User talk:Usrnme h8er/Archive 1

Speedy delete template

Specifically for easy tagging of speedy deletes of non-notable biography articles, I created {{nn-bio}}. You may find it useful in future. DES 15:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merged articles should not be deleted

Hi, please don't tag articles for speedy deletion after they have been merged, the history must be kept. If there is a good reason to delete the redirect, take it to WP:RFD Kappa 16:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Number of times your user page has been vandalised: +1

Reverted it, of course. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 01:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of my User page

Thanks for reverting it! Have taken your suggestion of a counter.... sadly it's now on 2 already, I guess I upset someone! ;o) UkPaolo 12:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australia in England in 1981

Thank you for your message regarding the above article. While I appreciate that blanking is considered vandalism, a quick glance at the page's history would have shown that all edits were mine, and an explanation of this was to be found on the talk page for the article, where I immediately left a note saying that I would work fully on the article at a later date. Not having admin powers, I couldn't delete the article and it seemed pointless to have an administrator to delete it, only for the article to be started up again. Furthermore, my 'Pending Tasks' on my userpage showed that I was intending to work on that article anyway, so it was fairly clear that I wasn't blanking it as a vandal. While I appreciate that you later saw where the confusion came from, I get the impression that accusations of vandalism get noticed, and I'd rather not have that on my user account! Good luck reverting the genuine vandals, --High ^(Hopes) 17:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reply. Being a fairly new Wikipedian, there are all these tricks (like that template) I'm completely oblivious to, so many thanks for pointing it out. That said, I'll make an effort in future to ensure that if I start an article, I have enough time and info to make it immediately publishable. Thanks, --High ^(Hopes) 08:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Hegazi

I just deleted it, but in tagging it, you just recreated the page. I've now blocked the guy for 48 hours (increasing length) to let it sink in. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Too late again, I already added that template and locked the page. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Battles of Artois

I don't know when the official "First Battle" was. World War I Day by Day gives it as 27 September to 10 October 1914, Major & Mrs Holt's Battlefield Guide: The Western Front - North says is started on 26 October 1914 and Keegan's First World War gives it as 14 to 24 December, which was the period of a wider French offensive in Artois and Champagne. There are plenty of sources that name the battle starting 9 May 1915 as the "Second Battle" and the battle starting 25 September 1915 as the "Third Battle", such as the Holt Guide and The Great War by Robert Crowley. Geoff/Gsl 10:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do about the "First Battle". I would be happier if I could find at least two sources that agree on the dates but I don't have much on the French fighting in Artois and Picardy in 1914. Unfortunately I don't have much time to do any research or writing at the moment. Geoff/Gsl 11:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Harry Charles Luke

The country links were removed by mistake when i had an edit conflict with you. My apologies.

Dob & Dod links are standard when and only when there is a full date, because then they allow the date preferences to work. There is no other good reason for them to exist. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting says If the date does not contain a day and a month, then date preferences do not work. In such cases, square brackets around dates do not respond to user preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. (emphasis mine). I routinely remove such year links when otherwise editing articels, and I ask others not to add them. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time links

You wrote (on my talk page) I agree with the above editor, your obsession with the "date preference" functionality as a style suggestion is strange, notice that the Manual of Style link posted by the above editor shows very clearly that lonely years generally ARE linked. The date preference functionality is the ability of wikipedia to automatically translate a 7 September and a 7 September to the same page. It has nothing to do with what should or should not be linked. Usrnme h8er 15:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh but it does. You are correct about what the date preferences are and how they work -- although if I am not mistaken until version 1.5 of the software they only worked if a full date (year, month and day) was present. But the connection is that the only resason why links on dates are widespread is to activte these prefernces. It is most unlikely that the content of an article reached via a year link will have any relevance to the article about some event (such as a birth or death) that happened in that year, or that a user would follow such a link, or find that the information reached in any significant way illuminated the source article if the link is followed. Thus making such links is overlinking; they are, strictly speaking, pointless; and they should be ruthlessly removed. DES ^(talk) 15:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You responded: Interesting... But it still doesn't make sense to me... So I'm going to continue discussing it until a) it does, or b) I come to the conclusion that I simply don't agree. I hope I don't end up pissing you off, but I prefer this method to edit wars... First of all, can you explain the Manual of Style entry that contradicts you? Second, regardless of date preferences, if I follow the date links in George W. Bush (my favourite sample site because it bugs people... :P) I end up on equally usless sites as if I follow year links on Harry Charles Luke... It doesn't make any sense to me that the GWB dates should be links when the Sir Harry dates are not... Why the application of date references should matter if beyond me, and (normally at least) I don't fancy myself thick... Usrnme h8er 16:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, following the date links on the GWB article, or on any article, rarely if ever takes you to a sensible place. So why are full dates linked? Because the only way wikipedai "knows" that a text string is a date, and can activate the date preferences, is when the date is linked. Note that many date formats that can be chosen with date preferences include the year, so 2005-09-15, 15 September 2005, and Sepember 15 2005 should all wind up looking the same. If they weren't being linked to activate the date preferences, there would be no good reason for such links, since they don't go anywhere useful. Why then are so many years standing alone linked? Because a good many people, seeing full dates linked to activate the date preferences, got the mistaken idea that all dates, full or partial, including years with no other info, should be linked, and did so in many places, and other people, seeing the results of this imitated them. i suspect that even some of the MoS entries have been infected by this. Some people defend linking bare years as a method of emphasis. I say that if you want to emphasize years, you can use markup specifically for that purpose, put them in bold or italics or underline or change their color or whatever. But why years rather than any of many other types of frequently occuring information should be emphasized, such people never say. I have no objection to discussign this with you, and I hope to convince you. I agree it is much better than edit wars. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES ^(talk) 15:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rumbleina is a pro wrestler on The Simpsons

