Welcome to my talk page. Let's be friends. - Silence 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Please quit deleting what I have done. What you are reverting is not incorrect. Your mistakes:
For starters, never link alternate spellings. Aestival can be spelt with the ligature - quit removing it. Aecium and aecidium are different words that can both be spelt with the ligature, thus listing aecium as a variant does not give information of that (and the same for aesculin and aesculetin, but they are two completely sepereate chemical compounds!). Also, why did you remove the links to wiktionary for links that did have a definition? The other "paedagog & paedagogue" DO exist but are generally not found in either British or American English because of their archaicness. Aestivation should not be put as estivation because first: it is not the trend the rest of the page follows, and both aestivation and estivation exist in American English (and it makes sence to put the spelling acceptable in both forms of English); thus putting aestivation as a British varient makes no sense. Aether is a proper noun. ― 68.13.122.35 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Me and my friend and other guys are trying to improve this article to F.A staus, any hep and suggestion is well accepted, By the way what do you think of the article.? -- Philx 16:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand your frustration (even though I may have added on to it, and for that I am sorry), but I seem to get a little upset because it appears that a lot of things I do come under fire. But, please stay here. You are one of the best writers here. You are also very popular. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Happy new year! I hope you're well. I must say that (for the Darth poll) your response to Scorpion is far more ... detailed than any of my comments ever were! :)
I'm not at all challenging the comments but, they might now be unnecessary ... Though I foresee no problems, I've suggested a course of action, and noted possible challenges, to The Wookieepedian regarding the vote that I think are reasonable. As for when we should move forward, perhaps we can try to do a 'transclusion' beginning next week? Anyhow, take care! E Pluribus Anthony 02:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like the resilient Silence I know. Anyhow, if you decide to stay, your comments would be appreciated at Victor Hugo's peer review. Remember the ordeal about article size and sub-stubs? Well, I think it actually produced a near featured-status article. -- Tantalum T e lluride 05:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I was actually joking, about now you want to tell me: "Hic puer est stultissimus omnium!" ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 01:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think you deserve to be an adm. Again, sorry for all the hell I put you through, please allow me to make up for it. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 01:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
For consolidating the ligature articles :) looks great now! porges 06:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You voted for Humanities, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured- standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm trying (and it's a fun challenge) to make sure that Scientologists get a fair shake on Wikipedia. A great number of their current articles are *highly* POV, filled with all sorts of slams. As part of the Project to fix this, I'm trying to tag as many articles as needed to get focused attention, so that both CoS proponents and opponents can jump in. The biggest problem I see, so far, isn't that my template has been added to stubbish articles, but that diverse and conflicting views haven't been added to the same articles. Ronabop 12:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Silence, tnx for your help on {{ User:UBX/Bright}}... Will you pls have a look @ Template:User the economist? I had to delete a fair use image of their logo & I'm now using text but would like to have it look as much like the logo as possible. I'm still quite new to the markup so if you have time u having a look would be much appreciated. Mikkerpikker 02:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You changed my images in religion boxes. On my user page I have my own userboxes. Can we add user Jedi,Sith,Britney worshipper,Apocalypse(Xmen) worshipper and few others. Check out my user page and see if they can be uploaded. Batzarro 08:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying up my misplaced clean-up, etc. tags from the article pages onto the talk pages. Appreciate it. Sincerely, Jtneill - Talk 10:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC).
