User talk:Renamed user 5417514488/archive 16

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Re: Jat Page

Thanks for adding your views on vanadalism page. I still contend that Nabha, Jind and Patiala should be included under Sikh Kingdom headings, and not Jat headings. If you see some of additions to the main articles of Nabha, Jind and Patiala, you will see I use verifiable sources. Thanks --Sikh-history 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of formulae involving π

The closing statement decision might in some cases be the least important part about a deletion discussion. Much more important is the discussion itself, including in particular the fact-finding process. In this one the absence of a clear and unambiguous inclusion criterion or even a discussion about it was most obvious, hence my example of a made-up formula. I can give you examples of research papers that have dozens of equations using Pi, none but extremely few relevant outside the context of the paper. That's what renders the list indiscriminate, and that's what needed to be discussed. As about my own closure, I might in fact not have closed the debate but relisted with a question what the exact inclusion criterion should be in order to keep it from becoming indiscriminate. Your process above and your notion that this is a case where you can invoke WP:SNOW or even WP:IAR tells me that you need to learn a bit more about the first goal of a deletion discussion. You can consider this an editor review if you want. Good luck. ~ trialsanderrors 05:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be important to note that I was only invoking WP:SNOW due to the fact editors were saying the AfD was closed only 2 hours early (which is pretty small, compared to the five days a discussion is active). Thanks for the review. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious

What made you think I was a new user? Not that a welcome letter isn't nice, but I've been around for quite a while. Don't edit that much, and log in infrequently, but if you look, you will see my earliest edit is from May 2005... Personman 10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Darby -Drei

Please look. As you can see here, larry Darby's begun Sockpuppetry and is Hostile to the point of personally offensive, racist, and frankly, well, I'll stop. But PLEASE support any action to keep such an editor banned. Thank you. ThuranX 02:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

(Copied for editor review Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)):[reply]

Hey Yuser31415. You sent me a warning on my editing of the gameznflix wikipedia page. It was not necessary. Maybe it is because you are from New Zealand that you are not familiar with Gameznflix. Every link I posted on the page was straight from their website. NOT SPAM. You may not be familiar with the links I posted but they are companies that are wholly owned by Gameznflix. And some of the links were from the gameznflix website itself. I was just trying to be thorough with the many facets of the company. I posted the links and then a brief title next to each. You should do a little more research into the info you try to edit. It seems you are just interested in raising the number of edits you have (wow! I hit my 5000th edit today) instead of actually doing educated work. If you wish to respond to my complaint you may do it here... on your own page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.239.222 (talk • contribs)

sincire question ?

What do you realy want ?

May talk page, as i readed, is for communication to me. Please let me know what idea you want to communicate to me. I readed your messages , hosted them, to please you, but plz, dont expect me to pray to your strings.

If you insted have subject to discus, write to me and i wil be happy to discus it.

Nasz 04:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

history is not an advertisment

Thank you for pointing me to the "how to" sections...so very kind of you, but I already visited before I wrote the artical. I guess it would be very hard to write about history without mentioning "a little" about the actual company...right?

I have grow up around this shop for 40 plus years. While visiting the Seal Beach and Sunset Beach pages, there was mention of Katin, but no page for Katin. So, I decided to write one as a way of giving back to the shop so many people love.

In fact I emailed the site and told them that the should link to the Wiki page for thier history (as they currently do not have history page on the site). If you feel this is an advertisment, then please, by all means re-write it and show me the proper way of writing history about a surf shop.

Bmmedia 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OCT change

Hello Yuser31415, I'm curious why you considered my edit to the OCT page spam? The external links section has links to Carl Ziess and Optovue. The link I added was for another company in the same domain, all be it the company I work for. I could have put a more specific link to our product if that's more appropriate: http://oti-canada.com/octpfeatures.htm. I'm quite sorry if this was inappropriate, I just saw the other companies there and didn't think there would be anything wrong with adding another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.130.119 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Whoops

I actually have a screenname. It's Ilikefood. I must have forgotten to log in. Thanks :-)70.107.187.18 00:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! :D Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allen H. Greenfield

I do not see why one should NOT be emotionaly close to the situation when one is attempting to keep Wikipedia from becoming little more than an advertising agency for marginal authors of occult books?

The facts in play are as follows:

1. The original Greenfield article was deleted after admin review. The reason for deletion was because the article was an auto-biography of a non-noteworthy person.

2. Since the initial deletion of that article, I have been told that I am an agent for the OTO, that I have a personal axe to grind with Mr. Greenfield (and with one Mr. Gerald Del Campo.) I have been called a "stalker" and have been personaly attacked in various pages in Wikipedia. I have been accused of being a sock-puppet for another user.

