User talk:Onorem/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Some stroopwafels for you!

Well said. Racconish^Tk 18:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Isle of Wight Academy

Hey, thanks for jumping in over there. The IP reverted you again. I'm thinking that a noticeboard is called for at this point. What do you think? And do you have a suggestion? I'm thinking copyvio is the way to go because it's proveably cut/paste, but the COI is speculation.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Mfd discussion

First of all I think it's a joke that this mfd is not getting closed because this is a dead issue that was already brought up numerous times in the past Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Certified.Gangsta and most infamously Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing, which is now chronicled in WP:LAME not to mention numerous skirmishes both before I left the project in late 2008 and after I retired. I don't understand why I have to continue to be harassed and continue to address this issue despite all these previous encounters. This MfD should close now. No one else commented on there other than me, Bishonen (who supports me), and the 2 random editors who have nothing better to do than to agitate me about my userpage. Is there a time frame for it to get closed? There is obviously no consensus and then there are so many past precedents. I really can't see this any other way other than a deliberate attempt to harass me or bait me so I would get blocked during the ArbCom election (which would automatically disqualify me as a serious candidate and essentially sabotage my candidacy). I don't want the mfd notice to be permanently on my page just because no one other than these 2 users who harassed me on my talkpage brought up this frivolous issue that was resolved years ago. I want it to be closed asap.--NWA.Rep (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

At32296

I still haven't figured out the whole talk page thing, so I hope I am placing this in the right place. Anyways, I see where you removed my information that I added to Adam Lambert's personal life section. I feel that that information was okay, and should have been kept. Just because it does not interest you doesn't mean it doesn't interest someone else. Also, where do you think most information about celebrities comes from? Tabloids, of course. I look forward to your response. User talk: At32296

PA4: The Director's Cut

"Paranormal Activity 4: The Director's Cut " has been acquired by Paramount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.6.163 (talk)

Have anything that resembles a reliable source for that statement? And if so, that the mindbogglingly stupid youtube video, random forum polls, or facebook page with no official information on it are at all related to the statement? --Onorem ♠Dil 23:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Cite of a diff

As per the advice here I am letting you know that I have cited one of your diffs here. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Silent Life article restoration

Hello, there is a bunch of new publications on Silent Life movie, may I ask you to evaluate if now it is eligible for moving to mainspace

(http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Silent_Life )

http://www.cinemotionlab.com/inform/1114 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/entertainment-arts-15674340 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Another-Silent-Film-Come-Out-prnews-3331690647.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/ef444a56-24dd-11e1-bfb3-00144feabdc0.html http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftelesite.ru%2Fnews%2F4247%2F http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099209/ Thank you in advance --MisterFirst (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Diamond9-2.GIF listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Diamond9-2.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's orphaned and don't remember what possible use I thought there was for it 5 years ago. I'll do some checking, but will likely support your request. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You are racist.

Like my cousin treyvon, I am a fan of editing wikipedia. I am a contributer. I help the community grow. You are just reverting my edits because I am not the same race as you. Last month, I watched as your racist kind killed my cousin over a bag of skiddles and chicken. I hope I can change your opinions on race relations. Both the killing of Treyvon and the banning of me are detremental to United States Race Relations. I am going to sue wikipedia for racial descrimination. My story will be heard around the world. I will become the fresh prince of bel air — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryoned (talk • contribs)

Good to know. Go away. We don't like your kind 'round here. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to join Yahoo! discussion

Hello, Onorem. You have new messages at Ottawahitech's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I would value your input. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Menachem Begin

The place for discussion is the Talk page. Otherwise, it may appear that you are engaged in competitive or disruptive editing, which could result in your being blocked. When you are in better standing, you will be allowed to make summary revisions without consultation: but even then, the WP rules on civility apply. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the talk page in your contribution history.

Thanks for letting me know what 'could' result in my being blocked.

When I'm in better standing? What the hell does that mean? --Onorem ♠Dil 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You are of course being perfectly civil in all your correspondence, and I apologise if any other impression was made. I trust you issued similar warnings to the others involved, most of whom appeared to be guilty of vandalism, at the very least. Blocking a multi-use IP adress is a very serious step, as I'm sure you appreciate. Thank you for your observations. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is probably more accurate than WP:VAND...from both sides, and no, I did not warn anyone else. Don't hide behind your IP. There's no use in that. I'm staying out of any type of content discussion on the matter. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Chorlton-cum-Hardy

Presumably you are aware of what a Talk page is for, Use it, or you will find yourself being blocked. 212.121.210.45 (talk)

I do know what a talk page is for...and I see nothing compelling on it for including that statement. Please feel free to shove your block warning. Not using the talk page is not grounds for being blocked by itself. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No but bullying is. Please stop now. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of any bullying. Your accusations are more inappropriate than any of my recent edits. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links. KarlB (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Closing the discussion

We already have a policy that governs advertising on webpages, so a discussion on if we should allow it (on User Talk) is disruptive. That discussion needs to be held over at SOAP. My closing it is per policy. (Policy is current consensus). (Yeah I know, consensus can change, I get that, but have that discussion on the SOAP page and either change the policy or not. You follow ? ) ‑KoshVorlon | Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 20:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that shutting that conversation down at this point is helpful? I agree the discussion is in the wrong place. I commented on that in the discussion already. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, we already have a policy in place for this, so, they're asking a question that's already answered.