Not a big deal at all but I just wanted you to note my latest comment on AID. I think we're actually in complete agreement, I just wasn't explaining myself properly. Cheers, Marskell 15:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Silence: The fact that this phrase makes some (moderate) sense taken to be Latin does not imply that it actually is Latin, just as "a capella" does not mean "from the goat". Or take the famous joke "i vitelli dei romani sono belli" (Latin: Go forth, Vitellius, to the sound of the Roman god of war; Italian: The calves of the Romans are beautiful). Whatever, I reverted this one twice before and I am tired of it. Be it Latin! :-( T.a.k. 18:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
"Not all Scouts are Wood Badgers, but all Wood Badgers are Scouts. Ergo, including it in all the same categories would be redundant." makes no sense at all. Are you saying Wood Badge is part of Guiding? It's not. Are you a Wood Badger? Why are you zeroing in on just this one topic? Rlevse 18:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand your re-direct from Category:Mathematician Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedian mathematicians, in order to avoid duplication - the only issue is that for those under the former, it would have been good to contact them to let them know (so as to know they should link themselves to the latter). I happened to be paying attention to the userbox template for mathematicians (as I designed it), which alerted me to the re-direct; but not all those under the former category will necessarily be paying attention to this, particularly those who do not use userboxes.
Would it be possible to undo the re-direct until those under Category:Mathematician Wikipedians have been alerted via their talk pages to switch themselves over to Category:Wikipedian mathematicians?
Thanks - DonaNobisPacem 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that if you use the format [[Category:Wikipedians who foo|User Foo]] in a template with <includeonly> tags you end up with a 'User Foo' link in the template itself once included. You have to leave the category as an unpiped link in order for it not to show up like that. -- Francs 2000 12:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Heh... all I had to do was purge the page cache. It's fixed now. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 15:01, Jan. 19, 2006
Sorry about that. It looked like someone had removed the category but not changed the template. Seems it was the otherway round. -- Salix alba ( talk) 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know. |
Hi Silence. why did you remove the Category:Land Rover from my user page? And even if there might be something wrong with a user's home page, would it not be more polite to inform that user of the error? That is what the template in the userbox indicates. Wim van Dorst 22:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for the elucidation. Wim van Dorst 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
Not quite. From the image page:
The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that this image represents atheism. As copyright holder, I believe Wikipedia's use of the logo falls under fair use. - Tim Ahrentløv (ta@invisiblepinkunicorn.com)
It's most definitely used to represent atheism, so it can be used, right? — Nightstallion (?) 14:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
{{
user religion|invisible pink unicorn}}
a week ago. The only reason the image wasn't deleted from the IPU userbox as well is because that template got lost somehow and was orphaned from the index of religion-related userboxes
Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion, but I rediscovered it while going through all the uses of "user religion" on userpages and simply made it consistent with what's been used for the other two, much more common Intelligent Pink Unicorn userboxes for a while now. Furthermore, the tags on the image itself completely contradict your claim that the image is free use: "Conditional use images", "Fair use images used with permission", and "Logos" do not meet the requirements for being usable on user pages, I believe. -
Silence 14:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Get over what? The template was there before the template:user religion for fsm, why arbitrarily change things? Just leave it be. Janizary 16:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
This user is a Republican supporter. |
Thanks for updating the atheist userbox on my page. Cheers! – Comics ( Talk) 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete the two gender specific outlier boxes I created? Maprov 23:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
What a raison has Your "Important Notice"? -- Mario todte 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
OK!-- Mario todte 14:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
What was the purpose of changing "believer" to "supporter" in Template:User Chinmaya? --Sh ell 15:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the categories from political and relgious userboxes because it's not acceptable to categorize users by their beliefs. Please see Jimbo's comments. He's gone so far as to ask users to remove these userboxes entirely. I'm only removing the aspect of userboxes that's most harmful. Again, please do NOT add categories back to the userboxes. Feel free to discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
for fixing the minor problem with the userbox on my page. It would have taken much more text to have told me how to fix it myself. Val42 16:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks for all the great work you've been doing in general.-- Urthogie 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Please see the discussion page of this userbox. Morgan695 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't 45px big enough? That's the way it's been from the beginning. It even says in the userbox code that the left-hand box is 45px wide. The whole point of userboxes is to have standardized templates, so it really helps if they match. Check out the userboxes on my user page to see why I'm against enlarging the picture - one of these things is not like the others... - AdelaMae ( talk - contribs) 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
...for correcting that userbox template on my userpages. It is appreciated. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, why are you removing the Married Wikipedians category from all of the same sex marriage userboxes? Anyway, please do not do that. -- Phroziac . o º O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you for the clarification of what you were doing to the Template:User same sex marriage templates. I think that if you'd included your reasoning in either the talk page for the template or in your edit summary, I would never have reverted. Please pardon me for lumping you in with the same LGBT vandalism I fight elsewhere. It was not my intention to label you a homophobe, but it's easy to jump to conclusions. ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what writing an encyclopedia is about. Quality, young grasshopper, is more important than quantity. Even if there isn't a boatload to "add", there's vast amounts to improve. Some of Wikipedia's worst articles are over a dozen pages long.
