This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
What are you talking about? I've never made a redirect under 'Devil's Dumplings'. -- Heslopian ( talk) 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what the policy is regarding that. I've unblock Somody now, so that shouldn't be an issue. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't clear about which article was previously deleted. Todd Sines was deleted, and the new article is Todd sines.
16:06, June 26, 2006 RasputinAXP (Talk | contribs) deleted "Todd Sines" (nn bio)
(Also, it appears Todd sines has now been deleted.) -- smurdah citation needed 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey
Could you make my citation on this page work please, and maybe show me how so that i can make a citation again.
Thanks Chris0693 ( talk) 17:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I Think I Understand Now Chris0693 ( talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
How can I be warded a Barn Star.
-- Christian P. ( talk) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just another quick question. Do you know how often each country is updated on Google Earth?
Chris0693 ( talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
R u an online moderator or something for wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swim28.44 ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
so only admins can propose deletion for articles??? -- Swim28.44 ( talk) 02:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)swim28.44
The page was deleted?? With no reasonable excuse?? So how do you keep a page on the Wiki without some faceless cretin deleting it just because they've never heard of the person involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel best ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thasnk for your note. Fixing now. Rich Farmbrough 16:47 30 January 2009 (UTC).
Yes you're right, thank you for reminding me. It had been a while since I last edited wikipedia and I guess my grasp of policy has been slipping. Anyway yeah, I'll keep that in mind next time. Thanks again for informing me.-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions| Guest) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Long feng zhi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long feng zhi. Thank you. Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Largo Plazo. The guitar is stated that it is for sale to the public in the "Synyster Gates" Article. I just thought that this should be added for research purposes and informational. If I created the wrong type of article Im sorry, im new to wiki articles and when i clicked on the link to his notable instruments it leads back to the manufacturer's page and not the guitar itself. I though it would be useful to put this in because if i go to another artist and click on their notable instrument links it brings up the page with the specifications on the guitar they play. But when you clicked on his it goes to the manufacturer instead of the instrument itself. so i thought putting this in would help others when they are looking at certain artist's instruments. Also I can see how it would look as if im just promoting the guitar, but no im not. I apologize on that too, cause i see how it would look as im just a fanboy. I just thought that it would be good to know about artist's instruments and gear, because like you said with the schecter page, it is hard to navigate and i know what you mean about promoting, but i would like to end up doing this for alot of artist's guitars/instruments if its allowed. Not just the synyster gates' article. Sorry for wasting the time on this.
SchecterSyn89 ( talk) 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You are just deleting other pages without having any beneficial contribution for Wikipedia, as you have done with page "SMEmail". It is a peer-reviewed protocol published by IEEE but you are deleting it without any understanding of such scientific material! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.65.2 ( talk) 06:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The next time you remove a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ( User talk: Miller111) 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You are correct on that point only, Largo. However, if you don't understand something, you shouldn't delete it because it neither benefits the scientific readers of Wikipedia nor Wikipedia itself. Leave the criticism of scientific pages to the people who are more versed on the topic of discourse. Furthermore, as is clearly evident from the comments exchanged between Largo and I, most of his scientific reasoning is fallacious. ( Flouran ( talk) 16:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
I agree with ( Flouran. I checked the contribtions of —Largo Plazo. It seems that Largo is the big killer of Wikipedia pages. He is deleting many pages from different aspects of Science. I do not think that he is really professional in all of subjects so he is deleting scientific issues without having any understanding of them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WMyers08 ( talk • contribs)
See Largo, ALL of your reasoning lacks substance, as do your arguments. You are accusing me of fallacious reasoning with no evidence! Most of my arguments are grounded in evidence! And it also seems that most of the contributions of Largo are DELETING people's pages!! Just look at the comments on his talk page! By the way, if you want us to stop commenting, then stop deleting scientific pages! Learn more science then judge! Besides, I at least have contributed to scientific and mathematical pages, you on the other hand, are DELETING them! ( Flouran ( talk) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
This user is used to delete the other pages while not providing any beneficial contribution for Wikipedia. Please consider the contributions of this user. It is full of deletions! He is deleting pages without having any understanding of scientific materials! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.65.6 ( talk) 12:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was constructive (think about it, most music nowadays is garbage), and thus I think it is a matter of opinion. However, I apologize if I have offended you. Furthermore, my intention was not to "bash" country music, it was to see for myself the reliability of Wikipedia. The fact that within 30 minutes my negative comment was deleted shows that Wikipedia should be considered as a reliable source.