Episode The Parent Rap. It's in the second act, when Bart is watching TV after Judge Harm sentences Marge and Homer to be in locks. He's watching a wrestling show:

Lisa: Do you think it's fair that you're always into trouble, yet Mom and Dad are being punished?

Bart: No, it's terrible. [loudly slurps his soda]

Lisa: Well, why don't you do something about it?

Bart: After wrestling.

Announcer: Ladies and Gentlemen, I don't believe what I am seeing. Dr. Bonebreak just married Rumbleina, and they're already whaling on each other! [on TV, a wrestling couple attack each other with folding chairs]

Lisa: When are you going to start taking responsibility for your actions?

Bart: If I felt like it.

Lisa: You're not even listening.

Bart: I know you are, but what am I?

Lisa: Ugh. [walks off]

Reverting back...:-) (Unsigned by Sohmc (talk · contribs))

No biggie

I feel the same way about anonymous posts. (And sorry for not signing my origional comment. :-) sohmc 17:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Translation!?

Can you help translate this for me to swedish? Many thanks in advance!

For a small country, Albania is endowed with considerable resources. The southwestern part of the country is rich in petroleum and natural gas. The northeastern region has substantial reserves of metallic mineral deposits, including chromium, copper, and iron-nickel. Large deposits of lignite (soft coal) are found near Tiranë, and natural asphalt is mined near Selenicë.

Albania is also rich in rivers and streams with significant hydroelectric potential. These have been exploited quite effectively, making the country an energy exporter. A number of huge hydroelectric power plants have been built, mainly on the Drin River, and more than half of the country's arable land is irrigated, largely from the artificial reservoirs created upstream of the dams.

--Armour 14:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Canton of Benfeld

Hello, I have reverted your recent change to Canton of Benfeld. A canton is not the same as the commune of the same name, so there is no need for the redirect. Regards, Kiwipete 02:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

What is an h8er? A vandal just called me that. --MrFi s h^{Go Fish} 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, stupid me. I was trying to pronounce it as "aitch-ater".--MrFi s h^{Go Fish} 15:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation case

There is no case in the first place, since mediation requires two participants, and I will be damned if I let this b.... and her "helpers" harass and slander me, which so far is all they have done. So I did blank that, because now that b.... which is not even supposed to be a participant left off another of her slandering rants. What do you expect from me, let that stand? Nope! -- AlexR 07:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want? I can see you are trying to talk to me, but why me only? I am not the one who inserts long slandering rants on pages where they don't belong -- FemVoice's rant on the mediation page, for example. (Not to mention her page-long talk-page rants) If you want to join the "Harass Alex" club, you can safe yourself the membership fee -- you won't have any more success with it then they. -- AlexR 09:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I mistook you for somebody genuinly interested in solving a problem, but obviously you are not. Hence, kindly stay away from me, because, well, why should I waste my time with you? -- AlexR 09:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to see your harassing and dishonest comments on my talk page again

-- AlexR 09:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to me

Sure, no problem. I don't want to intervene unless it's necessary, as people can often feel bullied by threats of a block. And while people shouldn't remove messages from their talk page (unless the messages are straightforward trolling, abuse, or vandalism), I always feel it's better not to revert such moves, unless it's an administrators' warning about a block, or something like that. Feel free to call on me if I'm needed, but hopefully it will work out without that. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation of cisgender

Thank you for being a meditor... I looked at the comments above and I can't help but wonder what AlexR thinks you did to deserve the sarcastic remarks... Oh, you were the one that fixed the mediation page when AlexR removed it altogether. I get it now... I appoligize for you having to get involved.

