This page 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. |
You can leave messages for me in this section. Hghyux ( talk) 18:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Hghyux: thank you for your note, advise and the good interpretation on the Abiogenesis talk page. Your comment: There is a fine line between having knowledge vs. a conflict of interest. It is most certainly not vandalism because it seems to be done in good faith. You don't need to go to the talk page to edit if you don't feel it's neccesary. My guess is he saw the article, put his stuff in, and thought he improved the article. is highly appreciated and it reflects exactly my intent. I will be in contact with Armen Mulkidjanian and coordinate further procedure. Response times will not be as fast as by e-mail or Facebook-Twitter etc as we have other things to do as well. Thus, thank you again for assist - with best regards, Dirk Lankenau-- Lankenau ( talk) 18:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
concerning your note 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC) under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lankenau on "abiogensis"
Dear Hghyux - editing and constructive comments by Wiki-editors are always appreciated. However, just deleting a published and world-wide well recognized issue (i.e. Zn-world theory and colaterally published material including the references of peer reviewed journals and books) without talking to us as responsible Wiki-editors (i.e. Prof. Armen Mulkidjanian and me)is, in our eyes, an act of vandalism. Prof. Mulkidjanian is a highly respected specialist on the scientific issues of the Zn-world and everything added to the Wikipedia site was published in peer reviewed journals and books. Only published material was included in the entry to the Wikipedia article (please, check it out...) and the references were cited. I am the editor in chief of the Springer book series Genome Dynamics and Stability. A recent book co-edited by Prof. Mulkidjanian and me is entitled " Origins of Life: The Primal Self Organization". The book was peer-reviewed as well, with each article reviewed by at least three specialists. Prof. Mulkidjanian and I are working on an additional book related to the issue. In this context we discussed, how to improve the Wiki-abiogenesis article in order to update and make it a generally more usefull information for Wikipedia. We respectfully do not intend any harm to the Wiki-article and we were carefull in re-assembling the paragraphs and put them in less conflicting order (not yet sent to Wiki as we had to probe Wiki first). Not much is intended to be deleted.
We came to the following conclusion: Apparently, numerous hypotheses on the origin of life can be separated into two groups, namely 1. the models that suggest experimental testing and that are, actually, experimentally tested, and 2. the models that either do not suggest any experimental testing or which suggest such testing but have been never tested from some reasons. The first group of models we suggest to gather under the title "Current models" whereas the second, large group of models would go under the title "Other models". We think that the criterium of testability is scientifically reasonale and fair; it should be explicitely and clearly introduced into the text of the article. In addition, it might be useful to mention results of experimental tests in each relevant case. References would be added. The models of Wächtershauser and Russell, as well as the Zn world model, are currently under experimental testing; since each of these models captures some facets of real biogeochemistry, some positive results have been reported in each case. In fact, not all scientifically testable scenarios are mentioned in Wikipedia. For example there is a new and very promising "Formamide World" concept of Saladino and Di Mauro that is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article. We would be willing to write a respective section. Another section on top-down (anthropic principle) and bottom-up approaches would be added as well.
For doing all this, we would not be willing to fight deletions again of the sort encountered this morning. However, we may need some time and are not ready to engage in any shadow-boxing type discussions. Otherwise we may drop out instantly. Technical assistence from your side would be highly appreciated, as we are not well self-trained Wikipedians.
with best regards, Dirk Lankenau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankenau ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hghyux, I hope you don't mind, but I've removed your speedy deletion tag from Christopher Meneses. According to the article this chap has played four times for his country, and that makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope I don't mind. Sorry for causing confusion. Hghyux ( talk) 00:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, why don't you create a page about me then. Scott Hiers. ( Bogart57 ( talk) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC))
I left a message on your page explaining why you can't do that. Hghyux ( talk) 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Why did you contest my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by STATiKC ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't comply with WP:NOTABILITY Hghyux ( talk) 01:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a first time article ... still gathering citations etc ... is there away to take the page off into a saved mode whilst this is worked on so that it does not show up and therefor does not get preemptively deleted?
I am currently undertaking to chronicle groups that existed in the Australian music scene that had significant bodies of work however their contributions have been lost in being out of press and disbanded etc
I appreciate you patience in this matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmchron ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Use the {{new page}} tag to prevent this.. Hghyux ( talk) 01:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
...at AIV. I'll even watch him until someone takes care of him. Calabe 1992 02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry, if that was too intense. Hghyux ( talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
is meant solely for gibberish and incomprehensible text; which this was not. Please read and understand Wikipedia:CSD#G1 before making further speedy deletion requests under that criterion. Thank you for patrolling new pages, by the way. CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 04:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I am by no means trying to cause harm. I am just trying to help out. I make mistakes sometimes, and have read the rules. I removed your earlier notice because I did not feel it needed to stay. If you wish for me to restore it, then by all means I will. Most of the pages I tag end up getting deleted. Those that don't I apologize for the inconvenience. I joined about a month ago and am still trying to familiarize myself with everything. I will do my very best in the future to appropriate taggings. Hghyux ( talk) 13:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hghyux, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Teremoana Atai, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. B music ian 04:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
There was absolutely no significant content on that page, and it did end up getting deleted. Hghyux ( talk) 13:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi hghyux,
I created an article based on an ERP solution that is well established in Malaysia. I did not do it for advertisement purposes but to educate people especially ERP users locally and globally about key factors in deciding to purchase an ERP solution for their respective businesses.