Really very good comment, as you say sometimes there are short pages explaining much more information than some long pages-- Ugur Basak 00:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the userbox on my user page :) -- P. B. Mann 05:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
What in the name of Victor Hugo has been going on with your user page this week? -- Tantalum T e lluride 05:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I liked your changes as well as your justification. i have not read the whole text of your comments but will definitely make some comments later. David D. (Talk) 18:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I did indeed miss that! Thanks for catching it. Cheers. -- P e ruvianLlama( spit) 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If you want to talk about lack of quality, then read the
John Denver, or
Elton John articles which I've nominated on the Article Improvement Drive.
Carolaman 19:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Your comment when I said the Ottoman Article was huge.
Carolaman 09:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I am keeping my considerable anger with you in check for the moment. I would like to say: I think everything you just posted on my Talk Page is absolutely, positively, 100% wrong. I would bother to critique the particular problems of your positions, but the fact that they're all underpinned by your whole privileged "progressive liberal" outlook, I get the sense that you would feel compulsed to completely ignore the critique and just go pick up Ye Olde Wiki Policy to slap me with it.
I have decided to leave the antifa userbox as simple, watered down, and impotent as I believe it will take to satisfy your "progressive liberal" sensibilities of what a userbox should be. With that, I have hopefully done the last thing I ever have to keep your privileged "progressive liberal" sensibilities satisfied. So DO NOT write yet another backhanded, patronizing missive on how you "understand" why I am "frustrated". Do NOT ask for mediation so you can convince yourself how "understanding" you are. Because in the end: no you do not "understand" a damned thing. -- Daniel 02:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Please give people a little room to breath, and assume they canmake their own judgement, rather than accusing everyone if misunderstanding and being unable to form their own opinion of what forms a personal attack. Thanks! Ian 13ID:540053 11:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your arguments in defense of Template:User homosexual-no on WP:DRV. I, too, believe that "knee-jerk reaction" is an accurate characterization of much of the opposition to this template but couldn't figure out a way to say so that wouldn't be offensive. Due to this and some past discussion at Wikipedia:LGBT notice board, I am becoming increasingly concerned about Wikipedia's biased treatment of sexual orientation issues. I find the characterization of this template as a personal attack very disturbing, as such an interpretation would seem to justify the removal from Wikipedia of any and all statements of opinions that gay rights activists don't like. And while I couldn't be more supportive of legal equality for LGBT people - I'll wave my HRC membership card around if I have to - nearly half of American adults believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, and I have to wonder, where are all those people? Have we chased them off Wikipedia? And as bizarre as it seems, as a dedicated Wikipedian I feel that I must set my personal opinions aside and work to make sure that their POV is represented fairly here if they are not around to do so themselves. - AdelaMae ( talk - contribs) 03:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You voted for Male and Female, this week's Collaborations of the week. Please come and help them become featured- standard articles. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed you've been the victim of quite a number of rather horrible personal attacks, for doing what appears to be quite reasonable things. And, AFAIK, you've kept your cool through them. Well done. Your work (and calmness) is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Illigmitaus nil carbumdum (or something like that). JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If anyone deserves it, it's you. ;) (Or me. Nah, rather you. =]) Nightstallion
This user has been awarded a userbox barnstar for their work designing new userboxes. |
Welcome to my talk page. Let's be friends. - Silence 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Please quit deleting what I have done. What you are reverting is not incorrect. Your mistakes:
