User talk:Waggers/Archive 2

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

External link on World Cup poll

Thanks :-) Hope I didn't step on any toes though. Some people have no sense of humor. And guess where they live... Just kidding, I'm bad. Piet 10:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's America's response: [1]. Piet 08:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your Message

Before you go on and blame someone for something they haven't done, please consider that messages to IPs do go to people who have had nothing to do with the said "vandalism". I've never accessed the Gerson therapy page, neither have I chosen to edit a single page on Wikipedia. Of course next time I will endeavour to log in to avoid confusion but please be careful. It also appears form edit being made that someone has made a big effort to continually vandalise the page on Gerson therapy and it may be wise to lock it or such to prevent furthur malicious editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.87.20 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 June 2006 BST

I could reply, but the wrong user might read my response! But for anyone who wishes to make a similar silly post here, I'm unrepentant. Policy is that vandals should be warned. If they're using a shared IP, then it's tough luck if other users of that shared IP see the warning. They should log in to solve the problem; I can't do it for them. Waggers 19:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your very odd messages re vandalism and blocking

I think it would be as well for you to double check your info re my email address and any problems you have had/are having.

To discover your messages I looked at your site for the FIRST time and can totally refute any notion that there have been dabblings with your site by myself or this aol connection.

Kindly adjust your records. --195.93.21.36 11:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)S Armstrong[reply]

Hmmm. Yet another AOL user who needs to RTFM... (or better still, switch to a decent ISP). There are no warnings from me on the cited user talk page. Waggers 13:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your paladin-ness

Thanks to your lovely hammering cudgel of holy justice... you have smitten (insert random IP numbers here), and hastily reconstructed the great kingdom of me. For your great thwartings against tomfoolery, I present to you my Patented Soap Award^tm.

You now totally have soap. This soap is slippery, and thus good.

Much thanks. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake^{(Prophesize|Witchcraft)} 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

When I click the 'userboxes' area (I'm using Firefox) they all run into the next few paragraphs. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 22:04 (UTC)

Here is my reply. Waggers 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 22:10 (UTC)

Hello From Scotland

Hey man

Just a bit of fun.

Listen, do you sit at you computer and monitor people putting stuff onto the website?

Regards,

Cooney, I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.241.144 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 June 2006 BST

Different to/from

I noticed that on a recent edit to Controversy about ADHD you put the following in your edit summary:

clean up & grammar fix ("different than/to" to "different from") using AWB

While I welcome the actual change in this article (which read "different than" before you changed it), I feel I should point out that "different to" is not an error, despite some people's insistence that it is. See, e.g., Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage:

different. That d. can only be followed by from and not to is a SUPERSTITION [...]; the principle on which it is rejected [...] involves a hasty & ill-defined generalization.

I hope I can dissuade you from changing these in future. JulesH 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my reply. Waggers 20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batsuit

Considering the "Armor" portion of the article was not spelled the English way, I took the American route and revised it. Datestamp for archiving: Waggers 18:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you!
Hello Waggers/Archive 2. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- F a ng Aili ^說嗎?

Datestamp for archiving: Waggers 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Featherstone/ Theresa May

Iam the user who recently edited the aforementioned pages, and was issued a warning for doing so. I happen to think think that they should be reverted to how I edited them, and I certainly don't find being under caution from this democratic, FREE encylopedia, appropriate. I do not consider what I did an act of brainless vandalism, but merely a much needed peice of trivia. I do currently have an account with Wikipedia, however I find that when editing while signed in, the process is extremely sluggish (i have dial-up connection) Tell this website is all about everyone adding to it freely, so when, how and why do you choose to be oppressive?

"absolute power corrupts, absolutely"

Signed, Jack Blank

(That anonymous message was left at 22:06 BST on 23 April 2006 by 195.92.67.77. My response can be found on that user's talk page). Datestamp for archiving: Waggers 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inductor article, external link

I removed an external link on the Inductor article because I felt it contributed nothing to the understanding of inductors: it appears to be an advert for a commercial device which happens to be called "Inductor". If the device does exploit electronic inductors there is no explanation of how they are used in it, so it is not helpful as an example of an application.

You can leave it in if you like, but I don't think you should.