I should have created a draft before saving it to wiki but i'm new so i didnt know the rules...
Hope u can remove the tag so that I can re-create the article together with references...
Thank you
Planetsoft95 ( talk) 07:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but "educating others wanting to purchase your product." is just another form of advertising in my opinion. Hghyux ( talk) 17:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit is a subject of some concern and I've been asked to look into it. This may be an issue of someone's personal safety, so please hold off on it for now.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh my gosh! I had no idea! I will stay very far away from there Hghyux ( talk) 18:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually kind of worried I hope I didn't do anything too harmful. Hghyux ( talk) 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Whew. Thanks. I will be sure to stay away. Hghyux ( talk) 13:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Blatantly copy/pasting a userspace draft which was rejected at AFC, adding a few extra lines, posting it to mainspace AFTER it was rejected at AfC and not notifying the user who created the draft about any of this so that they can find out when the pirated mainspace article comes up for deletion is a VERY BAD thing! If you do that again you could find yourself blocked VERY quickly! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I DID notify you before it got rejected. Look at your talkpage. Hghyux ( talk) 19:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editors you reported may not have engaged in sufficient recent vandalism, or the users had not been sufficiently or appropriately warned. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. EyeSerene talk 09:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 18:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry I got a bit hot under the collar with your copy/paste move. As I am sure you are aware the discussion on ANI that was moved to my talk page has confirmed that the Creative Commons license means that AS LONG AS ATTRIBUTION IS PROVIDED to the original source you are free to do as you please. Please note that copy/paste moves do not provide attribution as the history is not retained. As such unless you provide proper attribution using the {{ copied}} template on the talk page the moved article is in violation of the original author's copyright. Repeated copy/paste moves without attribution usually result in you being blocked. If you want to move a page in the future please use the move function to avoid violating someone's copyright. That being said if an article is under AfC review it generally should NOT be moved until the review is completed with a positive outcome. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup, I heard. I watched the conversation go down, but thanks for letting me know :) Hghyux ( talk) 21:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Hghyux, Sorry to bring this to your attention, but I noticed this via the help desk, and have left a reply as the user is actually talking about me. I have provided factual diff evidence to show who is the real victim and who is the actual attacker in all of this. I fear that the user may now be trying to pull the wool over people's eyes to cover themselves up from their web of lies. Sincere regards Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hghyux. I write to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an involving 123o ( talk · contribs); in which I classified yourself as a witness. Wesley ☀ Mouse 02:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Everyone has good days and bad days, and some people only have good days when they make others have a bad day. Try and ignore the troublemakers or just outsmart them. Have a cookie! Jenova 20 15:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
I would like to request a review on my last edit. I added a support group website, it was not a 12 step website like the listings just below it so I added a new section rather than adding it to the 12 step website list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonemarketing ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for being an excellent Wiki-Angel, keep up the good work in helping other Wikipedians. Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Hghyux! It is great to see that your doing anti-vandal work - it is difficult to keep on top of the problem, so having people like you around to help out is terrific. However, it seems you may have been a tad over-zealous in your warnings. As a general rule, it is best to start from a level one warning and work up, as it has to be something extremely serious before we jump to a final warning for a first offence. There's always a chance that a simpler warning will turn an editor into one of the good guys, or that they always were editing in good faith but just made an error. Similarly, once someone has been warned for a mistake, we don't need to warn them again unless they make it a second time. With User:Bonemarketing, the user had only made one edit, for which they were warned by Secretlondon. You then warned them three more times for the same edit, including a final warning - the first was sufficient, and it feels bitey to have done so more than once. Unfortunately, the same happened in a couple of other cases - it is great that you wish to warn users, but it is worth checking to see if they've already been warned first. - Bilby ( talk) 03:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that user:TheREALCableGuy is back using a new IP to circumvent a block. I have been editing the NOLA TV wiki pages for consistency lately and suddenly this new user:152.43.1.244 is foolishly editing (vandalizng) again. Please see WDSU. If you concur that this is sockpuppetry, can you help with a block or ban? I am just an editor and am not schooled in enforcing wiki policy. I think I have added appropriate tags to the relevant pages. Thanks. Sore bluto ( talk) 17:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
How was that vandalism? The reference does not state ANYTHING about iHalloween Party in Jennette's tweet. - Alec2011 ( talk) 00:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
For future reference, how do you type this in the Edit Summary? Reverted 1 edit by Alec2011 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Miguel1369. (TW) ---- like where it links my name and the "TW - Twinkle" in the Edit Summary?