For starters, never link alternate spellings. Aestival can be spelt with the ligature - quit removing it. Aecium and aecidium are different words that can both be spelt with the ligature, thus listing aecium as a variant does not give information of that (and the same for aesculin and aesculetin, but they are two completely sepereate chemical compounds!). Also, why did you remove the links to wiktionary for links that did have a definition? The other "paedagog & paedagogue" DO exist but are generally not found in either British or American English because of their archaicness. Aestivation should not be put as estivation because first: it is not the trend the rest of the page follows, and both aestivation and estivation exist in American English (and it makes sence to put the spelling acceptable in both forms of English); thus putting aestivation as a British varient makes no sense. Aether is a proper noun. ― 68.13.122.35 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Me and my friend and other guys are trying to improve this article to F.A staus, any hep and suggestion is well accepted, By the way what do you think of the article.? -- Philx 16:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand your frustration (even though I may have added on to it, and for that I am sorry), but I seem to get a little upset because it appears that a lot of things I do come under fire. But, please stay here. You are one of the best writers here. You are also very popular. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Happy new year! I hope you're well. I must say that (for the Darth poll) your response to Scorpion is far more ... detailed than any of my comments ever were! :)
I'm not at all challenging the comments but, they might now be unnecessary ... Though I foresee no problems, I've suggested a course of action, and noted possible challenges, to The Wookieepedian regarding the vote that I think are reasonable. As for when we should move forward, perhaps we can try to do a 'transclusion' beginning next week? Anyhow, take care! E Pluribus Anthony 02:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like the resilient Silence I know. Anyhow, if you decide to stay, your comments would be appreciated at Victor Hugo's peer review. Remember the ordeal about article size and sub-stubs? Well, I think it actually produced a near featured-status article. -- Tantalum T e lluride 05:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I was actually joking, about now you want to tell me: "Hic puer est stultissimus omnium!" ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 01:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think you deserve to be an adm. Again, sorry for all the hell I put you through, please allow me to make up for it. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 01:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
For consolidating the ligature articles :) looks great now! porges 06:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You voted for Humanities, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured- standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm trying (and it's a fun challenge) to make sure that Scientologists get a fair shake on Wikipedia. A great number of their current articles are *highly* POV, filled with all sorts of slams. As part of the Project to fix this, I'm trying to tag as many articles as needed to get focused attention, so that both CoS proponents and opponents can jump in. The biggest problem I see, so far, isn't that my template has been added to stubbish articles, but that diverse and conflicting views haven't been added to the same articles. Ronabop 12:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Silence, tnx for your help on {{ User:UBX/Bright}}... Will you pls have a look @ Template:User the economist? I had to delete a fair use image of their logo & I'm now using text but would like to have it look as much like the logo as possible. I'm still quite new to the markup so if you have time u having a look would be much appreciated. Mikkerpikker 02:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You changed my images in religion boxes. On my user page I have my own userboxes. Can we add user Jedi,Sith,Britney worshipper,Apocalypse(Xmen) worshipper and few others. Check out my user page and see if they can be uploaded. Batzarro 08:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying up my misplaced clean-up, etc. tags from the article pages onto the talk pages. Appreciate it. Sincerely, Jtneill - Talk 10:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC).
