what the fuck
I moved in:
And you reverted with the commend "please limit external links to sites that approuch both sides of the subject".
I find that a very odd position to take. I am no fan of PETA's and I think they are a bunch of overzelous ... well zelots. But I cant see how you can require a NPOV from links? Surely one would want equaly vehment arguments from both sides, and not just people trying to walk the middle ground. (I dont want to add the link back, I'm fighting link-creep myself - otherwise I would chat on the talk page). Just curious as to your reasoning. -- Mig77 (t) 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I think that avoiding the publication of speculation about the identity of contributors in general is more important than being able to read every comment made on the site, and, that is more true in this case than in most. The edit is not deleted, so it can still be read by anybody who really goes looking for it, but I don't think that it needs to be more available than that. Jkelly 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the response HighInBC 22:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply
You commented on this animated GIF's Featured Picture nomination. I'm considering a redesign to incorporate concerns raised but I need more clarity. Please see User talk:John Reid/Pi/Unrolled#FP?. Thank you. John Reid 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Done! Thanks for the work. HighInBC 14:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your note. I am something of a newbie here so any help and support you can offer is greatly appreciated.
Thanks again.
Wolfman97 16:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No problem anytime. HighInBC 16:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I was referring to a section of the original AN/I board discussion, which Theresa Knott moved to its own discussion page; I had made some comments on the AN/I discussion but they were not on the discussion page and I'm still trawling through AN/I's history page trying to find the missing ones. As I said, I'm fairly sure this was an accident. I don't think Theresa would deliberately remove someone's comments. Heck, when I added my comments to the AN/I discussion I think I originally put them in the wrong talk section; with a page that long and convoluted, it's easy to make a mistake! Cheers, Kasreyn 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Revolución/Statement against Jimbocracy. Once again, I feel this is needed. You might also like my own manifesto, which isn't specifically Jimbo-related. Things are out of hand here sometimes. I'm seriously thinking of leaving this project right now, but I'm going to wait a while before making any serious decisions. Too much authority in the hands of too few people who abuse it in the wrong situations, yet never use it when they should (like to block obvious socks of indefinite-blocked users on anarchism and such). Just like cops in real life--going after activists and non-violent criminals (like drug users), while letting rapists, murderers and politicians go free. What a surprise. Ungovernable Force The Wiki Kitchen! 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh lord, I would rather edit the wikipedia I already have. HighInBC 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Ahhh, no I did not see that. I really have no looked outside of wikipedia itself. Now I know that. HighInBC 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply
More specifically the answer to my question is this: [2], thanks for the help folks I understand now. HighInBC 18:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi, We've talked beofore on this subject, I'm glad you've got the hang of wikipedia in these past few months. Yet, you should notice that this wiki style community uses rules and regulations as a way to resolve disputes, not as a way to create them. If a dispute can be resolved directly withought adhering to strict or absolute regulations than it is all for the better. This article brings arguments, which from it's very nature, not a strict documentiation of an event. stuff like:
maybe false, or "uncited", yet they also may contain the quintessential reasoning behind the rest of that passesge facts, a reasoning that represents that school of thought. you may simply put a "the reason behind this is that.." prefix. I'm not reverting anything because I do agree with your edits, its just that liberality and free speech are more important than adhering to regulations in this medium, and specifically in this context or "reason" based on the facts. if you drop the punch line the entire section may seem unfathomable.
Btw, seeing your wife's touching tale, are you a pro or a con drug man ?
hi, I've revrted al ledits for this day. it seems as though an IP has erased huge sectiones without you notcing, please reinsert yourr comments. (and me more carefull). Is this IP in somesort of a war with you? maybe you should invite him to join, so we can monitor him more carfully. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi. I see you removed the backlog tag from the 3rd opinion page. I'd been trying for a while to reduce the backlog, and you are right that it doesn't look like there's much of a backlog now, but I had left the tag because the oldest entry is almost a month old (10 August 2006). Even if there are only 3 or 4 entries, a month old is still a slight backlog, I would think. ~ ONUnicorn ( Talk / Contribs) 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
what the fuck
I moved in:
And you reverted with the commend "please limit external links to sites that approuch both sides of the subject".