3. I am well familiar with the written "works" of Mr. Greenfield and they are often not the product of his own labors. Many of the books with his name on them are little more than collections of documents that exist in other works with some small annotations, a lengthy introduction, and a new cover. I am currently looking at "The Compleat Rite of Memphis" by Allen H. Greenfield. Within this book of some 149 pages, only 6 pages of text (plus a 5 page index) seem to be the work of Mr. Greenfield. The rest of the book consists of works by John Yarker (first and foremost,) Kenneth MacKenzie, and Theodore Reuss. Of this book, only 7.38% of the book was actually written by the "author" and yet the book does NOT say by "Yarker, Mackenzie, and Reuss as edited and compiled by Allen H. Greenfield." The same may be said of the "editing" job Mr. Greenfield did with C.S. Jones' "Liber Thirty-One." His book, "The Story of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light" is little more than a collection of documents about Mr. Peter Davidson's sojourn in north Georgia with a slap-dash tad of annotation. The same is true of many of his other books. The only reason that nobody screams "Plagiarism" over these titles is because the sources Mr. Greenfield is using for his documents have been dead for many, many years. (Can ANYONE take two or three works in the public domain, slice them together, and stick their own name on the cover? If so, I have a great idea for an awesome novel! I'll call it, "Oliver Ulysses in the Rye." It's about a young boy on the verge of running away from an orphange where he spends his days swearing and making bad puns. His name is Holden Twist. Sound familiar?)

4. Margot Adler's book "Drawing Down the Moon" cites MANY neo-pagans in its 600+ pages. Should every one of them have a Wikipedia entry?

5. The original articles for Mr. Greenfield and Mr. Gerald Del Campo were little more than advertisements for their books. Both men have used the same publisher, Luxor Press which was known as THE publishing house for second-rate authors who happened to belong to the Ordo Templi Orientis (of which Mr. Greenfield and Mr. Del Campo were all members at one point in time.) The sudden increase in approval for these articles and the sudden vitriol shown to those who challenge these entries may be indicative of a publisher's wish to have his authors featured in Wikipedia to bolster book sales. How might this differ significantly from the recent scandal where Microsoft hired people to edit Wikipedia entries about Microsoft products to make them seem more favorable?

6. Allen Greenfield's Doctor of Divinity degree WAS (in fact) issued by the Universal Life Church. I have a Doctor of Divinity Degree from the ULC (a birthday gift from a friend in a garage band I was in many years ago.) To become a "Doctor of Divinity" all you have to do is pay the ULC $100 and you can buy the title. His claims to being a legitimate "Doctor" are thus invalid on their face.

These are the facts, sir. They are verifiable with a modicum of research and due diligence. I would like to suggest that you do the research and then respond to me.

Further, I feel that given the broad attacks against me by these two authors and their associates, I am entitled to a bit of emotion over this. Wikipedia is devolving into an advertising agency and most editors and administrators are too uninformed to even notice. Eyes down, human. 03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

I'll use the temp you suggest but what does Subst mean? --Fredrick day 06:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my pet hate!

Don't use template is a situation like this. Talk to him properly. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, okay. Advantage with templates is that they are neutral. I'll be offline in about ten minutes anyway, so I hope you can take care of things ... Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can come across as passive agresssive. Unfortunely I'm offline too, but there is no hurry. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit other users' userpages

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from User:WeniWidiWiki. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in a bit more detail... Expressing a viewpoint about WP policies on one's userpage is not a "personal attack" as no individual was targeted [1]. Also, reverting one's own userpage is not "vandalism" as you characterized it when again removing the material with which you disagreed.[2] I think you need to calm down and back off a bit, ok? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to disagree with ya, Kathryn, but it as a veiled threat.

"I think it is the solemn duty of all Wikipedians to inform employers that their employees are milking the clock and wasting valuable company time. Log in and I won't know where you work. You say you live in an oppressive totalitarian regime? It would probably be for the best if you turned off the computer and picked up a rifle."