(I tend to think very blank and white). If they want to change SOAP, talk about it on SOAP (because Consensus can change ). ‑KoshVorlon | Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 20:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Then propose moving the discussion. I won't revert you again, but I expect that you'll be finding a block waiting for you if you keep trying to close it. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

drinking mouthwash

i have combed the web for over 7 hours trying to find out if my cuisine is going to kill herself. i just wanna ask someone who knows how dangerous drinking mouthwash is. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Abbey1997 811-a (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia cannot give medical advice. All I'll say is that I think it's a pretty stupid idea. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

ii try telling her that, she does not listen. if you know of any free place that can give medical advice, that would be great. and ill keep in mind the purpus of talk pages. thanks Abbey1997 811-a (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WRT: "attacks policy"

With respect, I may have been a little over the top, but the personal attacks policy is more overstated than a speech code at a northeast liberal-arts-college. If you look at the talk page, the policy statement is clearly much more harsh than actual practice. This leads to a) noobs misinterpreting the policy and b) people who feel "offended" over minor criticism, creating disputes that take up the community's time, and c) "well-meaning" interlopers bandwagoning without looking at the history of the issue. I invite you to comment on the policy talk page, in a more useful manner ;) KenThomas (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please pleasure yourself in whatever way makes you the happiest. If I had to suggest an activity, I might start with saying you should go fuck yourself. Your conduct is detrimental, as is your attitude. Please also feel free to stay the hell away from my talk page. (The only reason I'm being completely uncivil is because you seem to think that's an appropriate means to communicate, so I'm trying to accommodate you.) --Onorem ♠Dil 17:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)--Onorem ♠Dil 17:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't start by being uncivil to you, nor was my comment on the policy talk page uncivil-- unlike yours. Should I report you for a personal attack?!? :P

My contention was merely than "uncivil" replies were appropriate when policies have been violated, or individuals are in fact being uncivil; and a bit of dissent from the WP norm. But: since your comments seem to indicate that you are an ass, well, meh you then. Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I never said you started by being uncivil towards me...but I find your conduct inappropriate and offensive in general. I am an ass. Nothing to hide there. Policies being violated are not a reason to stop being civil. What good does it do? --Onorem ♠Dil 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to report me for my personal attack. Like I said, I was only trying to accommodate your communication style. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

Look, this is an ass. Isn't it beautiful? And calm. Most importantly, calm. Suggest we all take a leaf out of her book and just stare at stuff for a while. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice ass. Thank you. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I just love that ass. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Marine

Hello, I answered to your question about Marine (ocean) on the article TP. Best, --Hérisson de Cloche (click for a ring) 06:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Info Box do

Can you please tell me why you keep changing his other known aliases. If you are going to add information please add references.

thank youMJKingofMusic (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't 'keep' changing them. I just did today. How about you go to the talk page and discuss your changes instead? --Onorem ♠Dil 18:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Help Desk

Why don't you also warn Gold Standard for making fun of mine ? Iamthewinnerofthemonth (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Because I don't think he was making fun of you. You made a request. He responded. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Toasted Cheese (online community)

As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toasted Cheese (online community). Robofish (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice of an RfC

A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:Isle_of_Wight_Academy#RFC_regarding_mention_of_segregation_academy_in_lead_paragraph.2C_parallel_version_of_history.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I'm not remotely interested in the silly bickering. I've reverted vandalism on the article. That's my entire involvement. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't figure you were interested, but I just notified every editor in the page history, IPs included, since 2010, so it'd be a truly neutral notification.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. In a bad mood for completely unrelated reasons this morning. I did very much mean the thanks for the note part...but the rest was a bit aggressive. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It happens to everyone; think nothing of it. I hope things look up for you!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Mad Max (franchise)

This is a neutral notice that an edit-war may be developing at Talk:Mad Max (franchise). --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't opt in. I don't plan to opt out. Please take my name off this useless nonsense. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

DR spamming

I saw your post/revert at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#Dispute Resolution Newsletter. Just wanted to say I agree with you; although I have already reverted the spam to my talk page and added myself to the opt-out list. I didn't know about the discussion until I saw your post - had I seen it, I would have argued strongly for opt-in. Wikipedia should not be spamming it's own members. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that I've been removed. I hope it sticks. I refuse to waste my own time opting out of something that I had no desire to opt in on. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What R U talking about?

Are you spamming the John Clark (actor) page? That is the new picture downloaded today, as revealed upon opening the page in Firefox. It WAS changed! So kindly explain yourself. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There's an odd discrepancy. When using Safari, the new edits don't appear, when using Firefox they do. I have the new Lion OS on my Mac. Could it be there's another fix in Apple's future? Any ideas? JohnClarknew (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any ideas about how the different browsers work. All I see is you deleting information without explanation.