Now, let me turn this back onto you, are you a casual contributing member of Wikipedia, or a full-time member of the staff?
You still have failed to answer my second question. Who are you with respect to Wikipedia (I really could care less who you are as an actual person or sentient being)? Also, who do you think you are to be calling shots? —flouran
Now, let's pretend I was truly seeking an ill-fate for Wikipedia. Couldn't I easily "revert" all of the pages to their initial states as stubs? I mean, Wikipedia is easy to screw with unfortunately. Hell, even if they block the IP of an abuser, that person can easily change his/her IP and do it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I do not think I am the first person who thought of this. In fact, I never insinuated that. Besides, the hacker can easily revert those pages back to their stubs. So essentially, they could go back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If you think that I would do such a thing, then you simply fail at life. Also, if I want to sign my talks I will, if I don't want to then I won't. It's as simple as that :). Have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to be superior to you in any way. There is no need for sarcasm here just because you feel intimidated but are ashamed to admit it. [User:Flouran|—Flouran]] ( talk)
Well, you would understand how I came to that conclusion if you learned to comprehend what you read. Since you have demonstrated sub par comprehension abilities, I will repeat it for you. I reached the conclusion because you used sarcasm. And, if you ever read any psychology, you realize that people use sarcasm when they have nothing else of substance to contend with their opponent (though I would not go as far as to consider you my opponent, since my intentions are not to perturb you). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not pop psychology. You should be more well-versed in a topic before making such premature assumptions.
You keep on making "do you think I haven't" statements, but you fail to realize that I can't read your mind! I am not different from anyone else, nor am I insinuating that. Furthermore, if you think my remarks are perturbing then just don't respond, and I won't either. Besides, it is YOUR choice to be perturbed by these remarks. Hint Hint, it's called free will, and that's something you don't need to read in a psychology book to find out.
It's so sad to see your lack of argumentative skills. So as not to embarrass you further, I will stop for your sake (but, if you respond, I would be more than happy to keep this going). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Kindly shut up then. :) ( Flouran ( talk) 16:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
I agree with merging the Tour Auto and Tour de France Automobile pages since it is basically the same event but only renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HHH1950 ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Your request for a 3rd opinion on Reggaeton is not valid because there are more than 2 editors involved. Try an RFC or appeal to the relevant Wiki-project. Also, you are at wp:3rr, so you shouldn't revert anymore or an admin could block you. NJGW ( talk) 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, as you can see I spend great deal of my valuable time developing this article about Neretva and entering the data and the informations, so I find offensive and inappropriate that you suddenly came and mess with it on such a scale, without any previous notice much less consultations (a same attitude you ask from others, right ?!). I don't believe that founders of Wikipedia and wikipedians in general, have on their mind that kind of (mis)conduct - situation where ona building something for a long time and other spoil it in a minutes while passing by. I am geographer-hydrologist with a special interest in environment and cultural and natural heritage, so rivers are my area of expertise, especially rivers of the Dinaric Alps. Having that in mind , I am pretty sure that article I am involved with is and will be, more-less, within wikipedia rules, readable and engaging. There are many issues that I, sometimes, realy struggling with - wikipedia form, English gramar, etc., but I expect that, anyone who want to improve this article, should send a suggestion and try to consult with "author" prior of any considerable changes or corrections. Not to mention that article development is stil in progress, far from finished, and that your sudden interference is REALLY source of a serious difficulties and complications for me (I, also, stealing a time in a attempt to make some productive contribution to Wikipedia). Anyway, I have a lots of work on this article and I intend to finish it, also I want to make it part of the larger whole, project and/or portal that deal with rivers of Bosnia and Herzegovina and/or Dinaric Alps and/or geography of that region in general, etc. PLEASE consider future consultations instead of unilateral action.-- Santasa99 ( talk) 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I must add that I appreciate some of your corrections (considering some English grammar and few really constructive changes) but also frustrated and infuriated with other.