Hallows Aktiengesellschaft ( talk) 01:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your great work patrolling new pages, especially for your WP:CSD nominations. Shirt58 ( talk) 10:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hey, Hghyux. I suggest that it may possibly be a good idea to check a bit before removing or tagging text or edits? I can see we have got into a little bit of a fuddle here. These things happen. Please, please don't let this put you off continuing to improve the Wikipedia project. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hghyux, meanwhile I got informed about a couple of expert-things: WP:EXPERT. So, thank you for the cooky - no problem. When scientific papers are peer-reviewed the tone is sometimes really tough in detail. So I got kind of used to it over the years as author and editor. But with Wikipedia it is more tricky, as so many people are involved. Best greetings, the cooky was delicious, Dirk. -- Lankenau ( talk) 17:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On what grounds do you consider that a listed building should be speedily deleted? As a matter of interest, this is the penultimate article to complete articles on all the listed churches in Cheshire; I suggest that more editors could follow this example rather than writing about such evanescent topics as the episodes of the Simpsons, or some pop song? This is about our threatened heritage, which should be preserved for our successors. Don't bother about a {{tb}} notice; I'm watching you. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 19:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hghyux, an article that states a building is a listed building is making a claim of notability. Just as a song that says it is "Grammy winning" has made a claim of notability. If someone doesn't know music, and speedy-tagged a grammy-winning song, it would look a little silly to say "why didn't you come out and say the song was notable?" Also, on a more general note, it is often wise to (a) not nominate a page for deletion if it is outside your area of expertise, and (b) check who created an article you're about to tag for speedy deletion. People that have been here a lot longer than you can probably be assumed to know what they're doing. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC) I endorse everything said above by Peter, Malleus, J3Mrs and Floquenbeam. Tagging an article in an area you didn't understand two minutes after its creation was an utterly ridiculous decision. You simply cannot have read the article; if you did, you clearly need to slow down on your speedy deletion tagging and remind yourself of the criteria.
Bencherlite
Talk 19:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
A1 reads "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". This article doesn't fall under A1! The context is 100% defined: an actress from Greece. The interwiki link to a lengthy shows importance in other projects. Worst case: you could tag for A7. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You have spent 7 minutes of your time* to request speedy deletions on three different articles, two of which I have contested, and simultaneously carried on a discussion on your talk page. You are obviously shooting in the dark without trying to investigate before you propose a deletion. Just for your information the article you so summarily nominated for a speedy deletion took me a couple of hours to write - and now I am forced to spend even more time trying to save this article from the Wikipedia guillotine, sigh... *19:35, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+3,057) . . N User talk:Cammander shepard (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Ambleside School of Ocala. (TW)) (top) 19:35, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+17) . . Ambleside School of Ocala (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW)) (top) 19:34, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+17) . . Rena Pagrati (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A1). (TW)) 19:34, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+2,216) . . User talk:Magioladitis (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Rena Pagrati. (TW)) 19:32, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+142) . . User talk:Hghyux (→St John the Evangelist's Church, Sandbach Heath) 19:29, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+116) . . User talk:Hghyux (→St John the Evangelist's Church, Sandbach Heath) 19:28, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+1,317) . . User talk:Ottawahitech (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Tax uncertainty. (TW)) 19:28, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+12) . . Tax uncertainty (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW)) Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hghyux. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Embrem Entertainment, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC) I just want to follow up on the now-closed ANI report, as I hope you don't mistake my comments for something contrary to their meaning. Understand that on your talkpage, "ignorance" was used appropriately, as per it's meaning - "unknowing". Yes, someone then added "American", which morphs into "ignorant American". This can either be an insult, or can be "unknowing American" ... which based on the entire series of conversations, is obvious what it was meaning...with of course the double entendre. Nobody deserves to be ridiculed or attacked, as per WP:NPA ... no matter what they did. However, based on the conversation you already had, you knew which was the true meaning of "ignorant" as per context, and that it meant "unknowing" with respect to class II buildings (which I know nothing about either, so I'm clearly an "ignorant Canadian"). What were you looking for in ANI ... a block? A warning? Drama? ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC) I was looking for a solution for my conflict. I was not looking for anything other than such. BTW I interpreted the phrase "ignorant American" as "dumb American" Hghyux ( talk to me)( talk to others) 00:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hghyux, I concur that "newbies" should be receptive to advice from "tenured" editors...but these tenured editors need to be reminded not to bite the newcomers. The article didn't get deleted afterall...I'm not enjoying seeing repeat wikilaywering about how calling someone an "ignorant American(s)" isn't a personal attack. It would be one thing to say something of the nature that a person is ignorant but add American to that and it becomes a ethnocentic and bigoted comment...I can understand of course why the editor of that page was miffed by the tagging of the article for deletion...but that doesn't mean the response from some needed to be what it was. Good luck to you.-- MONGO 05:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears you have enormous amounts of energy which up until now you have employed mainly to remove content donated to Wikipedia by others. I wonder if, instead, you would be interested in bringing back to life a wikiproject that seems to have lack of participants at the moment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites. I know this is a big undertaking and will understand if you have no desire to take on this challenge. Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC) After a long discussion over a little mistake that turned into an OMG Y DID U TAG THIS IT'S NOTABLE DUH! moment with incivil remarks, another ANI discussion, and a big waste of my time, I've decided to use my account now only for reading and fixing typos. This whole thing called Wikipedia is nothing but a bunch of users who seem to be a waste of time to the whole goal of the project. I started Wikipedia after noticing extremely shocking vandalism on an article. I wanted to help combat this so that the site would be a better place for readers. I now have understood that when I make a mistake, that it is treated worse than vandalism itself, which is something that I am tired of dealing with. I do not like being told to "fuck off" nor being called an "ignorant American" or being accused of "Article Piracy" or get pulled into an ANI discussion for trying to help another user, or even have to worry about "what will happen next". It has become clear that I am not welcome here. Sorry. I am now going to stop. Please do not continue to chastise me for my edits I'm just sick of it. If you think what's said on the Internet does not affect your real life, then you need to do lots more research BWilkins. Goodbye. Hghyux ( talk to me)( talk to others) 19:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to say that I noticed the bullying and uncivil treatment handed out to you and I made an attempt to call that editor out on his conduct. The support he received from his friends, and the threats they sent my way were quite an eye-opener. I was even told that my highlighting of his incivility was worse than his incivility towards you, something I find incredible, even though I teased him somewhat. It turns out that telling someone to fuck off on Wikipedia is not only tolerated by some, but supported, and the entire project is much the poorer for having these people involved. You made an unlucky mistake, but the drama that followed was a disgrace. All the best to you, Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey you started it so....