I don't have any ideas about how the different browsers work. I know you must be new to this, but when you become aware of a technical problem, you should discuss it first before reverting. It looks like an edit war, which it isn't. I shall leave your commented deletion as is, in deference to the tranquil life I know you desire in your activities, but meanwhile, see if you can trace the problem too. One of our browsers is not working properly. I edited elsewhere with no problem. Also, the picture that I changed remains changed. Did that picture change for you too, or do you still see the old picture? Or is this simply a communication problem? JohnClarknew (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to this? I have nearly 50,000 edits here. Your edit deleted information and templates. It changed nothing about any image. It changed nothing about any reference. Browsers don't make a difference on this. What it shows in plain writing for what you changed has nothing to do with what your most recent edit summary said. --Onorem ♠Dil 05:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Name reference, and changing picture" - You change from the standard way names are given, and do nothing with any reference or picture.

"Restore missing edit" - What? How does that explain the changes you made removing information and templates requesting sources? Do you think everyone here is stupid?

I'd love to work with you if you explain what you're trying to do and if what you're trying to do goes along with what Wikipedia is trying to do. Unfortunately, I don't think you care about what Wikipedia is trying to do. I think you want to paint your own personal portrait of how you think people should see you. Please prove me wrong. --Onorem ♠Dil 05:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So you did see my edit, and then reverted due to your feelings about Wikipedia policies? Please read the talk page so you can read the discussion concerning MY feelings about Wikipedia's policies and BLPs. I had a run-in with Will Beback. See what happened to him. Do I think everyone here is stupid? Check Wikipedia's policies on civility between users. I shall be putting back my edit, which refers to the fact that I am a British citizen, which I am not. And if you say "prove it" you'll be history, my friend. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please shove your 'threats' about what will happen to me. Perhaps you should mention your British citizenship in your edit summary instead of talking about pictures and references when you do nothing with pictures and references. Ooo...see what happened to him. What happened to Will Beback had absolutely nothing to do with you. Get over yourself. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops I almost forgot. Prove it. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So you have 50,000 edits? Do you suffer from this new disease? It has the initials WEOCD [Wikipedia Editor Obsessive Compulsive Disorder]. It's caused by heavy emphasis on Bots, which causes Botmania, a related disease. It prevents people thinking.

Meanwhile, I see that you want me to "prove it". Well, give me your full legal name and address and I'll send you a copy of my U.S. Citizenship papers, front and back, dated 1965 (were you born then?). On the back, it says that I had legally changed my name to John Clark. I will have the copy Notarized (I am a Notary myself, but cannot notarize any document related to me in which I have an interest.) Then I will mail it to you, you can then be satisfied that the citation template can be removed, yes? I'll be happy to send you all associated paperwork for my purpose, the document is, after all, private. My old friend Memphisto will testify as to my veracity, I'm sure. He now makes nice. As for your tongue, careful, the muscle around here is Jimmy Wales. He has lists... JohnClarknew (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't care if you prove it or not. The only reason I asked you to prove it is because of your silly threat that I'd be history if I asked you to. Go away now please. The rest of your threats are silly too. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please go to Jimbo and whine. Please do. I'm scared. (No I'm not) I'm interested in what he thinks about your clear COI and how much you edit your own article without providing sources or edit summaries explaining what you're doing. You're acting like a child. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hell no I wasn't born by 1965, but I'm also not a self important crotchety old man.

Stop pissing me off!

Of I gonna rip your balls off, cocksucker. Jimbo Wanker (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh my. That's tasty. Now try to complete an actual sentence. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Admin score

Following up on the RfA thread from last week, I'm sending a message out to a few people who seemed to have positive and/or constructive comments on the admin score tool. I created a subpage where editors could indicate their own preferences for the relative importance of various criteria, but I didn't get as much input on it as I expected. If you have time, would you consider taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Admin scoring workshop and adding your input? The most important section is the top section ("Relative importance"). If you have a minute, add a row to that table. If you have a few more minutes, consider adding input to the more specific tables on the rest of the page. Thanks for your help. -Scottywong | gab _ 16:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I realize that I said I couldn't give feedback without more info...but in general, I don't at all see the usefulness in this sort of tool. Different people care too much about different things now and won't accept a potential admin unless their specific criteria are met. The process is broken, and a bot score won't help anything. --Onorem ♠Dil 05:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ref desk warning

Please stop the incessant arguing and reversions. Using obscenity in discussions and edit summaries is inappropriate. So is tit for tat editting like you mention here: [1]. There is plenty of time for discussion and others can hat Jayron's edit if there's a consensus for it. You might even leave him a message asking politely if he'll modify his own edit. Please be aware of our edit warring policy, and that one can be blocked for edit warring on other behaviors like the ones mention above, not just on reversions. If you do revert the hatting again I will report it to the edit warring notice board without further warning. Please discuss this on the talk page and await further consensus. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Wow. Thanks for the 3rr warning. Get off your horse. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the DTTR concept, but getting this stupid warning after 2 edits kind of makes me laugh. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Request

Could you create a page about Bunny the Champion (http://www.bunnythechampion.co.uk/) for me?