That is most definitely a threat and that is not cool and should be removed. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn, I know you're warning me in good faith, but my action was backed up by policies and at least four users against one. I hope this clarifies. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit my userpage or post on my talk page again. I consider it harassment, and deem your adding of unwarranted templates as malicious. - WeniWidiWiki 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do whatever is necessary to improve our encyclopedia to its ultimate goal. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you quoting Malcom X? "Doing whatever is necessary" is a euphemism for violence and a threat. You are not a wikipedia super-hero or vigilante, and again, I consider unwarranted use of templates as malicious and the unilateral removal of material without consensus harassment. If you decide to vandalize my userpage again, I will pursue the matter much further than I did this time. - WeniWidiWiki 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying harassment, but implying that if you attack our new contributors, our future, on your userpage, I will (a) remove the comment per WP:NPA, (b) take the matter to WP:ANI, and (c) create a RfC. Consider this your final warning. I have no interest in continuing this discussion at this time. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas do so. I think the implications of this matter needs to be discussed with a wider group of editors. - WeniWidiWiki 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as a note, there was consensus. At least four people disagreed with you - myself, Theresa, Dgies, and Fredrick. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WeniWidiWiki, back off. Vandalism implies intent to harm, which I know is not the case here, whether or not Yuser so happens to be right. --Deskana (request backup) 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I fail to understand is why WeniWidiWiki thinks that targeting a large amount of people with an attack makes it unnaceptable. Were you to replace "IP editor" with a username of a particular user, nobody would tolerate it. Yet you attack a larger audience and it becomes tolerable? Insanity. --Deskana (request backup) 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an edit war. I think the best solution is to reword it in a way as only to only inform IP editors of the benifits of registration, not to discourage them. Wikipedia was largely built by IP editors, and allowing only registered users to edit would be a huge disruption. Many articles were made mostly by IPs. Also, editing userpags is only a disruption when it's vandalism, or modifying intended content to something the user didnt intend to express. Please make the comments more mild and end this war. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Dawn AfD

Er, this can't have been a unanimous result, otherwise there would have been no AfD in the first place. Valrith 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was implying all those who commented, not including the nominator, but since "unanimous" is probably confusing I will refrain from using it in the future. Thank you, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious Comments

Hi there. Can you explain why you made your edits to Alexander Graham Bell? It appears you changed quite a lot of data and wording; I'd appreciate if you clarified on my talk page. Thanks! Yuser31415 03:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Yuser ! My edits serve two broad objectives. One, to clarify more meaningfully information displayed; this can be through improved grammer or style. Two, to add pertinent information that either substantiates what is already present or what is already lacking. Hope that clarifies things somewhat more. Thanks. Curiouscdngeorge

vandalism.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. The only edit I've made since being registered on Wikipedia was removing the phrase 'she has big cock' from the page about Mackenzie Rosman. How is that vandalism? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etoile francaise (talk * contribs) 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(Replied on user's talk page.) Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report

Hi. You reported User:FireforGod777 to AIV, but I find no contributions for this user. Either all the contributions were to deleted pages, in which case can you tell me what pages, or perhaps you have typo'd the name of the user. Please double-check and report to AIV again. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I was reporting the user based on their username. Perhaps I should try a Username RfC to get wider opinions on whether the username is appropriate. Thanks, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Feel free to do that, especially if the user begins to do any editing; right now, still no contributions at all. Newyorkbrad 03:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for reverting my page! =) MetsFan76 03:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, glad to be of assistance. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congrats

I just wanted to say congratulations on reaching your 5000th edit (wow) and take the opportunity to thank you for your invaluable help and contributions! +A.Ou 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks!!

I just thought some of the images over at the commons would like a new home and vice-versa. Thanks again--DO11.10 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Well atleast do something.Azerbaijani 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I havent attacked any of them, check my contrib's.Azerbaijani 21:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you attacked them. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan

We have tried to focus on content. Azerbaijani consistently acts as if we haven't addressed his sources and unilaterally reverts the page to his controversial and unreliable version. I put forward a compromise that no side be covered regarding the reasons for choosing the name, and most of the offended Azeri edits supported this. Azerbaijani did not, and has continued to ignore our arguments and edits in a way that has been most disruptive. He has also shown no respect for consensus development on the page, preferring to simply enforce his view without the agreement of numerous other editors. Go take a look at the edits involving that page, and Azerbaijani's edits, and you will see what I mean. I don't see how we can focus on content with his disruptive, uncompromising editing anymore than we already have. Simply put, he doesn't care about presenting a neutral view acceptable to the majority of those involved with the page. And hence, the article remains in poor condition. The Behnam 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting two sides saying completely different things. Azerbaijan is complaining about personal attacks, you're complaining about his conduct, and perhaps you could both stop? Please provide diffs showing comments you have made to attempt to calm down the situation, and attempts to reach a compromise. Thanks. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Behnam and the few others who share his POV are pretending that there is a consensus when there is none, User:Azerbaijani is not the only one with a different point of view. There is a content dispute, and as long as User:The Behnam makes accusations of "vandalism" [3] and