Hghyux (
talk to me)(
talk to others) 19:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Please review the documentation of the hat template, which is restricted to administrators. You may wish to use a combination of a collapse and archive, such as I have done on my talk page. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hg, I'm glad you decided to stick around.
I'm not sure that this [3] is good idea. Keeping lists of editors could be seen as a breach of user page guidelines which I would encourage you to read here [4]. It also sends out an unwelcome message to non-listed editors. You might find it difficult to get support in the way that several of us did the other day if you take such a hardline and highly visible stance. I completely disagreed with the way you were treated by the Admin. and said so in the ANI discussion. So have others, he was just plain out of order. However, he was right about something, the people who upset you and are out to upset other editors do not mean anything to you in real life. I think you will get better cooperation from the vast majority if you don't try to stick out like a sore thumb with this sort of talk page and the block list, which isn't really enforceable anyway in any practical sense. Regards. Leaky Caldron 16:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a word or three of moral support! I made a few goofs when I started doing new page patrol (I think we all do, when we start), but listening very carefully to other people's input (even when it seemed a bit harsh) got me through it OK. It's soooo damned easy to get into a long-running spat here in WikiLand, and it's never worth it! I know Malleus seems like the big bad bear sometimes(and he can certainly be very brusque), but despite what you may hear, he's actually helped out so many newbies to do so much good stuff, and it's one of the things which almost never gets said about him!
I gather you're probably fairly young (though I may be madly mistaken). I'm a granny myself, so off at the other end of the scale. When we're young, these things always seem so much worse, and so much more hurtful, than they need to be. I'm recovering from major surgery on my neck at the moment (only had the op on Tuesday), so I'm still a bit post-anaesthetic groggy. Please forgive me if I'm waffling! We all make stupid mistakes, I've made so many in my life that I've lost count of them! Your best bet is probably to hold up your hands and say exactly where you went wrong, offer a truce, try to make friends if you can with the people who you think of at the moment as "enemies", and kinda start over. If you'd like to get into writing articles and improving articles, (which I reckon you;d really enjoy once you got into it), then you couldn't ask for a better teacher than Malleus. See if you can think of an article which really interests you and needs improvement, and try asking Malleus if he'd mind showing you how to make it better. I know it sounds totally daft, but it might be the best possible thing to do. He loves to teach, and he really appreciates people who really want to learn to become good editors. See if you can get a bit fired-up about improving some articles, rather than just patrolling for vandalism – bring out the creative side of your personality. Cheers, Pesky ( talk) 09:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
To address his claims against me
-I am a graduate of Harvard. I have a PhD in medicine. I focus my career on biomedical research in Boston.
-I am not an "ignorant" American.
I am not interested in working with a user that has been blocked so much for incivility. I would rather be friends with someone who relates to me and doesn't clash with me.
Cheers to you too. Maybe something used in your surgery was something that me or another doctor at my work helped work on;) Hghyux ( talk to me)( talk to others) 01:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
But hey, you know, these things happen, and we can all choose not to have "permanent enemies" and so on. Enmity is such a destructive thing; we miss out on a lot. Malleus's block log includes some really, really bad (and totally unjustified) blocks, for things which nobody in their right mind could have considered blockworthy, and in some instances zapped out by people just wanting to shut up the opposition in a content dispute etc., and some by admins who have been desysopped (and / or banned), and so on. So the number of "honest blocks" is much, much lower than the block log might suggest. Gross injustice can happen here, too (and it does).
The ability to call a truce is one of the most mature abilities we humans have. But nobody can force a truce on someone else. At the moment I'm hardly touching article-space, other than fixing the odd typo in something I;m reading (mainly because I'm editing under the influence of either pain or painkillers, depending, and I'd rather not screw up an article!) So I'm focussing a bit on bridging the thought-processing gaps and communications gaps between autism-spectrum and neurotypical editors, doing a bit of policy discussion, and wishing my supraspinatus, trapezius, deltoid muscles etc. hadn't been so badly affected for so long by the nerve compression in my neck. They burn, now they're functioning again. 'Specially the supraspinatus, which had obviously lost most of its functionality. Pesky ( talk) 04:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Insights into other aspects of people are often enlightening. You might find this amusing, for instance. Pesky ( talk) 05:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
2. The article on listed buildings state the equivalent in the US is the National Register of Historic Places.
3. My belief is that trucing is in fact an immature act because it shows that you do not have the developmental ability to continue to stand your ground. Even if your wrong, for example, in my instance,
User 1: That deletion nomination was wrong!
User 2: I nominated it for (reason 1), (reason 2), and (reason 3).
User 1: Are you mental?
User 2: No.
User 1: Do you understand what (insert rule here) means/is?
User 2: No.
User 1: (TELLS USER 2 TO READ RULE)
User 2: TRUCE
Notice how User 2 seems much more open now to a "feeding frenzy" as I say from User 1's fancub.