LordComputerHero (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I would consider it if you explained why this bunny is worth having an an article about. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Onorem. You have new messages at Talk:Truth About Love Tour.
Message added 03:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Statυs (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Mao: Facebook Link

This link IS the official link to information about the Mao Card Game. It is one of the only ways to get information on upcoming tournaments, and casual gaming. Please reconsider your decision The Tallest Tower (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck does the Mao Card Game have to do with you saying that Justin Bieber died of Leukemia? Go somewhere else with your nonsense. --Onorem ♠Dil 05:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Mullen page

Good work on the correction that you recently made. Mexico has nothing to do with Dwindle!--Soulparadox (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no clue what Dwindle is. --Onorem ♠Dil 00:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

List of people claiming to be Jesus page

It was constructive in that it added another person who claimed to be Jesus. I'm not sure why you edited it because it was factual and an account of actual events. The article is "List of people who claim to be Jesus" and I posted about someone who claimed to be Jesus. KB Trader (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Good for you. Go waste time somewhere else please. Not everyone who claims to be Jesus is notable for claiming to be Jesus. Some random nobody doesn't deserve mention. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

i will say whatever the hell i want on ani and you will just have to put up with it

see above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.227.104 (talk)

Good for you. --Onorem ♠Dil 00:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Whats nn?

I see you labelled one of your edits with "Rv nn". I understand rv is short for remove. Whats nn? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC) [TalkBack please]

Not Notable. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My TALK page

Sorry I just caught that as well. I asked for page protection as the TAG team editors are not on TALK so hard to talk to them. --AmherstApple (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Onorem; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Heavy traffic board

Indeed. Perhaps someone will now fix it instead of ignoring my requests by email and IRC. Rich Farmbrough, 02:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

And indeed they have. Rich Farmbrough, 03:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

Whatever. Stupid is stupid. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Charming.Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

I'm not here to be charming. I think your method of drawing attention to the situation was stupid. Sorry. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creatures, at here

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --JasonMacker (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

how bout

I just say "who toldya so" when the user is blocked or disappears? Bugs and IP 24 have already commented and you are free to be as naive as you like. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if you end up being correct. The question isn't disruptive. Your response is. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

consensus?

you said that i should gain consensus at the Germanic peoples article, how do i do that? because i have no idea 90.236.174.237 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Through discussion. Talk to people and convince them that you are correct. It doesn't seem likely at this point, but edit warring will get you nowhere. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

now that i cannot make bold edits how should i get a responce to my arguments? 95.200.240.188 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Start with the talk page. Continue steps from dispute resolution as needed. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Stefano section

In response to your query, the content of some of those comments is pretty repulsive and not relevant to the purpose of the noticeboard. In this case the editor who raised the complaint seems to have a personal dislike for the living person involved due to some disagreement the subject had with the original article and seemed to start the AN discussion for the sole purpose of gloating about the recent criminal charges, titling the section "how the mighty are fallen" and boisterously stating that he had "some small personal satisfaction" in adding the recent criminal charges to the individual's bio. A couple other editors also used it to get their digs in on the individual. Sorry, but I don't think we should let that kind of commentary about a living person be up on AN, when it is of no real relevance.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Where does "it" go? To whom?

I was attempting to remove it when you did, thank you. 141.218.36.46 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You put the tag on your talk page already. That is where it goes. That adds you to a category of people looking for help. Now just slow down a bit and see if there's a response instead of plastering it on several noticeboards. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Fishing

Are you done fishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.196.19 (talk)

You're the one trolling. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Winona

Since you find Winona, Minnesota so fascinating, please take a look at the Winona, Minnesota micropolitan area and Winona, Minnesota#Micropolitan area. I would actually like to know if you find these subsections appropriate for an area of this size. Yours aye, Buaidh 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd never even heard of a 'micropolitan area' until yesterday. I'm not 'fascinated' by Winona, MN. It just happened to be one of the last ones you had created. I don't care what you waste your time on. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me put this in very simple terms. I'm just teasing you about Winona, Minnesota. I'm sure you arbitrarily chose Winona to point out my stupidity.

I've created two sample subsections at Winona County, Minnesota#Micropolitan Statistical Area and Winona, Minnesota#Micropolitan area. Out of courtesy, I'm asking you to look at these two subsections and give me your suggestions for improvement. If you don't care about metropolitan and micropolitan areas, that's fine, but perhaps you should refrain from commenting on them. Yours aye, Buaidh 22:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on the subject, just the waste of time creating redirects that nobody will ever search for. Pipes would work just fine on a list...but carry on with your waste of time. Please do so without asking me for my opinion. Waste your time, not mine. Thanks. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There are scores of tables that must link together. I've been doing this professionally for over 40 years. I know a couple things about databases. Buaidh 16:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Faith

Note to editor: Please do not delete my contributions without first talking to me. If you have any questions about what I added to this wiki, please contact me. I believe what I posted to be helpful, cautious, and accurate. I do not understand why you don't view it as such. I am disappointed.Gavin.s (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note to editor: Please do not add your opinion to articles without giving appropriate references. I don't care if you talk to me. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Onorem ♠Dil 00:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I do have one question I'd like you to answer for anyone who reads this - how old are you? Note to editor? I doubt you're a teenager, so PLEASE refrain from being a curt smartass in the future. As for references, it is correct that I don't have any. If one is capable of reading it carefully they would see there's little opinion present, just elaboration of common knowledge. But it is true that it is not up to wikipedia standards strictly. By the way - I have never donated to wikipedia, and with fossils like you around I doubt I ever will! Congrats on your attitude.Gavin.s (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You were a 'curt smartass' first. I just responded in kind. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

