Talkback
Message added 20:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Your revisions on Wikipedia:Formal organization
DVdm: I appreciate your interest in this article. The documentation on WP of how it works is scattered and sometimes is ambiguous or hard to interpret, so the more help provided, the better this article will become. Brews ohare (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
DVdm: I have rearranged and partially rewritten the section Wikipedia:Formal organization#Administrators. You may wish to take a look at it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, looks good - still, from a distance of course ;-) - Cheers and happy New Twelve. - DVdm (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for dealing with this vandal. I find it disturbing that he dare have the cheek to say what he did to me considering the extensive work I've done on articles relating to his football club. Not least to mention that his edits are plain wrong, as per this. I think he's the one who needs to "read the news" more closely. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not only the news, but also the messages on their user talk page. And if people would only go to the article talk page before going into attack/berserk mode. Sigh. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me
OK, this[1] flabbergasts me. Perhaps my wording was in error; but they do always refer to these as "M Class" on the shows and in the films. Suggestion... instead of reverting me and rather testily accusing me of error? I do not want to be out of line, but I'm getting awfully tired, not of you watching over my edits so much as the snitty comments and reversions. Help in some way, don't just crow at me and revert! Is that clear?Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 09:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your edit added unsourced and false information, as you can see with the Google search I gave in my edit summary. Had you given an edit summary explaining what you explained just now, then perhaps I would have made a little change in stead of an undo. Suggestion: do not expect others to smell what you have in mind, but express it in your edit summaries. It's slightly better now, and perhaps factually correct, but the reason given in your edit summary is 100% orthogonal to wp:Verifiability, and the addition is still unsourced, so I have added a {{cn}}-tag. Does this help? - DVdm (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Very well, regarding this[2], how many episodes of which series would you like me to quote as sources? As to being helpful, if you stopped approaching things like a computer and more like a person, you'd see I am correct. So, which refs do you wish? Spanning how far back in time? My brothers and I made jokes about "M-class planets" very likely before you were born. I only want time to call up the episodes.Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 14:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are becoming tiresome. If you do not cease your pursuit of my edits only to revert them, I will carry this to the next level and report you for stalking. Enough is enough, and I am not amused by your little games.Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 14:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- Re your first reply: Alas, you and your brother are not considered to be wp:reliable sources for Wikipedia either. Anyway, your point seems to be moot now.
- Re your second repply: I am not playing games. Just watching over some articles. That last edit was a classic case of wp:OR, so I undid it - twice now. Please wp:AGF and don't take it personal. - DVdm (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Note. I have removed this and this as personal attacks. Please stop assuming bad faith. - DVdm (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Note. You bring in EEMIV to help you with this very sad little game, which you seem to think is excellent vigilance over articles. You're damned right I'll "take it personal" when you are stalking my edits, then preaching AGF. Do you think I have forgot about EEMIV? I have nothing now except you laughing at me. Keep this up and it will come before ANI. You think I cannot sense a setup?Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 14:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Re: "You bring in EEMIV to help you with this very sad little game": I did not bring anyone in. I have never even heard of EEMVI. This is yet another blatant assumption of bad faith. You really need to stop this. Your next (similar) edits to my talk page will be reverted without any further comment. - DVdm (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Umm, I now see that I have inadvertently stepped into an ongoing editor relationship issue, but see my remark at User talk:Djathinkimacowboy section Use of the word "ironically" in Hercule Poirot --hulmem (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- The edit is indeed a good example of editorialising, but i.m.o. it is also original research, as the source in no way supports the usage of the word. It is merely DJ's opinion and interpretation. Cheers and thanks for passing by. - DVdm (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
All right, invited or not, I will withdraw my unworthy remarks DVdm. But this is not about that one word (which I did not originally place in there by the way). This is about you chasing me all over Wikipedia and making me feel upset. Sorry to be frank, but I thought I could count on you. You're making me feel otherwise, so all I wanted to know was why you were doing it. I could appreciate the assistance, if given properly. As I said, you chose instead to follow me about and revert my edits at a furious rate. I don't appreciate it. Find something else to do besides chasing and stalking my edits.Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 04:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- You should not have come here to discuss an edit at Class M planet. We have article talk pages to discuss article edits. Please stop using user talk pages for that — in other words, don't take it personally, because it isn't.
On a personal note, since we're here now: I am not "chasing you around" to "revert your edits at a furious rate". I am here to improve Wikpedia. This is the 4th time I ask in 24 hours: please stop assuming bad faith. An anonymous newbie would probably have been blocked by now. If the way it goes here really makes you feel upset, if you are "starting to feel this is a waste instead of the nice hobby it once was", or if you think that this is some kind of war with winners and losers, then surely Wikipedia cannot be a healthy place for you.