4. Did you know about WP:DRUNK?
Anyways thanks for talking to me. I appreciate some civility on this site. Hghyux ( talk to me)( talk to others) 23:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I tend to believe that there's good in pretty much everyone, and if I can't see it, then it's my lack of perception which is at fault. (It's taken me decades to get to this stage!) As with every community, some people are more spiky than others, some take great offence at things which are just water off a duck's back to others, we all have glitches. Every single one of us has glitches. I've known horses worth over £1M which had more glitches than ones which sold for less than £10. With a £1M horse, people are prepared to put up with more glitches!
One of the biggest "barriers" to communication which we have on here is the multicultural thing; sometimes even though we speak the same language (well, almost) our understandings of the nuances of it are so wildly different that it would probably be better if we actually spoke different languages. Here in the UK, we chuck around words and phrases which carry much less weight than the exact same words and phrases do in other countries. This causes a heck of a lot of problems here in WikiLand. I wouldn't take offence at Malleus calling me a silly old cow, for example. (Though it would be different if someone with whom I'd had no previous interaction did the same thing, but even then I might shrug it off with a chuckle and a self-deprecating grin. I can be a silly old cow, though I do try not to be, most of the time!) To give an example of the lightness with which some words are used here in the UK, I used to hang out with a set which included various forms of aristocracy including a princess. And several times I heard her say "Don't be such a cunt!" to other people in the same set. And with absolutely no intent to cause serious offence, at all. More like "Don't be so nasty / stupid!" would be in different cultures. It may be worth considering, as you would if you were speaking a different language (which we almost are, really), just automatically (as an internal translation thing) toning-down some of our BritSpeak by 75% to get the approximate equivalent in AmeriSpeak. We use the same words as each other, but with wholly different nuances behind them.
And yes, I did know about WP:DRUNK, though I prefer Wikipedia:Editing_Under_the_Influence, o n the whole! It makes me chuckle more. Or possibly "cackle", as I'm rapidly approaching the Crone phase of life ;P Pesky ( talk) 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Why did you just Considered my page to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenar328 ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't know that! Anyways, thanks! But I recommend you to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BITE . Now, may you please cancel the deletion of my page? The other Wikipedian was right, Keep my page for now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenar328 ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't because the discussion has already started. You can however add your feedback to the discussion. Hghyux ( talk to me)( talk to others) 16:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 18:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC) ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 18:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
An article at AfD can be speedied - [WP:Deletion process#Early closure]] - and I do it reasonably often (delete them, that is). I've messaged the one who told you they couldn't. Peridon ( talk) 19:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This page 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. |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
You have two cows. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley ( talk) 01:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This page 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. |
This page 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. |
You can leave messages for me in this section. Hghyux ( talk) 18:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Hghyux: thank you for your note, advise and the good interpretation on the Abiogenesis talk page. Your comment: There is a fine line between having knowledge vs. a conflict of interest. It is most certainly not vandalism because it seems to be done in good faith. You don't need to go to the talk page to edit if you don't feel it's neccesary. My guess is he saw the article, put his stuff in, and thought he improved the article. is highly appreciated and it reflects exactly my intent. I will be in contact with Armen Mulkidjanian and coordinate further procedure. Response times will not be as fast as by e-mail or Facebook-Twitter etc as we have other things to do as well. Thus, thank you again for assist - with best regards, Dirk Lankenau-- Lankenau ( talk) 18:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
concerning your note 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC) under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lankenau on "abiogensis"
Dear Hghyux - editing and constructive comments by Wiki-editors are always appreciated. However, just deleting a published and world-wide well recognized issue (i.e. Zn-world theory and colaterally published material including the references of peer reviewed journals and books) without talking to us as responsible Wiki-editors (i.e. Prof. Armen Mulkidjanian and me)is, in our eyes, an act of vandalism. Prof. Mulkidjanian is a highly respected specialist on the scientific issues of the Zn-world and everything added to the Wikipedia site was published in peer reviewed journals and books. Only published material was included in the entry to the Wikipedia article (please, check it out...) and the references were cited. I am the editor in chief of the Springer book series Genome Dynamics and Stability. A recent book co-edited by Prof. Mulkidjanian and me is entitled " Origins of Life: The Primal Self Organization". The book was peer-reviewed as well, with each article reviewed by at least three specialists. Prof. Mulkidjanian and I are working on an additional book related to the issue. In this context we discussed, how to improve the Wiki-abiogenesis article in order to update and make it a generally more usefull information for Wikipedia. We respectfully do not intend any harm to the Wiki-article and we were carefull in re-assembling the paragraphs and put them in less conflicting order (not yet sent to Wiki as we had to probe Wiki first). Not much is intended to be deleted.
We came to the following conclusion: Apparently, numerous hypotheses on the origin of life can be separated into two groups, namely 1. the models that suggest experimental testing and that are, actually, experimentally tested, and 2. the models that either do not suggest any experimental testing or which suggest such testing but have been never tested from some reasons. The first group of models we suggest to gather under the title "Current models" whereas the second, large group of models would go under the title "Other models". We think that the criterium of testability is scientifically reasonale and fair; it should be explicitely and clearly introduced into the text of the article. In addition, it might be useful to mention results of experimental tests in each relevant case. References would be added. The models of Wächtershauser and Russell, as well as the Zn world model, are currently under experimental testing; since each of these models captures some facets of real biogeochemistry, some positive results have been reported in each case. In fact, not all scientifically testable scenarios are mentioned in Wikipedia. For example there is a new and very promising "Formamide World" concept of Saladino and Di Mauro that is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article. We would be willing to write a respective section. Another section on top-down (anthropic principle) and bottom-up approaches would be added as well.
For doing all this, we would not be willing to fight deletions again of the sort encountered this morning. However, we may need some time and are not ready to engage in any shadow-boxing type discussions. Otherwise we may drop out instantly. Technical assistence from your side would be highly appreciated, as we are not well self-trained Wikipedians.
with best regards, Dirk Lankenau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankenau ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hghyux, I hope you don't mind, but I've removed your speedy deletion tag from Christopher Meneses. According to the article this chap has played four times for his country, and that makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope I don't mind. Sorry for causing confusion. Hghyux ( talk) 00:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, why don't you create a page about me then. Scott Hiers. ( Bogart57 ( talk) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC))
I left a message on your page explaining why you can't do that. Hghyux ( talk) 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Why did you contest my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by STATiKC ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't comply with WP:NOTABILITY Hghyux ( talk) 01:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a first time article ... still gathering citations etc ... is there away to take the page off into a saved mode whilst this is worked on so that it does not show up and therefor does not get preemptively deleted?
I am currently undertaking to chronicle groups that existed in the Australian music scene that had significant bodies of work however their contributions have been lost in being out of press and disbanded etc
I appreciate you patience in this matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmchron ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Use the {{new page}} tag to prevent this.. Hghyux ( talk) 01:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
...at AIV. I'll even watch him until someone takes care of him. Calabe 1992 02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry, if that was too intense. Hghyux ( talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
is meant solely for gibberish and incomprehensible text; which this was not. Please read and understand Wikipedia:CSD#G1 before making further speedy deletion requests under that criterion. Thank you for patrolling new pages, by the way. CharlieEchoTango ( contact) 04:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I am by no means trying to cause harm. I am just trying to help out. I make mistakes sometimes, and have read the rules. I removed your earlier notice because I did not feel it needed to stay. If you wish for me to restore it, then by all means I will. Most of the pages I tag end up getting deleted. Those that don't I apologize for the inconvenience. I joined about a month ago and am still trying to familiarize myself with everything. I will do my very best in the future to appropriate taggings. Hghyux ( talk) 13:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hghyux, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Teremoana Atai, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. B music ian 04:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
There was absolutely no significant content on that page, and it did end up getting deleted. Hghyux ( talk) 13:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi hghyux,
I created an article based on an ERP solution that is well established in Malaysia. I did not do it for advertisement purposes but to educate people especially ERP users locally and globally about key factors in deciding to purchase an ERP solution for their respective businesses.
I should have created a draft before saving it to wiki but i'm new so i didnt know the rules...
Hope u can remove the tag so that I can re-create the article together with references...
Thank you
Planetsoft95 ( talk) 07:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but "educating others wanting to purchase your product." is just another form of advertising in my opinion. Hghyux ( talk) 17:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit is a subject of some concern and I've been asked to look into it. This may be an issue of someone's personal safety, so please hold off on it for now.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh my gosh! I had no idea! I will stay very far away from there Hghyux ( talk) 18:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually kind of worried I hope I didn't do anything too harmful. Hghyux ( talk) 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Whew. Thanks. I will be sure to stay away. Hghyux ( talk) 13:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Blatantly copy/pasting a userspace draft which was rejected at AFC, adding a few extra lines, posting it to mainspace AFTER it was rejected at AfC and not notifying the user who created the draft about any of this so that they can find out when the pirated mainspace article comes up for deletion is a VERY BAD thing! If you do that again you could find yourself blocked VERY quickly! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I DID notify you before it got rejected. Look at your talkpage. Hghyux ( talk) 19:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editors you reported may not have engaged in sufficient recent vandalism, or the users had not been sufficiently or appropriately warned. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. EyeSerene talk 09:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 18:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry I got a bit hot under the collar with your copy/paste move. As I am sure you are aware the discussion on ANI that was moved to my talk page has confirmed that the Creative Commons license means that AS LONG AS ATTRIBUTION IS PROVIDED to the original source you are free to do as you please. Please note that copy/paste moves do not provide attribution as the history is not retained. As such unless you provide proper attribution using the {{ copied}} template on the talk page the moved article is in violation of the original author's copyright. Repeated copy/paste moves without attribution usually result in you being blocked. If you want to move a page in the future please use the move function to avoid violating someone's copyright. That being said if an article is under AfC review it generally should NOT be moved until the review is completed with a positive outcome. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup, I heard. I watched the conversation go down, but thanks for letting me know :) Hghyux ( talk) 21:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Hghyux, Sorry to bring this to your attention, but I noticed this via the help desk, and have left a reply as the user is actually talking about me. I have provided factual diff evidence to show who is the real victim and who is the actual attacker in all of this. I fear that the user may now be trying to pull the wool over people's eyes to cover themselves up from their web of lies. Sincere regards Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hghyux. I write to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an involving 123o ( talk · contribs); in which I classified yourself as a witness. Wesley ☀ Mouse 02:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Everyone has good days and bad days, and some people only have good days when they make others have a bad day. Try and ignore the troublemakers or just outsmart them. Have a cookie! Jenova 20 15:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
I would like to request a review on my last edit. I added a support group website, it was not a 12 step website like the listings just below it so I added a new section rather than adding it to the 12 step website list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonemarketing ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for being an excellent Wiki-Angel, keep up the good work in helping other Wikipedians. Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Hghyux! It is great to see that your doing anti-vandal work - it is difficult to keep on top of the problem, so having people like you around to help out is terrific. However, it seems you may have been a tad over-zealous in your warnings. As a general rule, it is best to start from a level one warning and work up, as it has to be something extremely serious before we jump to a final warning for a first offence. There's always a chance that a simpler warning will turn an editor into one of the good guys, or that they always were editing in good faith but just made an error. Similarly, once someone has been warned for a mistake, we don't need to warn them again unless they make it a second time. With User:Bonemarketing, the user had only made one edit, for which they were warned by Secretlondon. You then warned them three more times for the same edit, including a final warning - the first was sufficient, and it feels bitey to have done so more than once. Unfortunately, the same happened in a couple of other cases - it is great that you wish to warn users, but it is worth checking to see if they've already been warned first. - Bilby ( talk) 03:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that user:TheREALCableGuy is back using a new IP to circumvent a block. I have been editing the NOLA TV wiki pages for consistency lately and suddenly this new user:152.43.1.244 is foolishly editing (vandalizng) again. Please see WDSU. If you concur that this is sockpuppetry, can you help with a block or ban? I am just an editor and am not schooled in enforcing wiki policy. I think I have added appropriate tags to the relevant pages. Thanks. Sore bluto ( talk) 17:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
How was that vandalism? The reference does not state ANYTHING about iHalloween Party in Jennette's tweet. - Alec2011 ( talk) 00:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
For future reference, how do you type this in the Edit Summary? Reverted 1 edit by Alec2011 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Miguel1369. (TW) ---- like where it links my name and the "TW - Twinkle" in the Edit Summary?
Hallows Aktiengesellschaft ( talk) 01:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your great work patrolling new pages, especially for your WP:CSD nominations. Shirt58 ( talk) 10:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hey, Hghyux. I suggest that it may possibly be a good idea to check a bit before removing or tagging text or edits? I can see we have got into a little bit of a fuddle here. These things happen. Please, please don't let this put you off continuing to improve the Wikipedia project. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hghyux, meanwhile I got informed about a couple of expert-things: WP:EXPERT. So, thank you for the cooky - no problem. When scientific papers are peer-reviewed the tone is sometimes really tough in detail. So I got kind of used to it over the years as author and editor. But with Wikipedia it is more tricky, as so many people are involved. Best greetings, the cooky was delicious, Dirk. -- Lankenau ( talk) 17:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On what grounds do you consider that a listed building should be speedily deleted? As a matter of interest, this is the penultimate article to complete articles on all the listed churches in Cheshire; I suggest that more editors could follow this example rather than writing about such evanescent topics as the episodes of the Simpsons, or some pop song? This is about our threatened heritage, which should be preserved for our successors. Don't bother about a {{tb}} notice; I'm watching you. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 19:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hghyux, an article that states a building is a listed building is making a claim of notability. Just as a song that says it is "Grammy winning" has made a claim of notability. If someone doesn't know music, and speedy-tagged a grammy-winning song, it would look a little silly to say "why didn't you come out and say the song was notable?" Also, on a more general note, it is often wise to (a) not nominate a page for deletion if it is outside your area of expertise, and (b) check who created an article you're about to tag for speedy deletion. People that have been here a lot longer than you can probably be assumed to know what they're doing. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC) I endorse everything said above by Peter, Malleus, J3Mrs and Floquenbeam. Tagging an article in an area you didn't understand two minutes after its creation was an utterly ridiculous decision. You simply cannot have read the article; if you did, you clearly need to slow down on your speedy deletion tagging and remind yourself of the criteria.