The problems that exist with cisgender are multifold. But concentrating on the first issue, of cisman and ciswoman. These are non-words. I can not find them anyplace in conjunction with cisgender except on wikipedia or a mirrored site that has the same information propigated to it. I do find cisgender in a book search on google, but do not find cisman or ciswoman. The same goes for usenet, except for usernames.

When I first saw the words on Voice feminization I looked them up and found after a very short search that the did not exist on wikipedia. Period! Except for a redirect to cisgender. I used that as an argument as to why they should not be used in voice feminization and AlexR put them in cisgender. After much reading I removed them from cisgender and tried to quote the reason that they were not allowed.

Catamorphism reluctantly agreed with me and since you are not on AlexR's side, you are at fault also. The fact that AlexR is now calling me a b.... (bitch) means that there is little that can be done at this time. I have tried to make piece several times in comments on alex's talk page and have told that they are not being read. Sounds rather childish and imature to me, but I doubt that any kind of reasonable or rational outcome when AlexR says "There is no case in the first place, since mediation requires two participants, and I will be damned if I let this b.... and her "helpers" harass and slander me, which so far is all they have done." I hope you know that I am not trying to harrass anyone.

I am willing to listen to suggestions. How do I leave something that I know is a blatant fabrication out there? My roomate left wikipedia in tears, but I am not her. I will not leave and will just keep on trying different ways, until either I get enough people on my side with reason and logic, or AlexR finally sees the light and agrees to the reason and provides the explanations that I know can not be provided because I already looked for them.

Am I happy with the page in it's current state? No! It still has the words cisman and ciswoman and other assertions that if not pure fiction are at best inuendo to truth. When I look at Policies and guidelines I know that I have fullfilled my duedilligence. Humorously, most of how I knew to even look for this stuff is because of AlexR's tyrates - I would not have thought to look for the term 'SockPuppet' if it had not been for him.

Hmmm.... to tell the truth, I never thought as far ahead as you. I took it one step. But yes, the logical next step would be to have cisman and ciswoman removed as well.

Thanks for your help, and again I am sorry about the whole mess.

FemVoice 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender

You wrote: "Are you and User:FemVoice ready to accept the presence of the definition of the cis(sex) terms in the cisgender article?" I can't speak for FemVoice, but no, I'm not ready to accept that. This is the sole point that the mediation issue is about, after all. There are no reliable sources to support that the terms "ciswoman" and "cisman" are in common use; hence they shouldn't be in the article. The only editor who has stated support for their inclusion in the article is AlexR, but that editor has not been able to present any reliable sources for the definition. Catamorphism 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an easy thing to agree with Catamorphism. She and I have already disagreed, but she expresses herself kindly, and intelligently and when she does so, I consider what I want to say, and try and reason with her. She is fair, and I will have no reason to think that she will 'ever' be otherwise. Yes, I can work with her and come to a consensus. FemVoice 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender mediation

Yes, I think the mediation case can be closed now, as AlexR has said he will cease editing for now; if he reappears under a different name, as he threatened to do, I think that'll have to be dealt with through other venues. Thanks for your time. Catamorphism 04:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Drake

I believe you were involved in an edit war at this article, back in June. If you have a chance, please take a look and see if you can help (another user and I who are engaged in a similar rv cycle don't want to violate the three-revert rule). Thanks. John Broughton 17:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

Please see the discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009#Remove speculation.—Markles 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fjortis

Per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives), any encyclopaedia article about the concept would be at childishness. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word Fjortis is a noun. Correct usage in Swedish would be "En Fjortis" (A fjortis), "Fjortisen" (the fjortis) or "Du är en fjortis" (you are a fjortis). Of course, notice that I suggested deletion in that afd discussion on the grounds that I don't think wikipedia is (or should be) a Swedish language dictionary and that I don't feel that the word has any notability beyond its dictionary definition. Usrnme h8er (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't talking about the word "fjortis". I was talking about the article that you mentioned in that discussion: childish. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, fair point - but since childishness is currently a redirect to childish the point I was making in the debate still stands. Usrnme h8er (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]