WHAT? I'm afraid you're senile, because I was intending to be nothing but polite and factual. I can't see how I wasn't. I do get guys like you with your little Internet throne - You SEEM to think you impress people by acting like you're tolerating a fool and are pained by every second you have to spend. You are in fact a sad, superficial nobody. Good day, Onorem.Gavin.s (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Note to editor? Don't delete your changes without talking to you? Please contact you about changes? You think that was a polite way to address me? Please go away. --Onorem ♠Dil 05:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You are dreaming that simple requests for interaction are rude. Dreaming. Please educate me on the politeness of deleting my post without contacting me, your highness. I don't see how a LITTLE communication gets you so constipated. If you don't like treating everyone with dignity I don't see how you think you know the FIRST THING about faith by the way. You don't impress me. I was not rude first, you were curt. Period.Gavin.s (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I will be dreaming soon enough. Please respect my request and go away. I have no interest in your opinion. --Onorem ♠Dil 05:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I will leave you to be pretentious and curt to the next random person you interact with on wikipedia. You don't seem to think you owe anyone the time of day. That's my worthless opinion.Gavin.s (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Go away. Your comment was clearly intended to be rude. Who starts a civil discussion with someone with "Note to editor"? Your content was unsourced and not appropriate. If you have an issue with the article, go to the article's talk page. Please leave me alone. --Onorem ♠Dil 05:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem unsure if you want to be left alone or if you have to have the last word! But enough with the ugliness, I apologize. A man of faith surely knows misunderstandings account for the vast majority of strife we have in society. That is what we had. Carry on, Onorem.Gavin.s (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I want both. Please leave me alone. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated, but for some reason under this header

Onorem, I also want to ask why you reverted my contribution to the "lie" talk page... please explain.Agustín Figueroa (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion about how to improve the article using reliable sources. They aren't for discussing random people's theories on how to determine whether or not someone is lying. Your comments belong on an internet forum somewhere, but not an article talkpage. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so if someone posts a reliable secundary source about what I was trying to post, you will accept it and not delete it?Agustín Figueroa (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I said. You need to explain how the information is useful for improving the article. The talkpage isn't used for general discussion about the topic. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh no? And what is the purpose of the talk page then?Agustín Figueroa (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As I've said twice now, to discuss how to improve the article. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey Onorem :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You suck and you won't even know it since there isn't an orange bar letting you know that I was letting you know

eom.

Thanks for letting me know logged out me. (Side note: Unless there is a BLP violation or personal attack on someone other than myself, please do not remove comments left here by other users.) --Onorem ♠Dil 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you might know

eom. --70.59.95.59 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you might know again

eom. (Side note: It's not that confusing. Please do not remove comments left here by other users (IPs are users) unless there is a BLP issue or an attack on someone other than myself, Onorem. Whether I'm a faking being me as an IP or not doesn't matter because I'm not insulting anyone else. If you can't help yourself, please remove my page from your watchlist or try to ignore it on recent changes...Thanks.) --70.59.95.59 (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

and again. Suck it.

Dude, you need to make an alt account. All these IP edits keep triggering my natural admin instinct to block all the IPs. All of them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not going to happen. IPs are people too. If you have to slow down for a second...good. (And nothing that I've ever said to myself as an IP on this page has ever deserved a block...yet several have been blocked without warning or given final warnings for first edits. AGF please. (OK...the AGF is firmly tongue in cheek, but still) --Onorem ♠Dil 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I was joking, of course, but I do have to admit that Reaper's block and subsequent unblock in the IP's block log makes it pretty hard to miss. And not to be pedantic, but the IP address isn't a person, it's a 32-bit number; you're the person. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a person. Onorem is not a person. Onorem is just 6 letters that I use to tag my contributions to this project with. There is practically no difference between 'Onorem' and '70.59.95.59' in my mind...until such time where patterns can be established. "You suck and you won't even know it since there isn't an orange bar letting you know that I was letting you know" shouldn't have led to a block without warning. It's sad how much that button is overused. (And this is from someone who thinks AGF goes too far too often. It's the random decisions in both directions that just leave me baffled. Block immediately...or no, we have to let this troll get through another full set of warnings.) I have one block on my record. It's a black mark that I've always hated. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I meant "you"; I was going to add "and Onorem is just a six-character string" to make that clear, but then I thought "Eh, I've messed around with my post enough already." Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Your orange bar back?

Maybe I can help with that? User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that...and will likely try it out if they don't fix it where it should be fixed. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Necktie

Regarding http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Necktie&oldid=553105900

I don't know how to add or link References, but here are a few of my sources:

http://thriftstorepreppy.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/class-meaning-of-ties/

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dress_for_Success_%28book%29

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Egon_von_F%C3%BCrstenberg

http://www.upper-classman.com/2011/04/20/the-importance-of-tie-in-dress-code/

http://askandyaboutclothes.com/clothing/what-to-wear-and-when/www-job-interview

Perhaps a separate section, maybe just below http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Necktie#Anti-necktie_sentiment and just above http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Necktie#Designers_of_neckties would be better.