I find that a very odd position to take. I am no fan of PETA's and I think they are a bunch of overzelous ... well zelots. But I cant see how you can require a NPOV from links? Surely one would want equaly vehment arguments from both sides, and not just people trying to walk the middle ground. (I dont want to add the link back, I'm fighting link-creep myself - otherwise I would chat on the talk page). Just curious as to your reasoning. -- Mig77 (t) 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I think that avoiding the publication of speculation about the identity of contributors in general is more important than being able to read every comment made on the site, and, that is more true in this case than in most. The edit is not deleted, so it can still be read by anybody who really goes looking for it, but I don't think that it needs to be more available than that. Jkelly 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the response HighInBC 22:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply
You commented on this animated GIF's Featured Picture nomination. I'm considering a redesign to incorporate concerns raised but I need more clarity. Please see User talk:John Reid/Pi/Unrolled#FP?. Thank you. John Reid 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Done! Thanks for the work. HighInBC 14:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your note. I am something of a newbie here so any help and support you can offer is greatly appreciated.
Thanks again.
Wolfman97 16:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No problem anytime. HighInBC 16:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I was referring to a section of the original AN/I board discussion, which Theresa Knott moved to its own discussion page; I had made some comments on the AN/I discussion but they were not on the discussion page and I'm still trawling through AN/I's history page trying to find the missing ones. As I said, I'm fairly sure this was an accident. I don't think Theresa would deliberately remove someone's comments. Heck, when I added my comments to the AN/I discussion I think I originally put them in the wrong talk section; with a page that long and convoluted, it's easy to make a mistake! Cheers, Kasreyn 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Revolución/Statement against Jimbocracy. Once again, I feel this is needed. You might also like my own manifesto, which isn't specifically Jimbo-related. Things are out of hand here sometimes. I'm seriously thinking of leaving this project right now, but I'm going to wait a while before making any serious decisions. Too much authority in the hands of too few people who abuse it in the wrong situations, yet never use it when they should (like to block obvious socks of indefinite-blocked users on anarchism and such). Just like cops in real life--going after activists and non-violent criminals (like drug users), while letting rapists, murderers and politicians go free. What a surprise. Ungovernable Force The Wiki Kitchen! 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh lord, I would rather edit the wikipedia I already have. HighInBC 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Ahhh, no I did not see that. I really have no looked outside of wikipedia itself. Now I know that. HighInBC 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply
More specifically the answer to my question is this: [2], thanks for the help folks I understand now. HighInBC 18:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi, We've talked beofore on this subject, I'm glad you've got the hang of wikipedia in these past few months. Yet, you should notice that this wiki style community uses rules and regulations as a way to resolve disputes, not as a way to create them. If a dispute can be resolved directly withought adhering to strict or absolute regulations than it is all for the better. This article brings arguments, which from it's very nature, not a strict documentiation of an event. stuff like:
maybe false, or "uncited", yet they also may contain the quintessential reasoning behind the rest of that passesge facts, a reasoning that represents that school of thought. you may simply put a "the reason behind this is that.." prefix. I'm not reverting anything because I do agree with your edits, its just that liberality and free speech are more important than adhering to regulations in this medium, and specifically in this context or "reason" based on the facts. if you drop the punch line the entire section may seem unfathomable.
Btw, seeing your wife's touching tale, are you a pro or a con drug man ?
hi, I've revrted al ledits for this day. it seems as though an IP has erased huge sectiones without you notcing, please reinsert yourr comments. (and me more carefull). Is this IP in somesort of a war with you? maybe you should invite him to join, so we can monitor him more carfully. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi. I see you removed the backlog tag from the 3rd opinion page. I'd been trying for a while to reduce the backlog, and you are right that it doesn't look like there's much of a backlog now, but I had left the tag because the oldest entry is almost a month old (10 August 2006). Even if there are only 3 or 4 entries, a month old is still a slight backlog, I would think. ~ ONUnicorn ( Talk / Contribs) 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply