned there has been confusion about English homophones that literally cause a post to say something different from what the poster Nil Einne intended. Comet Tuttle with whom you do not entirely agree certainly found grounds for quarreling thereafter.
Thank you for this opportunity to explain myself. I reject your step to encompass inside the box "bickering" my post [5] that justly sought clarification. That's all. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism to Bo Jackson will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Hi,
I'm not really agreeing with one of your previous edits: edit in question. I checked and found that Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism notes that "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own" as part of its definition of "Discussion page vandalism". I've read your reasoning "This is not a forum for general discussion about the topic." However, I'm not agreeing with it for this reason: The issue I have with this is that the material removed helped to identify the nature of the program. This seems to need to be resolved so that the NPOV tag may be resolved. Therefore, such material does seem relevant to the actual article.
Due to the findings I just mentioned, I am in favor of restoring the comments that were left by other users and which you deleted. However, as you did provide a valid reason, I decided to discuss this here rather than get into an edit war on that page. I will check this page for a reply before making any subsequent change.
The talk page is not for people to post their opinions about the topic. We don't need to know that some random person installed it 3 years ago and claims it slowed down his computer or that another random person thinks that "stop" is suspicious for some reason. These comments do nothing to resolve the NPOV tag. The sorta-cure steps for uninstallation have absolutely nothing to do with article improvement. I would disagree completely with restoring the comments I've removed. They aren't appropriate talk page discussion. Reliable sources fix things. Opinions do not. --Onorem♠Dil13:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You recently reverted an edit I made to Brittny Gastineau, citing "talk page consensus" as the reason. Interestingly, I don't find that such consensus exists - just a whole lot of bickering over whether or not there is consensus (which, I might add, is not consensus, and is fairly strong evidence of the lack thereof.). As a newcomer to the article who had never visited it before today, no axe to grind, and who has edited for years, I think I bring a pretty fresh perspective to the matter. Bottom line, the event is significant, and while I agree with your assessment that it doesn't deserve undue weight, the event is unquestionably significant enough to merit a well-referenced line or two of mention. Reswobslc (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, doing too many reverts at one time :). I just noticed that one of them was making an error on the page, but by the time I was about to undo my revert you'd already undone it for me :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Why are admins, such as yourself, not held to the same standards as the worlds editors. I am sitting here judging your edits, knowing of their Inaccuracies; yet when I try to fix them I am shut down. It is frustrating!
In my opinion, untill photos of othe NPWT products are posted, it is inapropriate to feature only the one. Shouldn't this fall under your advertising criteria and be recommended for immediate deletion. This is what happened to the page I created, which is no more biased than the NPWT page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.110.74 (talk)
Admins, which I'm not, shouldn't be held to different standards. If you've seen inaccuracies in my edits, please help me out and fix them. It's not reasonable to expect a separate image for each type of everything we have an article on. If you have free images that you're able to contribute for the article, go ahead and add them. I have absolutely no idea what page you created and what happened to it, so I'm afraid I can't comment on that. --Onorem♠Dil18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for trusting me with the tool. While I won't ask for it to be taken away, I doubt I'll use it. (for now at least) I don't much agree with the concept. --Onorem♠Dil19:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I'm not entirely sold on it either, but in order to make an informed decision I'll be working with it... –xenotalk20:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
World Cup Templates
On that matter, perhaps you can explain it to me then. The tiebreaker criteria is clearly marked on the 2010 World Cup page, and in several of those groups, at least for the first round, there are more than the two teams allowed to advance that are tied for the qualifying spots even after all the tiebreakers are applied (the last one, the drawing of straws, wouldn't happen until the end of the group stage anyway), but that green line is still there, indicating otherwise.
There was a brief consensus before the Soccer Wikiproject people came around, and their only reasoning seemed to be this is the way we've always done things, totally disregarding the tiebreaker criteria and the fact that green line is misleading. There is only one reliable source, and it's the tiebreaker criterion right there on that page.
I can't respect a consensus that willfully damages Wikipedia for no apparent reason, even when time factors (this will all be moot in a few days) and the topic matter (it is only a line), may make the issue out of most people's notice. I tried to take a few days away from it, but the fact that this article is linked to the front page makes me believe that it is necessary to try and change this so users who may see the associated pages are not given inaccurate information.
If you can explain to me what the reason for keeping the green line there is, please let me know. This has been bothering me over the past few days. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S -- My last talk page archive was smaller than I would have liked, so I archived the message there and I'd prefer if we continued to conversation here.