Everything we wear sends messages. Especially as an item of clothing dwindles in common usage, its messages become louder. A wrong choice of necktie can sabotage a man's otherwise successful attempts to rise in his organisation's power structure. To leave readers with the impression that there is no qualitative difference between materials and patterns is unkind, especially in the current economic environment. As stated, an all-too frequent faux pas in cross-Atlantic business happens when an American wears a striped tie to a British presentation and someone asks him, "When did you serve with the Royal Fusiliers?" or says, "I attended Eton, too." No better off is the chap who shows up for a job interview proudly wearing a tie depicting Tom Baker as Doctor Who.

184.76.225.11 and Trevor Graham

I'm 68.119.5.11, whose revert on Trevor Graham you just undid. My revert was to restore large amounts of well-sourced information deleted by 184.76.225.11. From 184.76.225.11's talk page, as well as its past contributions and block log, you can see it has a history of doing this, and was temporarily banned several months ago for it. There's nothing to take to the talk page, it's blatant vandalism in pursuit of an agenda. nknight (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Posted to your talk already. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification options

Click through and look at the file history to see.

It's possible you were confused by the first version posted of this image, which did not include Option G (even though the page did list Option G). -Pete (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Either way. I'm done trying. They don't want input. They want validation. Fuck it. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I never saw any image. I was going only off the talk page descriptions until after I jokingly posted option G, then went and saw that it actually was there. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As to my comment for Okeyes taking time away. I certainly don't think he's helping things by starting discussions looking for input and leaving off the option that he clearly doesn't like. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Useful response from anon

I don't give a shit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.102.228 (talk)

That edit to your talk page was NOT vandalism. It is what you do. You fight vandalism on Wikipedia. Thus, you listing me under the administrator noticeboard against vandalism for vandalizing after final warning is inappropriate. 76.67.102.228 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall asking you to edit my user page. In any case, nothing you have done is productive. You are an obvious troll...and not a funny one either. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it vandalism to edit someone else's talk page without that user's permission? I didn't know that sorry. Anyways, can you remove my entry there please. If I vandalise again rereport me. I will not vandalize/troll any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.102.228 (talk)

It was my user page, not my talk page. Please don't play stupid. It fits, but not well enough. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Play stupid? Aww. (Logged out Onorem test. Please don't be the 3rd person to screw this up in the last couple weeks) --70.59.95.59 (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have stopped vandalizing, can you please remove me from the administrator noticeboard for vandalism. If I vandalize again, feel free to rereport me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.102.228 (talk)

Sorry. No. I have no reason to believe that you are here to be useful. If you are blocked, take your day off and then be useful. I'm not holding my breath. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No.

Even vandals deserve good faith. Very few vandals I've ever seen do thst. If he starts up again report him, or let me know if I'm online. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If he doesn't bother me again, I'm not reporting him. It's on your hands now. Sad. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of AGF. You don't have to link it for me. The initial edits make it clear that this user deserves none. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A note

I appreciate you removed this; the fact that you appear to have recognised it crossed a line is, I think, a good thing. But for clarity: such comments add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Let me be clear of the process here; editors have requested a feature. We want to build that feature. The devs are having a conversation with the designers to check there aren't any obvious problems, and to work out the best way to add it into the UI. If the designer has no issues, it'll get built. If the designer does have issues, I'll come back here, tell people what the issues are, and we can work out a middle ground. If you have some objection to designers being involved in the conversation, or to hearing about conversations happening without direct community participation, there's an easy solution: remove the notifications talkpage from your watchlist and stop making requests for features. It's as simple as that. Not every conversation has to involve every person at every stage. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Leave me alone. I don't believe that you care for a second what I think. That is why I removed my comment. My opinion is worthless. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My view of the process is designers decide what to work on, and when they are done, they don't want to hear that people don't like what they spent time working on...so get over it, because they aren't going to change anything back after they've spent time working on it. Close enough? Please don't answer. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Onorem, I'm not the sort of person to lecture editors, but I can't help notice looking through your posts that you often seem a little pissed off on here. While wikipedia can be most annoying at times, you do seem to spend a lot of time on here removing posts and seeming to shout about things. I don't think its a healthy at times. I know you have your reasons but I think if the site really gets to you that much you'd be better off taking a wikibreak. It's just an encyclopedia at the end of the day, it isn't worth the angst. Take care.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am angy lately seeing what I think is too much agf too often. In any case, thanks for stopping by. I'll take a break when I'm ready or forced to. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I often feel like going all Basil Fawlty on certain people here. Lack of AGF is definitely one of the biggest and most damaging problems on wikipedia. I mean the amount of times I get somebody kindly asking "Hey Blofeld, can you expand this" vs "PROD DELETE WARNING", article not long enough, BLP GRRRR GOT TO GO..." I'm thinking of establishing a new sector of SPECTRE dedicated to eliminating wiki assholes.Seriously though, sometimes taking a step back puts things in perspective and at times make me chuckle at the utter silliness rather than getting all fiery. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Template