Thank you for your consideration and thoughtfulness-- Santasa99 ( talk) 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
NO its NOT only but it is UNIQUE - you are uniqly beautifull person yet one of 7 billion.-- Santasa99 ( talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I put the word Author under "", so it is an indication that I understand that there is NO ownership but still one who wright something is author, even if bad one. I kknow that your involvment in this case don't imply that you have something against me personally. I also made obvious that I appreciate your corrections considering grammar etc. but that if you really think that article is more like magazine than enciclopedia article than you should review a great numbere of similar articles about rivers on wikipedia, wher "authors" trying to wright less dry text and just a little bit more graphic. As I said my intention is to make article part of the larger whole - about Dinaric Alps watershed and freshwater. I don't know if that is what I really want anymore because I don't have time to spend in vain - you have more excuses (about rules, rights) than I have time. One more thing, prior to making changes on "scenic" you suggested need to make references on "fact" that river is beautiful - if you find a way to prove or more objectively tell that something is uniquely beautiful please let me know. I thought that few pictures can provide an insight and evidence of river beauty.
Also, its strange how one EDITOR thinks that some part should be removed, while other editor don't mind or even thinks that it is a nice way to start, etc. Well are you right or this other guy, which of you is more sensible, brighter and knowledgable.-- Santasa99 ( talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
wiktionary}}
also, and are categorized roughly appropriately.SimonTrew ( talk) 23:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, just to let you know, I've removed the speedy deletion tag you've placed at Dropped a bag of corn solely because it's currently at AfD. I expect it will be deleted either way, anyways, but your edit came afterwards. Regards, Jd027 ( talk) 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
hello and thank you for the comment I' am new to this and I appreciate any comments, I just followed the format before me and added things I thought needed to be there feel free to revise my work and I will follow the guide lines much more closely Thank you for your consideration
Jason Toth —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Toth2173 (
talk •
contribs)
03:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
hello and thank you for the comment I' am new to this and I appreciate any comments, I just followed the format before me and added things I thought needed to be there feel free to revise my work and I will follow the guide lines much more closely Thank you for your efforts Jason Toth Toth2173 ( talk) 03:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
... IS something, obviously, impossible to argue with you(!) - YES, despite what you might think or know about, it is pretty REMARKABLE in its crastic uniqueness, diversity and even beauty. Also so remarkably different, as much as it can be one crastic river from another, it is even more different from all other types of watersheds and its geo-morphology and hydrology. But, how can one argue about those things when you are an expert, probably, in any field of science and language/semantic, as well as in geology of the fuckin' UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL PHENOMENON called CRASTIC or DINARIC ALPS of Balkan peninsula. Following that line of thinking someone need to inform all those geologist and hydrologist (I am one of them) to review their way of expressing them selfs and who are they, after all, when use that kind of language to describe their hard work and experience. Don't worry I will obey your strange interpretation of the wikipedia rules and even more weird explanation (known in English as oxymoron)(I am sick and tired of mediocrities and self serving, narcissistic ego-maniacs) and I wont bother you with referring you to some dictionaries or unnecessary geological surveys or even wikipedia articles with a same "problem" - their usage of that unnecessary and stupid (unique) word in describing physical facts is, simply, unexplainable and, well, unnecessary. -- Santasa99 ( talk) 07:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
First it wouldn't hurt to wright these answers to my talk page (so that I can see it) and second I truly apologize, but I still think that you take much more freedom when you interpreting meaning, consistency, substance and/or subject matter (etc.), then you should according to your editor prerogative (or admin ?). And now, please, let us review these "subjective opinions", "travelogue" and "personal admiration" of some expert writings on web sites of choice (as if you don't know how or can't find for yourself or as if you are interested at all):