Bottom line: don't take article edits personally. - DVdm (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
"This is the 4th time I ask in 24 hours: please stop assuming bad faith." Please do not patronise me in that way, or in any of your other favourite ways. You preach AGF to use it as a smokescreen, nothing more. You did not assume good faith on my part when reverting edits. Your stealing words from my posts to other editors and trying to throw them back in my teeth is no fine demonstration of it either. Fine actions for an editor who preaches AGF. Don't threaten me anymore, it is wearying and it is nonsense. Self-righteousness is no better than incivility: it is the worst manifestation of it. Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 10:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is the 5th time I ask in 25 hours: please stop assuming bad faith. - DVdm (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You'll find I have stopped. Have you? Djathinkimacowboy(yell) 11:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope that I will not have to ask a 6th time. Stopping doing something starts now and takes forever. I haven't smoked since 2001, but I will only really have stopped smoking when I'm no longer among the living. The keyword is perseverance. - DVdm (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the 6th time I ask: please stop assuming bad faith as you did here: "I'd like to add something about DVdm which you clearly refuse to acknowledge. You actually said it: DVdm "appears to be"... and that's the skill I've noted here. Everything such people do appears to be something. It appears to be something other than what it truly is." (emphasis added to bad faith assumptions). - DVdm (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, complete with bold font. Tell you what: stop lecturing others until you've learned the real meaning of AGF. So now I am asking you for... what, the nth time? Do you think my complaining of your actions is in bad faith? Think about your position and your answer. It makes no matter to me now. You have only to answer to yourself. Knock yourself out with your reply... I'm wasting no further time or keyboard strokes on you.--Djathinkimacowboy vandals' playground 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Moirai
Sorry about that ... the page move is necessary and will hoepfully be done soon. I've taken down the maintenance deletion tag so that the redirect still works in the meantime. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
My gratitude
My sincerest thanks for this[3]. It is no surprise there are hateful, angry people like that... and always a happy surpise when actions like yours occur in the face of it all.--Djathinkimacowboy chase me thru the cemetery 11:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Fedora needs help... Hermain Cain tipped my scales
Would you be willing to come take a look at this[4] and comment? I'll respect you commenting again on the subject, even if we disagree. Please reply my talk page or leave a Whisperback or Talkback template.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 12:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- here and here on the article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- So glad to find someone else who thinks whispering and talkbacks are tiresome.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 13:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. I don't do Whisperbacks or Talkbacks. I commented
Fedora refpunc
I appreciate your vigilance, though perhaps not as vigilant as I'd hoped. I want you to know that I did not do this[5], at least not that I am aware of having done. I would never do a thing like that, so I did not undo any proper wp:REFPUNC edits. And what is this[6]? I see no changes nor do I see that you reverted anything here. Please reply my talk page if you wish.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 13:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- You made this edit, undoing a unit and refpunc edit by Favovian. So I corrected the refpunc part.
- This edit removed an extra space. See User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff, an option you can enable on your "My preferences, Gadgets, Editing, wikEdDiff". When you enable it, you get a Delta-button that will make the edit visible. DVdm (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Alert
You may wish to read[7].--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 14:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop putting such messages on my talk page. I have a watchlist. - DVdm (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, duly noted. I didn't know trying to be helpful was considered such a nuisance these days.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 16:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Notice, required
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Fedora". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djathinkimacowboy (talk • contribs)
- I don't see why there should be a DRN entry. We have article talk pages for this. - DVdm (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- You don't? Sorry to hear that. Let's see where it goes. I think I am correct in this. However, I'll be willing to bet that some gasbag comes along and says since it's an orphan article and it's just me and you, forget it. They do that all the time. So what is your big worry?--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 16:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You don't like to address what is important, just the nitpicking games. Well, I don't think ignoring your side of the input at the DRN board is good, either.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 23:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
How do you create a account
I need help --94.197.145.225 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- There should be a link Log in/Create an account in the right top corner of the window. If there isn't, try to click the bold blue link here in the previous sentence. Good luck and let me know how it went! - DVdm (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Isola del Giglio
I saw that your revert has been reverted again. I've requested page protection, because I think there is some sockpuppetry involved in the disruptive editing of new users. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure there's something fishy going on there. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help, someone keeps reverting my rvvs, to put in the incorrect "White Christmas", instead of "Goat", and I've already reverted the article twice today, so I don't want to get blocked either for 3RR. I've also reported one of the usernames, because it has "Bot" in the title, and I'm sure it's not a bot. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- The "bot" was just another instance of WideOpenInternet. No reason to be afraid of 3RR when reverting obvious vandalism. Cheers and keep up the good work. - DVdm (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help, someone keeps reverting my rvvs, to put in the incorrect "White Christmas", instead of "Goat", and I've already reverted the article twice today, so I don't want to get blocked either for 3RR. I've also reported one of the usernames, because it has "Bot" in the title, and I'm sure it's not a bot. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
A Barnstar For You!
The Userpage Shield | ||
In recognition of reverts to Vandalism on my user page, it's my privilege to award this to you. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks. Busy night/afternoon/morning, depending on where you live :-) - Cheers, and night -- here, that is. - DVdm (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Fedora changes
"Talk page impasse is not consensus"--I have reverted your unilateral deletion of content. Talk page impasse is not the same as wp:consensus -DVdm (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This comment you left on my talk is best addressed at the article's talk page. Besides, you know as well as I that it gives a better look to the article. Participate appropriately if you want your view to be heard. This behaviour from you is exactly why there was a Dispute Res which is being ignored. Don't lecture me about leaving you messages then drop by my talk page with this type of thing whenever you want.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also: I object to your accusation of a unilateral deletion of content. I deleted some redundant content and moved the FULL CONTENT into an inline description per the original talk page agreement on how to handle this list.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I was too quick. See my strike - DVdm (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia: Formal organization
Hi DVdm:
Of course, you are right that this info would get more attention if it were part of the article Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia gets about 40k hits a month while Wikipedia:Formal organization gets about 110 hits a month, and most of those are probably a flash in the pan by those curious about a new article.
I began by trying to put this article as a subsection of Wikipedia but immediately became involved in the primary source argument. Despite some support that this argument was fallacious, and despite some changes in wording, supporters of this argument could not listen.
So I took this approach of making it a project page. All was fine until today.
Frankly, if WP has a climate where some simple cut-and-dried description of its bo-o-o-ring organization is subject to such flak, well it's just too bad for WP. It's sick when people shoot down an article like this, not because it is mistaken, or unnecessary, but because they like shooting things. It's just pushing vague generalities and flag waving, and it is just too much trouble to ask whether there is really something that should be fixed, or whether more harm is done than good. Target practice is fun! Brews ohare (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I made another little comment, but I'm afraid it will not carry far, so to speak. Alas. - DVdm (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Just because one editor disagrees with you and accuses you of misconduct doesn't mean you weren't attempting, peacefully, to resolve the dispute. Achowat (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks. As you can see higher up, I had quite some practice lately reacting peacefully to such accusations. Interesting experience. Cheers and thanks again. - DVdm (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Community service despamming
Could you check if [8] is really what you meant to do? It doesn't match the edit-summary--I agree with your intent but had already done it; you actually undid what I marked as more-despamming by someone else (User:Leavelle I think). DMacks (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strange. Must have been a Huggle software (or DVdm brainware) quirk. I have undone it. Sorry. - DVdm (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies
I cannot leave you out of what happened. My sincere apologies for being nasty to you so many times. Especially concerning Fedora. Now as Achowat says, since the blackout cleared our minds, let's get away from the personal and go back to our usual arguing.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, let's forget all about it. Note however that I had just (partly) undone two of your recent edits. I left a little comment on your talk page. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Good. Forgotten. Cheers for that. I forgot how you don't do answer-backs at all. So I'll ask here: in what way is the external link objectionable? Your citation of the rules showed me no problem with it. What specifically is the rule that puts you in the right?
As to the tags, well, you should know as well as I do that the further information you are demanding is not required and usually not necessary. It could be interpreted as niggling when you demand those things.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Very well, since you have cited that particular broadly worded rule, I concede. But I have to ask, why do we have to draw that line? Meaning, why does the external link have to say "Homburg"? I've never seen a rule quite like that: "External links MUST say the article's title" although as I say, I concede your point. On a lighter note, did you see where niggling links to? A delightful story....--Djathinkimacowboy 17:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- (Remote edit conflict — I had tried to write this on you your talk, but your emptied it before I had the chance to save it.)
- Ok. About the wp:ELNO: this #13 is a very basic and strong one. Keep it in mind, for safety.
Happy editing - and remember... keep cool, keep distance, and don't take (most) things personal. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, now I really see the applicability. I saw this and it finally struck me. No. 13: "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." You were quite right about this. Why don't I just listen to you??--Djathinkimacowboy 17:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
-
Oh, well, 'terse' shouldn't be misinterpreted and I know I do a lot of misinterpreting. But also, if it helps any, I'm a little prickly about editors who do that to me because I've had my share of psychotics here on Wikipedia. People who follow me to the orphan articles and mess with them just because it's me working there. You know?- some editors, usually IPs, just hold crazy grudges. If I may, let me apologise for jumping from your comments' contents and misinterpreting them as "attitude". It is wrong of me.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I can only say —again— just don't take anything personal here — unless of course (or merely perhaps?) it is something positive. When a malicious person notices that their actions upset you, you present yourself as a victim, and they will enjoy it even more. As an example: when someone reverts vandalism to your talk page, don't go the vandal's talk page to let them know how you feel. Feel it if you like, but don't tell them. Ignore. For a vandal, nothing is worse than being ignored by their victim, then quietly reverted by someone else, and then perhaps blocked by yet someone else. Today's keyword is distance. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It is an honor for me
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For excellence in general editing, and knowing how to finally get messages through my thick skull. --Djathinkimacowboy 18:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC) |
- Keywords are detachment and patience, I guess :-) - Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Formal organization ( revised and updated)
A revised version of WP:Formal organization is proposed for inclusion in the article Wikipedia and a RfC is posted. It is found here. Can you kindly take a look at this request for comment?