I guess I figured for the template to have a chance at survival, it should be used. If Wikipedians see it in action on pages, they can see how it is useful and people who read the articles I put it on (I only picked the ones which lacked sidebar templates, ones that had more specific sidebar templates like 'homicide' or 'capital punishment' were ignored) can neutrally speak their mind about it. The initial plans were to work on it and discuss appropriate content before inclusion, but stalkers seem to just want to end it in secret, so this will get more insight. Isn't it already quite functional? Ranze (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it's useful, but I won't revert again. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There and gone

I posted this comment in the thread you started on Bbb23's talk page. A few minutes later, he removed it. I'll take that as acknowledgement that he read it. Thanks for your participation in the discussions. This is an important matter affecting every editor. Take care. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. I'm about ready to give up. This site is fucked from the top down. --Onorem (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a very important issue, so I hope you'll continue participating. I don't mind hearing arguments on both sides, but no one on the other side has provided any proof of their claims. Just vague, unsupported generalizations and illogical reasons for their positions. I'm willing to keep an open mind, but I need credible information. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

They didn't provide it years ago. Why should they now? The consensus used to fall the other direction, but the last few RFCs ended with a whimper of people just not caring enough anymore. I'm not fighting this time. --Onorem (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

They probably won't. But we're giving them every opportunity to do so. And you seem to be a very good fighter. :p --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be a fighter. I just want people in control to not be assholes. Fighting against them is painful and stinky. --Onorem (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll second that. But remember, we're not fighting the people in control, we're fighting for a very important right of all editors. "Painful and stinky"... haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case, please stop with template warnings to people who have been here for years. Bwilkins is likely rightfully annoyed by them...along with others. --Onorem (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You suck

You suck you loser! (and I can't get blocked for writing this since you allow attacks on your talk page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.100.11 (talk)

You seem to be confused. I don't want people to remove attacks against me from this page. That doesn't mean random people are invited to make them. --Onorem (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"Trolls" Page – Revision Issue

If someone is looking for the film Troll 2, which I should add is completely unrelated to the film Troll (different directory and story-line), then it's not going to be helpful when the user searches (erroneously) for "Trolls 2" and then gets a recommended alternative link for "Troll".

Searching for "Trolls 2" redirects to a film called "Trolls" which should recommend "Troll 2", not "Troll".

Please do not undo my edit unless you have a real reason as to why this doesn't make more sense.

Edit: Apparently someone has resolved the issue, by redirecting searches for Trolls 2 to Troll 2.

--98.209.118.20 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And that's what I had also done before I was reverted. --Onorem (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Onorem. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
Message added 15:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Please stop. Ive made many edits for adding flag icons and your the only one who has told me to stop, and id like to know have you also reported me? If you want me to stop id like you to tell me. Also why are flag icons bad? Everyone has told me they are good for the article! So please dont put me as a serial disrupter! Thank you very much if you would comment back and answer that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.207.5 (talk)

I might be the only one who has left you a message on your talk page, but several people have been reverting your edits and linking to WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Who has told you they are good for the article? Who is everyone and where did they tell you this? --Onorem (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

ok, i apoligize im new on wikipedia and i thought you could put flag icons on people but i am wrong. I would just like to know if you or anyone reported me for what i did. Im very sorry i will stop, i hope you are not mad! Please forgive me. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.207.5 (talk)

No need to apologize. I didn't report anything. I'm not mad. You were just trying to help. --Onorem (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

random nonsense

raghplll Nazi flags 182.239.130.116 (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What? --Onorem (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Whispering

Hello. You have a new message at Miss Bono's talk page. Sorry! Miss Bono^[zootalk] 20:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

How to delete main page?

I can not edit. PLZ FIX. Xrt6L (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You are not a clever troll. Go somewhere else and study up...then come back and try again. You bore me. --Onorem (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Teach me skills? Xrt6L (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Those who can't, teach. I don't teach. --Onorem (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you by any chance be yet another brain dead American arsehole?

I'll take that as a yes, then. Twat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.121.154 (talk)

Thanks for stopping by. --Onorem (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

Hi Onorem...do you really think it's appropriate to add a POV to the article after all this time because of one SPA's account request? They haven't even stated what is POV about it (other than that the page is controlled by a vast conspiracy). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I won't argue if it's removed, but thought it would be fine temporarily if they remain active and communicate their concerns. I haven't looked at the viewing stats, but I don't imagine it's all that much of a high profile article anymore...so a bit of time with the tag shouldn't hurt. Again though, feel free to remove it. I won't complain a bit. --Onorem (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And when I say bit of time, I mean a day or so. There's no chance I would keep the tag there without very specific complaints once we're within a week of the anniversary. --Onorem (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough...it's not a big deal to me either way. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion before I removed the tag (by the way, the "drive-by tag" comment in the edit summary has to do with the SPA's request, not your action in placing it). I'm not inclined to put it back up unless some substantive concern is raised on the talkpage that justifies it. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

works for me. I planned on removing it within the next few hours myself if there was no further talk page input. --Onorem (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We crossed in the mail, no criticism of your action was intended - sorry it was implied. By the way, the article gets 8000 hits a day, or a hit every ten seconds or so. Acroterion (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt Article