-- GEF Project on address : http://dinaric.iwlearn.org/ ; home page contain following text: "The Dinaric Karst Aquifer System, shared by several countries and one of the world’s largest, has been identified as an ideal opportunity for applying new and integrated management approaches to these unique freshwater resources and ecosystems." ; -- Dinaric Karst Transboundary Aquifer System Project on following address : http://www.isarm.net/publications/277 ; project description say something like "...protect the UNIQUE groundwater dependent ecosystems that characterize the Dinaric Karst region of the Balkan peninsula." ; - WaterWiki - Dinaric Karst Aquifer System on address : http://waterwiki.net/index.php/Protection_and_Sustainable_Use_of_the_Dinaric_Karst_Aquifer_System ; follow the same project but contain some interesting links, mostly referring to the same "unique" characteristic of dinaric region and its rivers ; -- and last but not least in this small disagreement of ours - actually THIS one is my FAVORITE 'cause its concerning an ENCYCLOPEDIA - moreover BRITANICA, which stated : "In addition to areas of fluviokarst, doline karst, and pavement karst, the karst of the Dinaric Alps region is UNIQUE for its large number of landscapes...etc." ;
Now, you can always find new explanation or another reason to say something about use of the word "unique", but it's absolutely unnecessary because, nor I wanted to express my feelings, neither to use the word attributively as adjective or adverbs of degree - it's simply a fact, the UNIQUE geological, hydrological and ecological feature of particular geographical area, habitat, environment, surroundings and/or refuge, yet diverse within.
Should I mention en.wikipedia.org articles : Lord Howe Island, Franklin B. Sprague, List of national parks of Thailand, Yankee Springs Recreation Area, ... and some 5oo to thousand articles on a search frase "unique beauty" - You must try, you will get mostly references to landscape and geographical features. I prefer this one : Rupal Peak article that begin with Despite its unique beauty, steep north face and impressive height, Rupal is greatly overshadowed by Nanga Parbat, ...-- Santasa99 ( talk) 18:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Can't you read ?! IT'S UNIQUE (geological) PHENOMENON , you &%$#*?$%#&= !!! (most of the time in nature, if something is unique geologically or hydrologically, it MUST be beautiful too !) But much more impolite and brattish then your ignorance and this petty power-and-control exercise, is your selective argumentation, exactly what I referred to in my really rude answer earlier, for what I made my apology (that I now withdrawing). You are an arrogant, absorbed with self-importance and presumptuous and brassy person, when you selectively decide to use and manipulate with more manageable and corresponding argument of those I presented. You first argue that this (Wikipedia) isn't a travel magazine but encyclopedia, and when I presented you with, let's see, an example in (probably) most important and surely most famous ENCYCLOPEDIA on the world (Encyclopaedia Britannica) you turn to some other explanations, in this case you take my example again but less important one (what I really assume, I knew that this will happen). And who knows, maybe, If you read as you write-spell then I understand a nature of this stupid correspondence. And, by the way, you are not admin, right, just editor ?-- Santasa99 ( talk) 05:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've no idea what you are talking about.-- hnnvansier ( talk) 01:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Astrigawood, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrigawood. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you have deleted my contribution about Mala and asked me to redirect it onto the plasticine page. Clearly you are not Irish. Had you been educated in Ireland you would realise the cultural importance and nostalgia it holds for many generations and I feel that warrants it having its own page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cath9841 ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. In a way you are right, I am still trying to figure out the right wording for the article. It may sound simplistic to say but it is true that unless you grew up in Ireland you cannot understand the significance of mala. I will try reword it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cath9841 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Largoplazo,
I see you have transwiki'd that to Wiktionary. I've no problem with that (as the author of the article), but I am not au fait with Wiktionary and don't want to learn lots of new rules right now. It looks OK on Wiktionary except we have lost the references. If it is possile to translate the references (I assume etymology, or at least citations, are encouraged on Wiktionary-- they are in the OED) then I am fine with it. It might mean shortening the definition. Should I put { { holdon } } while I have another go? I don't want to set the clock running again just rejig it a bit to make it more suitable for a dictionary entry.
Also probably need to note license/license spelling difference.