David Young

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.184.30.18 (talk • contribs) 28 April 2006 (UTC) Datestamp for archiving: Waggers 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber Chicken Edit

Mr. Waggers,

I sincerely appreciate your vigilance in keeping Wikipedia an outstanding source of common information. Please know that our update to the Rubber Chicken article was, by no means, meant to be vandalism. It was, rather a reflection of our naiveté of Wiki standards. The chicken toss did happen and did stick to the ceiling for said number of days. We understand that we took too much liberty in suggesting that it was a world record. We'd like to submit a new post that discusses the ability to stick a rubber chicken to the ceiling without adhesives and mention that it has been done in SA, TX for over 15 days, without mention of a "world record." We understand that this is somewhat of a juvenile pastime, but it is on the rubber chicken page. :)

Additionally, after reviewing the many comments made by this IP we realized that there are many (1K+)users on this IP, so please don't judge our mistake but other users potential past malice.

Thank you for your consideration of our contribution.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.44.121.252 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 31st May 2006 BST Datestamp for archiving: Waggers 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An automated message from Werdnabot

Hi there, I tried to archive your user talk page, but it seems that you have an error in your Werdnabot directive that prevented me from correctly archiving your User talk page. Please review this error, or contact Werdna648 for assistance. Werdna bot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C 06:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is now fixed. Waggers 18:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't steal our content

I know you mean no malice, but please could you remove the image Andrew_O%27Connor.jpg and any other files you have taken from ukgameshows.com. If everyone keeps stealing our screenshots, there will be no reason for people to come to our website any more. And I recommend that in the first instance, it would be polite to ask in advance next time. Thank you. Davidbod 23:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (UKGameshows.com editor)[reply]

"I know you mean no malice but I'm going to accuse you of stealing anyway" - nice! Well, I've removed the image from the article and listed it for deletion, but I'm blowed if I'm going to reply directly to such a condescending and patronising message. Waggers 19:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should I have said instead? Whatever, I'm pleased you've seen the error of your ways. Davidbod 02:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have accused me of stealing, for a start. And I haven't seen any error in the actions I took; I removed the image out of politeness, not because I had done anything wrong. The picture was a screenshot, and the copyright on it therefore most likely belongs to the TV production company, not your website. You don't own it, and under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, we're allowed to use it on this site. Waggers 08:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please stop imposing UK english

The following discussion was closed by Waggers for the reason stated below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments can be made by starting a new thread. No further edits should be made to this section.

The reason for closing this discussion is:

Loss of civility.

As I understand it, it is Wikipedia policy to generally not choose sides between British and American English, and to use whatever the first editor used for an article. If I am mistaken about that, please provide me with an appropriate reference. If I am correct though, please stop imposing "different from" into an article that I am largely responsible for. My American Hertitage dictionary says that "different than" is acceptable within American English, and moreover, the article is on a technical topic from the discipline of economics, and within the context of the discipline, my experience is that such terminology is what is commonly used. Cheers, HalfDome 06:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the first editor, and use British English, so lets stick to that then. Also, the only edits you have ever made to that article are to revert this spelling change, you're hardly "largely responsible" for it. Martin 08:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While "Different than" may be acceptable in the USA, it is not universally acceptable. "Different from" is acceptable everywhere. WP:MOS says that where a neutral form of English can be used, it should be. All I'm doing is changing a USA-only form to a universal form, NOT to a specifically British form. Waggers 11:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: apparently the article in question was Dynamic inconsistency. I have removed further discussion in accordance with my talk page policy (see the welcome message at the top!). Waggers 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments can be made by starting a new thread. No further edits should be made to this section.

Datestamp for archiving: Waggers 09:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHS Stub discussion

Well, my concerns haven't really been addressed: I still don't understand, why it is necessary and what the harm in simply leaving the NHS-related stubs in {{UK-med-org-stub}}. As far as my "squabbling over petty policies" as you put it goes: there are numerous reasons why we have these policies, it would, for example, be detrimental to the stubsorting wikiproject, if there were a lot of stub cats with only a few stubs in them. So, I'm not trying "to hamper our progress in improving Wikipedia just for the sake of it", I simply don't understand why this stub category is necessary.

The reason why I didn't continue to take part in the discussion, however, is that if you want the stub this badly, I don't really care. There seem to plenty of stubs, which would fit into {{NHS-stub}} even if there is no real reason for these not to simply be sorted as {{UK-med-org-stub}}, because your WikiProject could simply use that stub type like it would an {{NHS-stub}}. So, go ahead and create the stub if you find it necessary.

--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment to the discussion asking for any further comments. Basically I don't think there's any problem in making the new category now (when you do, take the old one over to WP:SFD for deletion), but it's worth waiting a couple of days in case there are any more objections. Carabineri does make some good points, though I do understand that "medical organisation" is a term not usually used in the UK for the NHS. Grutness...wha? 05:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]