Thank you in advance. Brews ohare (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly against the wind, this has my complete support. - DVdm (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
for your recent edits Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
Fedora sigh
You posted at my talk:
You better stop... reverting at article Fedora. A fedora is not a proper noun, neither is a tribly - look at article Trilby. Only when articles are mentiond by name, we should use caps. Just look at the other articles here. You are wrong. Trust me. And do be careful for wp:3RR. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
DV, is this what you mean?:
Proper names of specific places, persons, etc. are capitalized in accordance with standard usage: Winston Churchill, John de Balliol, Wales, Tel Aviv, etc. Most adjectives derived from proper names should be capitalized, e.g. the English people, the London commuter belt, the Kantian imperative, with occasional established exceptions such as teddy bear.
Because I have to tell you, though 'Trilby' is normally not capitalised (just like 'fedora' here) and is a type of fedora, it is a proper name for a type of fedora and is capitalised expressly for that purpose in the lead of the article. Where are we now with this? Honestly, I am confused. But I am not confused about this fact. Please do not tell me I had "better" do anything. You know "better" than to be rude simply be cause you think you explained yourself in the past. And I do not appreciate you and Esoglou following me round. I see Esoglou has gotten into trouble with this a lot in the past.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I posted on your talk page. Please reply there and I will explain some more. - DVdm (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- D, I see you are looking after the articles, etc. In this case you're wrong. Names of hats are somewhere between proper nouns and adjectives in certain cases; but they are capitalised because they are specifically named hats thus rendering them specific types of nouns. We can open up a thing about this, like was done in the past with the capitalisation of the "pope". I know I am correct no matter how many Google checks are tossed my way. By the way, what has Favonian got to do with this? Was Favonian's post on my talk your idea of a reply?--Djathinkimacowboy 22:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
As to Fedora and Trilby, I won't edit war over this. It is stupid. I bow to you and your companion Favonian. But you know what? Don't threaten me about wanting to own articles. It is not I who wants to own them. Look in the mirror.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Something else: you two appear together a lot. I smell a sock puppet. Prove me wrong.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- (ec) I made a note on your talk page. In my talk page header I ask you to reply there, not here. Please respect that. - DVdm (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
For the record, my attitude is don't dish it out if you can't take it and then accuse people of battleground behaviour. You know, DVdm, I'm seeing a lot of WP:UNCIVIL behaviour, rotten-attitude language and what looks like a sock puppet relationship with Favonian. I'm getting fed up with this. Warning and discussion is fine. This hassle is below the belt. Now you've dragged in somebody to come and threaten me on your behalf.
Look, we've posted back-and-forth about all this before, and I'm tired of it. You almost seem to be wikihounding and WP:stalking. You are rude and don't usually explain yourself, though I try to just trust what you say. But now, you have totally abused my trust.
Be warned, if you keep accusing me as you have been, or if you and Favonian keep acting like sock puppets, I will open an ANI for the little good it will do. Enough.--Djathinkimacowboy 23:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is another personal attack and another blatant accusation of bad faith (see above section User talk:DVdm#Excuse me), and you probably don't even realise it. I think you need to take a long leave form Wikipedia. I have said this before: the way Wikpedia works, does not make you happy. Please consider another hobby, for your own sake. - DVdm (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- Meanwhile I notice that you have been put on a somewhat forced leave, so to speak. I hope this will be an occasion for you to think things over. Take care. - DVdm (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Would like you to know
You lowlife hypocrite. I hope you got your jollies finding someone just like you, to block me for a week. You and your little wikipals are nothing more than predatory swine. Also notice you didn't fail to get your final jab in...well, so did I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.152.168 (talk • contribs)
Your recent edit of Rochdale Principles
Your edit was mistaken, and so has been reverted. Please could you not do that again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.81.164 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed it was. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
Billions of oops...
Oops, thanks! I obviously have to learn to scroll down when looking at 'edit differences'. Anyway, I'll apologise to this new editor. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Explanation of Sagan edit
Hi - I was just wanting to clarify something with the edits I made to Carl Sagan that I think you may have misunderstood. I'm not disputing what was being said there, and from your quotation of the source in the edit history, it looks like we're both trying to achieve the same goal. The way the sentence was worded, it looks like it says that Carl Sagan denied hating the term "atheist". He didn't deny hating the term - he denied being an atheist. The problem (I'm looking at it from a grammatical perspective) is that we've linked two claims to the single verb "denied" when, in fact, only one of the two presented claims is a denial.
I've changed the article again (I didn't revert; I changed it) to say, "Sagan denied that he was an atheist and said (without italics) that he hated the term." We need a separate verb there, or it will look like Sagan was denying his hatred of the term, which is, of course, not the case. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The intricacies of language :-) I'm OK with this version. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
A genuine honour:
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For enduring me with such good grace. --Djathinkimacowboy 03:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thank you for your postings at WP:AIV. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
- "My pleasure" would be a bit inappropriate, and "my duty" a bit dull. So... you're welcome and thanks! - DVdm (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Ambiguity about the circularity wording.