Thanks SimonTrew ( talk) 17:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
What are you talking about? I've never made a redirect under 'Devil's Dumplings'. -- Heslopian ( talk) 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what the policy is regarding that. I've unblock Somody now, so that shouldn't be an issue. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't clear about which article was previously deleted. Todd Sines was deleted, and the new article is Todd sines.
16:06, June 26, 2006 RasputinAXP (Talk | contribs) deleted "Todd Sines" (nn bio)
(Also, it appears Todd sines has now been deleted.) -- smurdah citation needed 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey
Could you make my citation on this page work please, and maybe show me how so that i can make a citation again.
Thanks Chris0693 ( talk) 17:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I Think I Understand Now Chris0693 ( talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
How can I be warded a Barn Star.
-- Christian P. ( talk) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just another quick question. Do you know how often each country is updated on Google Earth?
Chris0693 ( talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
R u an online moderator or something for wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swim28.44 ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
so only admins can propose deletion for articles??? -- Swim28.44 ( talk) 02:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)swim28.44
The page was deleted?? With no reasonable excuse?? So how do you keep a page on the Wiki without some faceless cretin deleting it just because they've never heard of the person involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel best ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thasnk for your note. Fixing now. Rich Farmbrough 16:47 30 January 2009 (UTC).
Yes you're right, thank you for reminding me. It had been a while since I last edited wikipedia and I guess my grasp of policy has been slipping. Anyway yeah, I'll keep that in mind next time. Thanks again for informing me.-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions| Guest) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Long feng zhi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long feng zhi. Thank you. Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Largo Plazo. The guitar is stated that it is for sale to the public in the "Synyster Gates" Article. I just thought that this should be added for research purposes and informational. If I created the wrong type of article Im sorry, im new to wiki articles and when i clicked on the link to his notable instruments it leads back to the manufacturer's page and not the guitar itself. I though it would be useful to put this in because if i go to another artist and click on their notable instrument links it brings up the page with the specifications on the guitar they play. But when you clicked on his it goes to the manufacturer instead of the instrument itself. so i thought putting this in would help others when they are looking at certain artist's instruments. Also I can see how it would look as if im just promoting the guitar, but no im not. I apologize on that too, cause i see how it would look as im just a fanboy. I just thought that it would be good to know about artist's instruments and gear, because like you said with the schecter page, it is hard to navigate and i know what you mean about promoting, but i would like to end up doing this for alot of artist's guitars/instruments if its allowed. Not just the synyster gates' article. Sorry for wasting the time on this.
SchecterSyn89 ( talk) 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You are just deleting other pages without having any beneficial contribution for Wikipedia, as you have done with page "SMEmail". It is a peer-reviewed protocol published by IEEE but you are deleting it without any understanding of such scientific material! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.65.2 ( talk) 06:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The next time you remove a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ( User talk: Miller111) 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You are correct on that point only, Largo. However, if you don't understand something, you shouldn't delete it because it neither benefits the scientific readers of Wikipedia nor Wikipedia itself. Leave the criticism of scientific pages to the people who are more versed on the topic of discourse. Furthermore, as is clearly evident from the comments exchanged between Largo and I, most of his scientific reasoning is fallacious. ( Flouran ( talk) 16:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
I agree with ( Flouran. I checked the contribtions of —Largo Plazo. It seems that Largo is the big killer of Wikipedia pages. He is deleting many pages from different aspects of Science. I do not think that he is really professional in all of subjects so he is deleting scientific issues without having any understanding of them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WMyers08 ( talk • contribs)
See Largo, ALL of your reasoning lacks substance, as do your arguments. You are accusing me of fallacious reasoning with no evidence! Most of my arguments are grounded in evidence! And it also seems that most of the contributions of Largo are DELETING people's pages!! Just look at the comments on his talk page! By the way, if you want us to stop commenting, then stop deleting scientific pages! Learn more science then judge! Besides, I at least have contributed to scientific and mathematical pages, you on the other hand, are DELETING them! ( Flouran ( talk) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
This user is used to delete the other pages while not providing any beneficial contribution for Wikipedia. Please consider the contributions of this user. It is full of deletions! He is deleting pages without having any understanding of scientific materials! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.65.6 ( talk) 12:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was constructive (think about it, most music nowadays is garbage), and thus I think it is a matter of opinion. However, I apologize if I have offended you. Furthermore, my intention was not to "bash" country music, it was to see for myself the reliability of Wikipedia. The fact that within 30 minutes my negative comment was deleted shows that Wikipedia should be considered as a reliable source.