The green line indicates that 2 groupsteams move on. What teams currently appear above or below the line don't matter. Current standings have nothing to do with the line. If the template was empty, the green line would still belong to show that 2 move on out of a group of 4. Background color will show when a team has qualified or been eliminated. --Onorem♠Dil01:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
First, it's 2 teams, not 2 groups. Second, if that was the case, why not just say that rather than putting a misleading line there? The green line is intended to show what teams would qualify if the stage ended right now. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistake. You knew what I meant. No. That is not what the line means. That you continue to insist on that being the meaning of the line is the entire basis of this stupid edit war. --Onorem♠Dil04:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok then, back to my original question. Where does it say that is what the line means? Is there a soccer MOS somewhere that can be sent to an RFC? And yes, this is an incredibly stupid edit war -- there is no reason for that green line to be there in cases where it's not clear. I've been around for nearly 5,000 edits now and I have never seen a reason to invoke WP:IAR until this. A few days from now, it won't matter for this world cup since the ties will be gone, but i'll do what I can to make sure future users aren't given confusing or misleading information when they read the encyclopedia. If those with the opposite opinion didn't have good faith in their edits, which I am beginning to wonder about since the reasoning seems to be non-existent other than "this is the way we've always done it", quite frankly i'd consider it vandalism. You were right about one thing though, this has to go back to the talk pages and eventually an RFC and as far as it takes as far as i'm concerned. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Why does copyright information about the stratosphere belong in the sandbox? Why do you have your own personal sandbox if you aren't going to use it? Why do you remove every comment left for you on your talk page without response? Why do you disrupt other user's attempts to use the sandbox for its intended purpose? Why do you remove the sandbox header all the time? --Onorem♠Dil23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't read the part about IPs not being allowed user spaces when I created that page in an attempt to divert the IP user away from refactoring the talk page. I've resolved it, and that IP user page is no longer necessary. mechamind9003:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Good. He was a troll that made a few trivial edits that weren't all that useful to offset his otherwise obviously disruptive intentions. I'll almost never complain about those looking to assume good faith, but I'd considered leaving you a message questioning your reasons for backing this IP up a week or two ago. --Onorem♠Dil05:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
troll move
At 19:31 you undid a troll move and hid the log entry, unfortunately the moved name appears in all the watch lists of those who have watched the item. So I can tell what happened. Is it possible to clean the watchlists of everyone? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a move. Someone else must have been responsible for any hiding. Looking at my contributions, I don't see the name in my edit summary at 19:31, but I do see it in a twinkle message left for myself at 19:32. I don't see the name on my watchlist. I don't see the name in my move logs. I'll ask for the revision left on my page to be deleted, but I'm wondering if you can see more than the average user as an admin. If that's the case and you think oversight might be needed, I'll leave that to you. --Onorem♠Dil12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I keep changing the championship totals because if you look at the Green Bay Packers, Kansas City Chiefs, and New York Jets they don't include the AFL or NFL championships won to add to their championship total. Don't you think the Minnesota Vikings should join the rest. If not then so be it. User: sullivan9211
why do you take off thething of ray king off its true about his pesonal life and he actual did that user: sullivan9211 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.65.137 (talk)
True doesn't mean it automatically belongs. It needs to be sourced and relevant. It didn't appear to be either. --Onorem♠Dil00:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Douche Bag
Hey douche Bag why do you keep taking off stuff that is true i mean you are just some loser that sits inside all day and does nothing but jack off so go fuck yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.120.195 (talk)
Careful - you've violated WP:3RR with this edit. I'm certainly not going to report it, since the IP is obviously just editing to insert his/her spam link, but someone else might. If it reverts again, you may wish to let someone else handle it. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I did realize that just after I made the revert...and wouldn't have reverted again, but thanks for the notice. I don't remember the specific circumstances...and wouldn't have remembered your name at all, but now that you've posted, this situation reminds me of a persistent vandal who used your name in his edit summaries. I'm not sure that I knew before that you were an editor. (my memory is bad, and we might have even discussed this before.) Is that something you're aware of? --Onorem♠Dil15:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hehe...looking through the history of the page...it doesn't take long to see that you are aware of this persistent vandal...and I'd be happy to argue my case at 3RR if someone did take the time to report me. Anyway, thanks again for the warning. I certainly don't plan to revert again, but I'd rather not have to make that decision. --Onorem♠Dil15:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure what the deal is with that one IP editor who keeps using my name in his/her summaries - probably someone who got tweaked when I dropped a vandalism warning on their talk page. As far as the 3RR: if someone does report you, you may count on me to be your advocate on the noticeboard. Perhaps this latest annoyance has given up, though. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Onorem. 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.