DVdm: It appears to me that you have consensus on rewording the circularity statements. Maybe it is time to implement a change? I am sorry that my attempts to change the fifth condition to be satisfied in using primary sources has distracted from this accomplishment. Brews ohare (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it appears that way. I'm going to wait a little while though. There's no hurry, and perhaps someone shows up with yet another take on the matter. Who knows? - DVdm (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- update. Too bad it didn't really work out the way you would have preferred it. I notice that your wp-article got demoted to essay status now. I still think it could (and should) somehow be incorporated in the main space Wikipedia article, but the opposition turns out to be too strong. Win some, lose some, I guess. Take care. - DVdm (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Done. See
Oops.
Thanks for catching that. (!) Killiondude (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- It really did sound a bit weird, so I went to check ;-) It's good that you protected the article though. - Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright symbol
No per MOS:TM#General_rules Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ha... that's a good thing to point to in such cases. Thanks a bunch! - DVdm (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
WP policy RfC
Hi DVdm:
Maybe you have an interest in |this RfC regarding policy on articles using primary sources? Brews ohare (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Query about finding images
D, I'd like a word of advice if I may. How does an editor determine whether an image may be used here? I'm dying to get a chart in the Birthstones article, and it looks as if I will have to do it myself. Not wishing to seem pushy or in violation of WP:OWN, I just need to know what guidelines Wikipedia provides us when we go hunting for an image. I've tried three editors, one admin, and no one is really responding. The article would look 100% better with a chart that people could consult.--Djathinkimacowboy 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- The matter seems to be strictly ruled by U.S. law, and I'm not familiar with that. Once, for my talk page archive nav box, I added an image of one of my favourite albums here. It was promptly and automatically removed per Wikipedia:NFCC#9. The image seems to be allowed in article space but not in talk space. I had a quick look at the policy, decided not to bother, and put the books back in place. Perhaps you can do some reading of the policy, and/or put a {{help}} template on your talkpage. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Taniec z Gwiazdami BEST OF 1-12
Welcome! Please delete this page because it is something wymyśonego. This program has never been on television and never will be. That someone came up with ... Please visit Poland Dancing with the Stars ... Was foolish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.56.252.228 (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
English or Portuguese
I am sorry but in that case we were two Portuguese, talking about one Portuguese footballer and Portuguse sources. Since i think the Vasco's talk page has no interest at all to the Wikipedia users i am sure it was better to talk in Portuguese, so we understand better and do a better job.
Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.128.211 (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) Thanks.
- I understand, but not everyone takes the trouble to go and verify whether some comment on someone's talk page could have been genuine, nonsense, vandalism, or even a personal attack. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for helping and advising me. I now see that the user likes to intercept messages, I think in that case the owner of the page should decide either it is genuine, nonsense, vandalism, or even personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.128.211 (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) Thanks.
- I'm sure this is not someone "liking to intercept messages", but rather someone who patrolls for vandalsim. In this case the patroller assumed that the edit added nonsense to the page, as he is entitled to, as this is the english Wikipedia, and the string of characters is indeed nonsense for someone who is not familiar with the language. In order not to waste more time with situations like this, please consider avoiding non-English on talk pages in the English Wiki. - DVdm (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- 79.168.128.211 , I'm sorry for reverting your edit as I can now see that it was indeed not vandalism. However, I reverted it for the reasons that DVdm mentioned above, and I agree with his point that one should perhaps avoid non-English talk on this wiki. DVdm, thanks for commenting on the situation in the time I was offline. Metricopolus (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
TiME
Hello. You wrote: "DAB-pages are for disambiguation of article names." The article is indeed called TiME, so its mention in the Time disambiguation page is not just granted, but necessary. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ha... when I look at TiME, indeed I see that there is a DAB. It wasn't there when I looked at Titan Mare Explorer. So you were correct. I undid myself but made a little change. Thanks and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thank you, gentleman. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe in Hypothermic Needles
Who are you to tell me I can't believe in and share my belief of hypothermic needles, I am an accredited hypothermic needle porfessor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3chopl0x (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is good for you, but I have no idea what you are talking about. - DVdm (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The word is "hypodermic" Dr. Echo Plz. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Occ Safety Page
thanks for watching out on the Occ Safety page... not sure what that person was thinking with those edits... that pages needs an enormous amount of attention to bring it up to some sort of organized look... I've been chipping away at it recently but there is a manure load left to do... Kurt Dundy (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Inquisitor S.'s talk page
Stefan Oswald1 was me, and I just redacted my comment. It was wrong and immature of me to have made that account, and I will discontinue it and post a notice as such on it's user page. --Imperator Sascha (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Request for link
In a discussion I had with you on 10,May 2010, You called up Maxwell's article about "atom". Could you please send that link to my talk page so I can find it again easier? Thank you.WFPM (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC) PS I have a copy of the 9th edition EB if you're interested in anything more in it.