Now, let me turn this back onto you, are you a casual contributing member of Wikipedia, or a full-time member of the staff?
You still have failed to answer my second question. Who are you with respect to Wikipedia (I really could care less who you are as an actual person or sentient being)? Also, who do you think you are to be calling shots? —flouran
Now, let's pretend I was truly seeking an ill-fate for Wikipedia. Couldn't I easily "revert" all of the pages to their initial states as stubs? I mean, Wikipedia is easy to screw with unfortunately. Hell, even if they block the IP of an abuser, that person can easily change his/her IP and do it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I do not think I am the first person who thought of this. In fact, I never insinuated that. Besides, the hacker can easily revert those pages back to their stubs. So essentially, they could go back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If you think that I would do such a thing, then you simply fail at life. Also, if I want to sign my talks I will, if I don't want to then I won't. It's as simple as that :). Have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to be superior to you in any way. There is no need for sarcasm here just because you feel intimidated but are ashamed to admit it. [User:Flouran|—Flouran]] ( talk)
Well, you would understand how I came to that conclusion if you learned to comprehend what you read. Since you have demonstrated sub par comprehension abilities, I will repeat it for you. I reached the conclusion because you used sarcasm. And, if you ever read any psychology, you realize that people use sarcasm when they have nothing else of substance to contend with their opponent (though I would not go as far as to consider you my opponent, since my intentions are not to perturb you). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not pop psychology. You should be more well-versed in a topic before making such premature assumptions.
You keep on making "do you think I haven't" statements, but you fail to realize that I can't read your mind! I am not different from anyone else, nor am I insinuating that. Furthermore, if you think my remarks are perturbing then just don't respond, and I won't either. Besides, it is YOUR choice to be perturbed by these remarks. Hint Hint, it's called free will, and that's something you don't need to read in a psychology book to find out.
It's so sad to see your lack of argumentative skills. So as not to embarrass you further, I will stop for your sake (but, if you respond, I would be more than happy to keep this going). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flouran ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Kindly shut up then. :) ( Flouran ( talk) 16:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
I agree with merging the Tour Auto and Tour de France Automobile pages since it is basically the same event but only renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HHH1950 ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Your request for a 3rd opinion on Reggaeton is not valid because there are more than 2 editors involved. Try an RFC or appeal to the relevant Wiki-project. Also, you are at wp:3rr, so you shouldn't revert anymore or an admin could block you. NJGW ( talk) 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, as you can see I spend great deal of my valuable time developing this article about Neretva and entering the data and the informations, so I find offensive and inappropriate that you suddenly came and mess with it on such a scale, without any previous notice much less consultations (a same attitude you ask from others, right ?!). I don't believe that founders of Wikipedia and wikipedians in general, have on their mind that kind of (mis)conduct - situation where ona building something for a long time and other spoil it in a minutes while passing by. I am geographer-hydrologist with a special interest in environment and cultural and natural heritage, so rivers are my area of expertise, especially rivers of the Dinaric Alps. Having that in mind , I am pretty sure that article I am involved with is and will be, more-less, within wikipedia rules, readable and engaging. There are many issues that I, sometimes, realy struggling with - wikipedia form, English gramar, etc., but I expect that, anyone who want to improve this article, should send a suggestion and try to consult with "author" prior of any considerable changes or corrections. Not to mention that article development is stil in progress, far from finished, and that your sudden interference is REALLY source of a serious difficulties and complications for me (I, also, stealing a time in a attempt to make some productive contribution to Wikipedia). Anyway, I have a lots of work on this article and I intend to finish it, also I want to make it part of the larger whole, project and/or portal that deal with rivers of Bosnia and Herzegovina and/or Dinaric Alps and/or geography of that region in general, etc. PLEASE consider future consultations instead of unilateral action.-- Santasa99 ( talk) 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I must add that I appreciate some of your corrections (considering some English grammar and few really constructive changes) but also frustrated and infuriated with other.