Hello Onorem:

You article on Ron Wyatt is not just disrespectful but inaccurate, allowing defamation of character would not fly on the Christopher Hitchens article so why is it allowed on others seen as christian? As a moderator for Wikipedia your duty is to accurate information. Do you consider verified date and time stamped video from the 1980's of said discoveries true and accurate? I would appreciate it if you stop reverting to the defaming remarks as Wikipedia is ultimately liable and I would love an excuse to sue Wikipedia on the family's behalf. I will check the article in 48 hours and if the article remains as it is or is not taken down from your site I will be contacting the Wyatt family to pursue legal action. Your attention to the matter is much appreciated.

GOD bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.107.229 (talk)

No legal threats. --Onorem (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

And blocked indefinitely. Although I must make sure I change that as it's an IP. Seems as though I blocked while you were warning him as the warning wasn't there when I blocked, but I would have blocked anyway as it's so clearly a legal threat. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. --Onorem (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert taunting

Sorry I didn't realize how much it looked like taunting until I read it afterwards. All I wanted to do was to suggest that he would look less hysterical if he leaned off the CAPITALS a bit. Britmax (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually I would have reverted it myself had I realized a few seconds sooner. Britmax (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I definitely would agree with a message requesting a bit less caps. They clearly like to use them. I just don't think that's the right way to go about it, especially on a blocked user's page. --Onorem (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Britmax (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

RE Letitia James article

Hi, Onorem. Just wanted to provide you with what I consider to be an impeccable source for the comments re Laurie Cumbo, from the coverage by The Epoch Times of the primary election in question (see here; please note comment "There are no Republicans running in the district, meaning the Democratic primary was the race."). Otherwise, I can "back off" for a while from editing the article as recommended at the ANI discussion, provided the IP does the same. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you added it with a source. I have no problem with that. Congrats. Next time, instead of getting in an edit war over unsourced material in a BLP, just add the source. --Onorem (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I know. I thought I had more time, but the IP thing pressed everything forward. When I am editing Wikipedia, sometimes I veer off-track with articles and such. Earlier today I was on a console at the library which only allows access to databases and catalogues, not Google searches, but later I accessed the Internet and I found the info pretty quickly, just as the IP could have done, especially since he appears to be quite Internet savvy. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So wait. There's no deadline. What would the harm have been in waiting until you had access to Google to make the edit with a source? --Onorem (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The IP might have been able to do so. Maybe he was stuck at a library too? Doubtful, but who cares? The burden is on the person who wants the information added. --Onorem (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

ani comment

~~[2]~~ [3] would be better placed on the user's talk page than an unrelated ANI thread. NE Ent 23:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong link...and I don't care. Thanks for the note. --Onorem (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Side note here that might be more appropriate there: Isn't it 'the beatings will continue?'...--Onorem (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia would truly be a better place if more people didn't (care) -- and you're right about the quote, thanks. NE Ent 01:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Similar case

Hi u just corrected me on the page Avril can u please do the same on page abhishek because the indian/hindi cinema actor is also in the name list thanx aish.ego (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Same for Angelina , because angelina Jolie is also in the names list as well as on Angelina... list goes on, correct them, all aish.ego (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fix them yourself? Why are you asking me to do it? --Onorem (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

because you are doping it. anyway, i have thus reverted your edit, thanks aish.ego (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

WTF? There is no reason why one Avril should be listed if all of them aren't. That other pages are fucked up isn't a reason to revert my perfectly reasonable edit. Thanks for wasting my time. Please give me an actual reason. Don't just point to abhishek and angelina. --Onorem (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If my name is also Avril doesn't mean I am supposed to be there as well. THe more popular and seacrched is more available. And Welcome aish.ego (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

EVERYONE on the Avril (name) page is (should be) considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Your name doesn't matter. (unless you're notable)

Welcome? Please leave me alone. I've been here for over 7 years. --Onorem (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Being there for seven years doesn't make your edits irrevocable. I am not being against you. I just mean each and every one of the millions of names has been that way. So let it be aish.ego (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it made my edits irrevocable. My point is that it's insulting for you to welcome me like I'm a new user that doesn't understand how things work here. The page is off my watchlist now. Please go away and leave me the fuck alone. You're the expert. You deal with it. --Onorem (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)--Onorem (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be pissed off, m sorry for that, n no F word please , yes i leave you alone, and that welcome was a reply to your thanks, not mesant for welcoming u to wiki aish.ego (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't tell me you're going to leave me alone. Just leave me alone. Fuck. Is this really confusing? Don't answer. Just leave. --Onorem (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You were saying welcome in response to my 'Thanks for wasting my time' comment? That makes perfect sense. Now please go away. --Onorem (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Tornadoes of 2000

Thanks for realizing my edits were correct. The vandalism I corrected involved changing all numbers to 69.Beurocraticobama (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beurocraticobama (talk • contribs)