Not a big deal at all but I just wanted you to note my latest comment on AID. I think we're actually in complete agreement, I just wasn't explaining myself properly. Cheers, Marskell 15:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Silence: The fact that this phrase makes some (moderate) sense taken to be Latin does not imply that it actually is Latin, just as "a capella" does not mean "from the goat". Or take the famous joke "i vitelli dei romani sono belli" (Latin: Go forth, Vitellius, to the sound of the Roman god of war; Italian: The calves of the Romans are beautiful). Whatever, I reverted this one twice before and I am tired of it. Be it Latin! :-( T.a.k. 18:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
"Not all Scouts are Wood Badgers, but all Wood Badgers are Scouts. Ergo, including it in all the same categories would be redundant." makes no sense at all. Are you saying Wood Badge is part of Guiding? It's not. Are you a Wood Badger? Why are you zeroing in on just this one topic? Rlevse 18:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand your re-direct from Category:Mathematician Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedian mathematicians, in order to avoid duplication - the only issue is that for those under the former, it would have been good to contact them to let them know (so as to know they should link themselves to the latter). I happened to be paying attention to the userbox template for mathematicians (as I designed it), which alerted me to the re-direct; but not all those under the former category will necessarily be paying attention to this, particularly those who do not use userboxes.
Would it be possible to undo the re-direct until those under Category:Mathematician Wikipedians have been alerted via their talk pages to switch themselves over to Category:Wikipedian mathematicians?
Thanks - DonaNobisPacem 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that if you use the format [[Category:Wikipedians who foo|User Foo]] in a template with <includeonly> tags you end up with a 'User Foo' link in the template itself once included. You have to leave the category as an unpiped link in order for it not to show up like that. -- Francs 2000 12:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Heh... all I had to do was purge the page cache. It's fixed now. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 15:01, Jan. 19, 2006
Sorry about that. It looked like someone had removed the category but not changed the template. Seems it was the otherway round. -- Salix alba ( talk) 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know. |
Hi Silence. why did you remove the Category:Land Rover from my user page? And even if there might be something wrong with a user's home page, would it not be more polite to inform that user of the error? That is what the template in the userbox indicates. Wim van Dorst 22:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for the elucidation. Wim van Dorst 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
Not quite. From the image page:
The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that this image represents atheism. As copyright holder, I believe Wikipedia's use of the logo falls under fair use. - Tim Ahrentløv (ta@invisiblepinkunicorn.com)
It's most definitely used to represent atheism, so it can be used, right? — Nightstallion (?) 14:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
{{
user religion|invisible pink unicorn}}
a week ago. The only reason the image wasn't deleted from the IPU userbox as well is because that template got lost somehow and was orphaned from the index of religion-related userboxes
Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion, but I rediscovered it while going through all the uses of "user religion" on userpages and simply made it consistent with what's been used for the other two, much more common Intelligent Pink Unicorn userboxes for a while now. Furthermore, the tags on the image itself completely contradict your claim that the image is free use: "Conditional use images", "Fair use images used with permission", and "Logos" do not meet the requirements for being usable on user pages, I believe. -
Silence 14:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Get over what? The template was there before the template:user religion for fsm, why arbitrarily change things? Just leave it be. Janizary 16:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
This user is a Republican supporter. |
Thanks for updating the atheist userbox on my page. Cheers! – Comics ( Talk) 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete the two gender specific outlier boxes I created? Maprov 23:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
What a raison has Your "Important Notice"? -- Mario todte 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
OK!-- Mario todte 14:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
What was the purpose of changing "believer" to "supporter" in Template:User Chinmaya? --Sh ell 15:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the categories from political and relgious userboxes because it's not acceptable to categorize users by their beliefs. Please see Jimbo's comments. He's gone so far as to ask users to remove these userboxes entirely. I'm only removing the aspect of userboxes that's most harmful. Again, please do NOT add categories back to the userboxes. Feel free to discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
for fixing the minor problem with the userbox on my page. It would have taken much more text to have told me how to fix it myself. Val42 16:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks for all the great work you've been doing in general.-- Urthogie 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Please see the discussion page of this userbox. Morgan695 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't 45px big enough? That's the way it's been from the beginning. It even says in the userbox code that the left-hand box is 45px wide. The whole point of userboxes is to have standardized templates, so it really helps if they match. Check out the userboxes on my user page to see why I'm against enlarging the picture - one of these things is not like the others... - AdelaMae ( talk - contribs) 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
...for correcting that userbox template on my userpages. It is appreciated. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, why are you removing the Married Wikipedians category from all of the same sex marriage userboxes? Anyway, please do not do that. -- Phroziac . o º O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you for the clarification of what you were doing to the Template:User same sex marriage templates. I think that if you'd included your reasoning in either the talk page for the template or in your edit summary, I would never have reverted. Please pardon me for lumping you in with the same LGBT vandalism I fight elsewhere. It was not my intention to label you a homophobe, but it's easy to jump to conclusions. ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what writing an encyclopedia is about. Quality, young grasshopper, is more important than quantity. Even if there isn't a boatload to "add", there's vast amounts to improve. Some of Wikipedia's worst articles are over a dozen pages long.