Thank you for your consideration and thoughtfulness-- Santasa99 ( talk) 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
NO its NOT only but it is UNIQUE - you are uniqly beautifull person yet one of 7 billion.-- Santasa99 ( talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I put the word Author under "", so it is an indication that I understand that there is NO ownership but still one who wright something is author, even if bad one. I kknow that your involvment in this case don't imply that you have something against me personally. I also made obvious that I appreciate your corrections considering grammar etc. but that if you really think that article is more like magazine than enciclopedia article than you should review a great numbere of similar articles about rivers on wikipedia, wher "authors" trying to wright less dry text and just a little bit more graphic. As I said my intention is to make article part of the larger whole - about Dinaric Alps watershed and freshwater. I don't know if that is what I really want anymore because I don't have time to spend in vain - you have more excuses (about rules, rights) than I have time. One more thing, prior to making changes on "scenic" you suggested need to make references on "fact" that river is beautiful - if you find a way to prove or more objectively tell that something is uniquely beautiful please let me know. I thought that few pictures can provide an insight and evidence of river beauty.
Also, its strange how one EDITOR thinks that some part should be removed, while other editor don't mind or even thinks that it is a nice way to start, etc. Well are you right or this other guy, which of you is more sensible, brighter and knowledgable.-- Santasa99 ( talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
wiktionary}}
also, and are categorized roughly appropriately.SimonTrew ( talk) 23:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, just to let you know, I've removed the speedy deletion tag you've placed at Dropped a bag of corn solely because it's currently at AfD. I expect it will be deleted either way, anyways, but your edit came afterwards. Regards, Jd027 ( talk) 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
hello and thank you for the comment I' am new to this and I appreciate any comments, I just followed the format before me and added things I thought needed to be there feel free to revise my work and I will follow the guide lines much more closely Thank you for your consideration
Jason Toth —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Toth2173 (
talk •
contribs)
03:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
hello and thank you for the comment I' am new to this and I appreciate any comments, I just followed the format before me and added things I thought needed to be there feel free to revise my work and I will follow the guide lines much more closely Thank you for your efforts Jason Toth Toth2173 ( talk) 03:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
... IS something, obviously, impossible to argue with you(!) - YES, despite what you might think or know about, it is pretty REMARKABLE in its crastic uniqueness, diversity and even beauty. Also so remarkably different, as much as it can be one crastic river from another, it is even more different from all other types of watersheds and its geo-morphology and hydrology. But, how can one argue about those things when you are an expert, probably, in any field of science and language/semantic, as well as in geology of the fuckin' UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL PHENOMENON called CRASTIC or DINARIC ALPS of Balkan peninsula. Following that line of thinking someone need to inform all those geologist and hydrologist (I am one of them) to review their way of expressing them selfs and who are they, after all, when use that kind of language to describe their hard work and experience. Don't worry I will obey your strange interpretation of the wikipedia rules and even more weird explanation (known in English as oxymoron)(I am sick and tired of mediocrities and self serving, narcissistic ego-maniacs) and I wont bother you with referring you to some dictionaries or unnecessary geological surveys or even wikipedia articles with a same "problem" - their usage of that unnecessary and stupid (unique) word in describing physical facts is, simply, unexplainable and, well, unnecessary. -- Santasa99 ( talk) 07:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
First it wouldn't hurt to wright these answers to my talk page (so that I can see it) and second I truly apologize, but I still think that you take much more freedom when you interpreting meaning, consistency, substance and/or subject matter (etc.), then you should according to your editor prerogative (or admin ?). And now, please, let us review these "subjective opinions", "travelogue" and "personal admiration" of some expert writings on web sites of choice (as if you don't know how or can't find for yourself or as if you are interested at all):