- Hi. Is this what you are referring to? I found it here in the history of the talk page. - DVdm (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Yes! but I'm a poor typist and lazy and I was trying to get the link transfered into my talk page where I could find it easier. You experts can't understand how hard it is for us old fuddydudies to manage to function in the ambience of the Wikipedia editor environment. And I'm still thinking about matter and wanted to have that article readily available. I like him mainly because he was ready to tackle anything and to bring forward any information that he had on the subject. Not like today's editorial policy.WFPM (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Okay I've opened a file ([[File:Modified Chart of the Nuclides.jpg]]). Now I can't get it into my sandbox. Do you want to look at it and see what you think? It's got a lot of information for your cognitive thinking process as to the stability interrelationship between the elements if you're interested. Uses Table of the isotopes data. Compares to JWB and just granpa's contributions as well as Chart of the Nuclides.WFPM (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Conclusion Jumping
QUIT JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS. iMac G3 reverted. 206.180.101.2 (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
What does PAIC stand for?
Here's one opinion. Art LaPella (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Your removal of my additions to GNSS pages
I happen to disagree with your initiative to remove the links I added. The information I referred to on 10 or 11 GNSS related pages are of high quality and add value to the wikipedia pages. The European Space Agency had top experts write those articles based to the latest available knowledge. Are you a GNSS expert? What is your argumentation for the removal? Best regards, Timo Kouwenhoven User_talk:Timo_Kouwenhoven —Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
- Replied on your talk page. Please reply there as well. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Relativistic Doppler Effect
Sorry, I just read your request above to reply on my own talk page. I'll do that from now on. Krea (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome, although I've been on wikipedia for about 6 years now apparently. (I just don't bother with all of that frivolity that people seem to like to put on their user main page, and neither do I get too involved in editing unless it's some bit of knowledge that I think is lacking.)
Concerning the citing of sources, quite frankly, I think what I added is trivial: it is very basic first-year Special Relativity material. I think every undergrad uses the relativistic Doppler effect example to learn how to use the Lorentz equations, and all it is is plugging values into the equations. The only conceptual difficulty lies in visualizing what it is that you are doing. Of course, that's the only real difficulty in doing SR at all: making sure you know what it is that you are doing since it can be very easy to loose track of what is what in what frame of reference if you are being sloppy.
Still, maybe it would be better if there were some generally relevent source: I've put a source to Feynman in the references list now. Feynman uses the wave frequency and wave vector equations to derive the answer, put he is still plugging in values to Lorentz's equations. I could put a Young and Freedman reference in too, I guess, but I think they do it as it is done in the section above the one I added. All these methods are still equivalent, though: they just move the physics of the problem from the perspective of the moving source to the moving observer. If you want to be pedantic, you could argue that what I added is redundant because this is exactly the difference between what I added and what is already there in the article. Still, I think it's useful to demonstrate how the answer is the same doing it from the stationary observer's perspective.
The only points that maybe still need a ref is the contention that the classical results are formally reproduced in the limit , but I think the SR article should have that information recorded, if worded less mathematically (it is essentially the correspondence principle); Landau and Lifshitz state this explicitly, so I could add this ref if you think it's required. You could also argue that the line, "Note that this complication is not relativistic in nature: this is the ultimate cause of the Doppler effect and is also present in the classical treatment." also needs as source. But again, I think this is trivial for, otherwise, there is no Doppler effect: the whole point of the Doppler correction is that the source moves by the time it has emitted its second wave pulse. The classical Doppler effect article should make this point clear, but maybe I should put a source for it here. The only problem is that it is so fairly obvious that I think any physics text would not bother pointing it out. It's implied when they write down the relative velocity of the wave to the source/observer. Maybe it just needs a better explanation? Krea (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry for the delay. I'll just make a few little remarks:
- Re "Concerning the citing of sources, quite frankly, I think what I added is trivial...". Yes, absolutely trivial for you and for me, but that's not how Wikipedia works: see wp:V and wp:RS, and specially wp:BURDEN. We can't expect the average reader to find it trivial, so we need to provide that source. Thanks for having done so.
- I will not comment on the remainder of your message, as it is about the article. These comments really belong on the article talk page where other contributors can contribute as well. Our user talk pages are more suited for discussing user conduct related issues.