Really very good comment, as you say sometimes there are short pages explaining much more information than some long pages-- Ugur Basak 00:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the userbox on my user page :) -- P. B. Mann 05:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
What in the name of Victor Hugo has been going on with your user page this week? -- Tantalum T e lluride 05:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I liked your changes as well as your justification. i have not read the whole text of your comments but will definitely make some comments later. David D. (Talk) 18:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I did indeed miss that! Thanks for catching it. Cheers. -- P e ruvianLlama( spit) 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If you want to talk about lack of quality, then read the
John Denver, or
Elton John articles which I've nominated on the Article Improvement Drive.
Carolaman 19:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Your comment when I said the Ottoman Article was huge.
Carolaman 09:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I am keeping my considerable anger with you in check for the moment. I would like to say: I think everything you just posted on my Talk Page is absolutely, positively, 100% wrong. I would bother to critique the particular problems of your positions, but the fact that they're all underpinned by your whole privileged "progressive liberal" outlook, I get the sense that you would feel compulsed to completely ignore the critique and just go pick up Ye Olde Wiki Policy to slap me with it.
I have decided to leave the antifa userbox as simple, watered down, and impotent as I believe it will take to satisfy your "progressive liberal" sensibilities of what a userbox should be. With that, I have hopefully done the last thing I ever have to keep your privileged "progressive liberal" sensibilities satisfied. So DO NOT write yet another backhanded, patronizing missive on how you "understand" why I am "frustrated". Do NOT ask for mediation so you can convince yourself how "understanding" you are. Because in the end: no you do not "understand" a damned thing. -- Daniel 02:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Please give people a little room to breath, and assume they canmake their own judgement, rather than accusing everyone if misunderstanding and being unable to form their own opinion of what forms a personal attack. Thanks! Ian 13ID:540053 11:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your arguments in defense of Template:User homosexual-no on WP:DRV. I, too, believe that "knee-jerk reaction" is an accurate characterization of much of the opposition to this template but couldn't figure out a way to say so that wouldn't be offensive. Due to this and some past discussion at Wikipedia:LGBT notice board, I am becoming increasingly concerned about Wikipedia's biased treatment of sexual orientation issues. I find the characterization of this template as a personal attack very disturbing, as such an interpretation would seem to justify the removal from Wikipedia of any and all statements of opinions that gay rights activists don't like. And while I couldn't be more supportive of legal equality for LGBT people - I'll wave my HRC membership card around if I have to - nearly half of American adults believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, and I have to wonder, where are all those people? Have we chased them off Wikipedia? And as bizarre as it seems, as a dedicated Wikipedian I feel that I must set my personal opinions aside and work to make sure that their POV is represented fairly here if they are not around to do so themselves. - AdelaMae ( talk - contribs) 03:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You voted for Male and Female, this week's Collaborations of the week. Please come and help them become featured- standard articles. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed you've been the victim of quite a number of rather horrible personal attacks, for doing what appears to be quite reasonable things. And, AFAIK, you've kept your cool through them. Well done. Your work (and calmness) is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Illigmitaus nil carbumdum (or something like that). JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If anyone deserves it, it's you. ;) (Or me. Nah, rather you. =]) Nightstallion
This user has been awarded a userbox barnstar for their work designing new userboxes. |