-- GEF Project on address : http://dinaric.iwlearn.org/ ; home page contain following text: "The Dinaric Karst Aquifer System, shared by several countries and one of the world’s largest, has been identified as an ideal opportunity for applying new and integrated management approaches to these unique freshwater resources and ecosystems." ; -- Dinaric Karst Transboundary Aquifer System Project on following address : http://www.isarm.net/publications/277 ; project description say something like "...protect the UNIQUE groundwater dependent ecosystems that characterize the Dinaric Karst region of the Balkan peninsula." ; - WaterWiki - Dinaric Karst Aquifer System on address : http://waterwiki.net/index.php/Protection_and_Sustainable_Use_of_the_Dinaric_Karst_Aquifer_System ; follow the same project but contain some interesting links, mostly referring to the same "unique" characteristic of dinaric region and its rivers ; -- and last but not least in this small disagreement of ours - actually THIS one is my FAVORITE 'cause its concerning an ENCYCLOPEDIA - moreover BRITANICA, which stated : "In addition to areas of fluviokarst, doline karst, and pavement karst, the karst of the Dinaric Alps region is UNIQUE for its large number of landscapes...etc." ;
Now, you can always find new explanation or another reason to say something about use of the word "unique", but it's absolutely unnecessary because, nor I wanted to express my feelings, neither to use the word attributively as adjective or adverbs of degree - it's simply a fact, the UNIQUE geological, hydrological and ecological feature of particular geographical area, habitat, environment, surroundings and/or refuge, yet diverse within.
Should I mention en.wikipedia.org articles : Lord Howe Island, Franklin B. Sprague, List of national parks of Thailand, Yankee Springs Recreation Area, ... and some 5oo to thousand articles on a search frase "unique beauty" - You must try, you will get mostly references to landscape and geographical features. I prefer this one : Rupal Peak article that begin with Despite its unique beauty, steep north face and impressive height, Rupal is greatly overshadowed by Nanga Parbat, ...-- Santasa99 ( talk) 18:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Can't you read ?! IT'S UNIQUE (geological) PHENOMENON , you &%$#*?$%#&= !!! (most of the time in nature, if something is unique geologically or hydrologically, it MUST be beautiful too !) But much more impolite and brattish then your ignorance and this petty power-and-control exercise, is your selective argumentation, exactly what I referred to in my really rude answer earlier, for what I made my apology (that I now withdrawing). You are an arrogant, absorbed with self-importance and presumptuous and brassy person, when you selectively decide to use and manipulate with more manageable and corresponding argument of those I presented. You first argue that this (Wikipedia) isn't a travel magazine but encyclopedia, and when I presented you with, let's see, an example in (probably) most important and surely most famous ENCYCLOPEDIA on the world (Encyclopaedia Britannica) you turn to some other explanations, in this case you take my example again but less important one (what I really assume, I knew that this will happen). And who knows, maybe, If you read as you write-spell then I understand a nature of this stupid correspondence. And, by the way, you are not admin, right, just editor ?-- Santasa99 ( talk) 05:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've no idea what you are talking about.-- hnnvansier ( talk) 01:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Astrigawood, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrigawood. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you have deleted my contribution about Mala and asked me to redirect it onto the plasticine page. Clearly you are not Irish. Had you been educated in Ireland you would realise the cultural importance and nostalgia it holds for many generations and I feel that warrants it having its own page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cath9841 ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. In a way you are right, I am still trying to figure out the right wording for the article. It may sound simplistic to say but it is true that unless you grew up in Ireland you cannot understand the significance of mala. I will try reword it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cath9841 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Largoplazo,
I see you have transwiki'd that to Wiktionary. I've no problem with that (as the author of the article), but I am not au fait with Wiktionary and don't want to learn lots of new rules right now. It looks OK on Wiktionary except we have lost the references. If it is possile to translate the references (I assume etymology, or at least citations, are encouraged on Wiktionary-- they are in the OED) then I am fine with it. It might mean shortening the definition. Should I put { { holdon } } while I have another go? I don't want to set the clock running again just rejig it a bit to make it more suitable for a dictionary entry.
Also probably need to note license/license spelling difference.
Thanks SimonTrew ( talk) 17:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)