- Again, as I said on your talk page, good job! Keep up the good —sourced— work! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll try! Thanks for the critical eye. Krea (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Your comment at ANI
Your help is appreciated, it really is, but that was really inappropriate for you to post at the ANI like that, D. Post on my talk, it'll be read and appreciated. Do you think your post is helping the cause there at ANI? Some admins are interested in this editor as a possible troll, I'm trying to do something good. It isn't about me and my lessons! Forgive me, my PC's or WP is haywire, everything is so slow. Let us resume this, if we do resume it, at my talk. Please, DVdm, unless it is apropos do not post stuff like that at the ANI.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I already replied there. I prefer to keep things in one place. - DVdm (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ditto, except this was a personal message as I'm sure you appreciate. It belonged here, not on the ANI. Which was my original point. Well, I've come here to just say, I withdrew at the ANI. You did nothing to help except make me look like a troublemaking fool, DVdm. Is that what you consider helpful? I was getting somewhere, and that editor in question is bad news. Sometimes you give an unfortunate impression of being ... I don't know what to say because it'll come out sounding badly. Think about it: what did you really do to help the ANI issue? Nothing.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, sorry, but except for that piece of advice of a few months ago, I really cannot think of anything to say. Remember what you replied to it. I'll keep out of it. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I should not have jumped so violently at you. Truly, I see what you mean there. I know the spirit in which you meant that, and I recall the lesson. Also, I appreciate that you see a little bit from my viewpoint. Well, this is over for me and I'm taking a break from the Columbo conundrum. I actually had neglected to re-read your advice from back then - obviously! It is a blessing you jumped in there. It's like you stopped an angry mastodon or something.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, sorry, but except for that piece of advice of a few months ago, I really cannot think of anything to say. Remember what you replied to it. I'll keep out of it. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ditto, except this was a personal message as I'm sure you appreciate. It belonged here, not on the ANI. Which was my original point. Well, I've come here to just say, I withdrew at the ANI. You did nothing to help except make me look like a troublemaking fool, DVdm. Is that what you consider helpful? I was getting somewhere, and that editor in question is bad news. Sometimes you give an unfortunate impression of being ... I don't know what to say because it'll come out sounding badly. Think about it: what did you really do to help the ANI issue? Nothing.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Your expertise and advice needed (private for now)
OK, am here to ask something. How can I open a SPI without looking like a vengeful baby?--
- User:142.58.187.134 (see[9])
- User:B3430715 see[10])
- User:Detectiveboy (see[11]) are clearly socks of an editor I have not yet discovered. Perhaps they are socks of User:B3430715, who has aroused some admins' suspicions, recently disrupted a related MedCab in progress and who responded to the resulting ANI about him on his user talk page. I really think these 3 editors are sockpuppets. User:Detectiveboy looks like a single-purpose account (puppet for B3430715 in issues regarding Columbo) but I can't tell yet. So far all he's done is support B3 in the Columbo issues and uses the exact same reasoning and goofy English. Is this a 'save WP complex'? Or do I sit back and wait ... for no one else to do it? Advise me. And recall, my friend, that once again this is not about me. Frankly I think all those users are hilarious, this doesn't really personally anger me! What angers me is what is being perpetrated and how everyone is allowing it. Sockpuppetry, absolutely imho. Tell, me, what do I do?—Djathinkimacowboy 05:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since you have opened a specific ANI-report concerning this very matter and B3430715, and since some admins already have looked into that, your best shot would be to ask for advice there. If it turns out that nobody seems to care, or if you really don't want to ask there, then you could indeed —making sure you carefully follow the SPI-reporting rules— file an SPI and see how it goes. If that turns out negative, or if you decide not to go for SPI, then indeed this would be —de facto— one of those sit-back-and-wait-and-meanwhle-move-on-and-do-something-else situations. That's precisely how this community works. Again my advice is, do read the essay wp:RATSASS. Also, take some time reading the essays pointed to in its See also section. - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- WOW. WP:RATSASS! I certainly will look at it, but I cannot imagine where all these WP articles come from. It is very funny, that there seems to be a page for every human condition WP-style. Of course I agree with you. It occurred to me that I'd have to wait anyway, because really, who knows what this is I'm looking at right now. Only my gut and tiny evidences say it's sockpuppetry; I feel I am right but I don't think anyone will want that. So cheers very much because you have guided me again. As far as the ANI, my sense is no one's interested now. I withdrew, made a final statement in order to reply to something there. Sad but true. As you said: let someone else get tired of him first.—Djathinkimacowboy 18:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Paul venter
I would appreciate your not editing my talk page........Paul venter (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- User The Border Patrol (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked now for vandalism and personal attacks. You were one of his first targets. See item 3 of wp:TALKO. At your service. - DVdm (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Still no justification for your trespassing on my talk page. cheers Paul venter (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- The edit on your talk page was made in the context of a vandalism patrolling session ([12] with a.o. [13], [14], [15], [16].). You can check the explicit justification for my action in item 3 of our behaviorial guideline wp:TALKO. - DVdm (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- "you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments if you have their permission"....... The guideline you refer to says it all. ciao Paul venter (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I think you need to lay off, dude. He was doing you a favor. Calabe1992 15:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- From the all saying guideline wp:TALKO:
-
- "if you have their permission" is the first example.
- "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism" is the third example, aka "item 3 of wp:TALKO"
-
- DVdm (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- See also: [17] and [18], and of course, How to respond to vandalism - For beginners. - DVdm (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- "you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments if you have their permission"....... The guideline you refer to says it all. ciao Paul venter (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- The edit on your talk page was made in the context of a vandalism patrolling session ([12] with a.o. [13], [14], [15], [16].). You can check the explicit justification for my action in item 3 of our behaviorial guideline wp:TALKO. - DVdm (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Still no justification for your trespassing on my talk page. cheers Paul venter (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
Thanks for the revert on my userpage. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC) |
Zappa Template
Just a heads-up. I was hoping that my recent reversion of the template had made everyone happy (I certainly didn't see any complaints), yet earlier today, without any discussion (or consensus, as usual), that version was completely reorganized yet again. If possible, could you add any thoughts you have to the discussion, and if needed, help intervene? I try to avoid edit wars as much as possible, and I would appreciate your help doing so. Friginator (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have put a warning at User talk:Wisdomtenacityfocus#Slow edit warring at template Frank Zappa. - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I hate to come crying back to you like this, but Wisdomtenacityfocus is reverting the template again (and the discography, which apparently had been changed back a while ago), and apparently angry now, blanking his talk page and calling it "bullshit", and so on and so forth. I've changed the info back again, but this really, really is not a good use of anyone's time. Is there a noticeboard that the issue should be taken to? Are there any other users who could help in this situation? There don't seem to be many options left. Thanks for your help. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- User Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) is reported for edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
This is not edit warring. This is a content dispute. Handle these things the way they're supposed to be handled by trying to seek opinions from outside of the small circle of editors that usually care about the content. All my edits were justified by style guidelines. Yours weren't. Also, I have every right to say what I want in edit summaries on my own talk page edits. Why are you giving me shit for something that I have a right to do? When I improve articles, you should respond by thanking me, not harassing me because someone else besides you edits an article you're engaged in. YOU don't own articles. Let someone else contribute to the process. --WTF (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Note - User hasn't edited after last comment dd 3-Apr and wp:DRN case closure. Case at wp:ANEW archived without result. - DVdm (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not accusing you of something you haven't done. I'm stating what you have done. It is misleading and blatantly false to deny what you have done. --WTF (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Talk page references
The talk page is advertised to provide space for general page comments that may be removed without response in as little as two weeks. It is used also for more extensive discussions. I use it to introduce my potential edits for prepost comment. This gives the page editor time to evaluate the edit and a source signature. My references are directed at content, not author or journal. My paper is analogous to a Wikipedia page. I use it as a reference to provide interested readers with added background for my edits. Since the possible talk page life is short, I don't believe its use should be considered promotion. (HCPotter (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC))
- Copied your comment to your talk page and replied there ([19]). See User_talk:HCPotter#Purpose_of_article_talk_pages. - DVdm (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
April 1, 2012
Thanks for templating me! Now go do the same to everyone else on today's AfD log. Happy april fools day, genius. - filelakeshoe 16:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Content dispute
You are involved in a content dispute. Details here. --WTF (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- You explicitly stated that I vandalised the pages:
- Now look at this very carefully:
- The only edit I ever made to Template:Frank Zappa (edit history) is
-
- [22] 01-Apr-2012, minor fomatting
-
- The only edits I ever made to Frank Zappa discography (edit history) are:
- Now, tell me, where have I "removed massive chunks of the discography"? Where have I "reverted an article based on [my] belief that [I] own the article"?
- I would appreciate it if you would retract these blatantly false accusations. - DVdm (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- By the way, the case has been closed now. - DVdm (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
A wp:ANI case was opened, resulting in a formal warning about wp:NPA by Atama. Archived here. - DVdm (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Reliability?
OK, at a loss on what to put on the article. Is the Jester's own link to the information not reliable enough? People have been saying he's been bluffing about the QR attack since day one, I think the first evidence that he isn't is worth adding. Is there any way to add this information that will make you happy? --Applegeorge (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have put the reason for my revert on your talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- So it's merely the phrase "insinuated on his Twitter account" that you have a problem with? --Applegeorge (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Is it OK now? The "insinuated" part came from the Jester's comment (something to the effect of) "why don't I just start releasing Anonymous information now?" although that may have only meant that one text file. --Applegeorge (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Does the source actually say that it "released a text file that was alleged to be a portion of the information gathered during the QR attack."? I don't see that on ¨this page. Please provide an exact quotation of the text, so we can verify the statement. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
It doesn't say it word for word, but "the list" mentioned in that Tweet (and this Tweet) is almost certainly the so called "shit list" that the Jester has spoken of, i.e. the targets of the QR attack (members of Anonymous, Al-Qaeda propagandists, Wikileaks etc). Plus there's no other obvious way for this information to have been recovered. The second Tweet specifically references the "shit list" although doesn't say that the information was recovered from it. I think it's kind of unreasonable to withhold the link until the Jester uses a word-perfect Tweet that you're asking for. That's hardly his style after all. If you don't want the link publishing I understand. I won't start a flamewar; I understand that the Jester is prime flamewar material after all. --Applegeorge (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this is clearly not inline with our policies. See wp:NOR, wp:V, wp:NPOV. For your information, I have put a welcome message on your talk page, where you find some pointers to learn about how Wikipedia actually works. I hope it will be of help for you. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Dja?
I am Dja, dummy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.107.248 (talk • contribs)
- Good grief, I'm speechless. What happened to the sit-back-and-wait-and-meanwhle-move-on-and-do-something-else thing, and your reply? Sigh. - DVdm (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Help Anna
What can we do to help Anna? That IP wasn't very nice.512bits (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- (Personal attack removed) 76.195.87.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC).
-
-