Bencherlite
Talk 19:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
A1 reads "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". This article doesn't fall under A1! The context is 100% defined: an actress from Greece. The interwiki link to a lengthy shows importance in other projects. Worst case: you could tag for A7. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You have spent 7 minutes of your time* to request speedy deletions on three different articles, two of which I have contested, and simultaneously carried on a discussion on your talk page. You are obviously shooting in the dark without trying to investigate before you propose a deletion. Just for your information the article you so summarily nominated for a speedy deletion took me a couple of hours to write - and now I am forced to spend even more time trying to save this article from the Wikipedia guillotine, sigh... *19:35, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+3,057) . . N User talk:Cammander shepard (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Ambleside School of Ocala. (TW)) (top) 19:35, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+17) . . Ambleside School of Ocala (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW)) (top) 19:34, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+17) . . Rena Pagrati (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A1). (TW)) 19:34, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+2,216) . . User talk:Magioladitis (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Rena Pagrati. (TW)) 19:32, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+142) . . User talk:Hghyux (→St John the Evangelist's Church, Sandbach Heath) 19:29, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+116) . . User talk:Hghyux (→St John the Evangelist's Church, Sandbach Heath) 19:28, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+1,317) . . User talk:Ottawahitech (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Tax uncertainty. (TW)) 19:28, 23 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+12) . . Tax uncertainty (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW)) Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hghyux. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Embrem Entertainment, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC) I just want to follow up on the now-closed ANI report, as I hope you don't mistake my comments for something contrary to their meaning. Understand that on your talkpage, "ignorance" was used appropriately, as per it's meaning - "unknowing". Yes, someone then added "American", which morphs into "ignorant American". This can either be an insult, or can be "unknowing American" ... which based on the entire series of conversations, is obvious what it was meaning...with of course the double entendre. Nobody deserves to be ridiculed or attacked, as per WP:NPA ... no matter what they did. However, based on the conversation you already had, you knew which was the true meaning of "ignorant" as per context, and that it meant "unknowing" with respect to class II buildings (which I know nothing about either, so I'm clearly an "ignorant Canadian"). What were you looking for in ANI ... a block? A warning? Drama? ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC) I was looking for a solution for my conflict. I was not looking for anything other than such. BTW I interpreted the phrase "ignorant American" as "dumb American" Hghyux ( talk to me)( talk to others) 00:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hghyux, I concur that "newbies" should be receptive to advice from "tenured" editors...but these tenured editors need to be reminded not to bite the newcomers. The article didn't get deleted afterall...I'm not enjoying seeing repeat wikilaywering about how calling someone an "ignorant American(s)" isn't a personal attack. It would be one thing to say something of the nature that a person is ignorant but add American to that and it becomes a ethnocentic and bigoted comment...I can understand of course why the editor of that page was miffed by the tagging of the article for deletion...but that doesn't mean the response from some needed to be what it was. Good luck to you.-- MONGO 05:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears you have enormous amounts of energy which up until now you have employed mainly to remove content donated to Wikipedia by others. I wonder if, instead, you would be interested in bringing back to life a wikiproject that seems to have lack of participants at the moment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites. I know this is a big undertaking and will understand if you have no desire to take on this challenge. Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC) After a long discussion over a little mistake that turned into an OMG Y DID U TAG THIS IT'S NOTABLE DUH! moment with incivil remarks, another ANI discussion, and a big waste of my time, I've decided to use my account now only for reading and fixing typos. This whole thing called Wikipedia is nothing but a bunch of users who seem to be a waste of time to the whole goal of the project. I started Wikipedia after noticing extremely shocking vandalism on an article. I wanted to help combat this so that the site would be a better place for readers. I now have understood that when I make a mistake, that it is treated worse than vandalism itself, which is something that I am tired of dealing with. I do not like being told to "fuck off" nor being called an "ignorant American" or being accused of "Article Piracy" or get pulled into an ANI discussion for trying to help another user, or even have to worry about "what will happen next". It has become clear that I am not welcome here. Sorry. I am now going to stop. Please do not continue to chastise me for my edits I'm just sick of it. If you think what's said on the Internet does not affect your real life, then you need to do lots more research BWilkins. Goodbye. Hghyux ( talk to me)( talk to others) 19:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to say that I noticed the bullying and uncivil treatment handed out to you and I made an attempt to call that editor out on his conduct. The support he received from his friends, and the threats they sent my way were quite an eye-opener. I was even told that my highlighting of his incivility was worse than his incivility towards you, something I find incredible, even though I teased him somewhat. It turns out that telling someone to fuck off on Wikipedia is not only tolerated by some, but supported, and the entire project is much the poorer for having these people involved. You made an unlucky mistake, but the drama that followed was a disgrace. All the best to you, Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey you started it so....
Hghyux (
talk to me)(
talk to others) 19:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Please review the documentation of the hat template, which is restricted to administrators. You may wish to use a combination of a collapse and archive, such as I have done on my talk page. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hg, I'm glad you decided to stick around.
I'm not sure that this [3] is good idea. Keeping lists of editors could be seen as a breach of user page guidelines which I would encourage you to read here [4]. It also sends out an unwelcome message to non-listed editors. You might find it difficult to get support in the way that several of us did the other day if you take such a hardline and highly visible stance. I completely disagreed with the way you were treated by the Admin. and said so in the ANI discussion. So have others, he was just plain out of order. However, he was right about something, the people who upset you and are out to upset other editors do not mean anything to you in real life. I think you will get better cooperation from the vast majority if you don't try to stick out like a sore thumb with this sort of talk page and the block list, which isn't really enforceable anyway in any practical sense. Regards. Leaky Caldron 16:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a word or three of moral support! I made a few goofs when I started doing new page patrol (I think we all do, when we start), but listening very carefully to other people's input (even when it seemed a bit harsh) got me through it OK. It's soooo damned easy to get into a long-running spat here in WikiLand, and it's never worth it! I know Malleus seems like the big bad bear sometimes(and he can certainly be very brusque), but despite what you may hear, he's actually helped out so many newbies to do so much good stuff, and it's one of the things which almost never gets said about him!
I gather you're probably fairly young (though I may be madly mistaken). I'm a granny myself, so off at the other end of the scale. When we're young, these things always seem so much worse, and so much more hurtful, than they need to be. I'm recovering from major surgery on my neck at the moment (only had the op on Tuesday), so I'm still a bit post-anaesthetic groggy. Please forgive me if I'm waffling! We all make stupid mistakes, I've made so many in my life that I've lost count of them! Your best bet is probably to hold up your hands and say exactly where you went wrong, offer a truce, try to make friends if you can with the people who you think of at the moment as "enemies", and kinda start over. If you'd like to get into writing articles and improving articles, (which I reckon you;d really enjoy once you got into it), then you couldn't ask for a better teacher than Malleus. See if you can think of an article which really interests you and needs improvement, and try asking Malleus if he'd mind showing you how to make it better. I know it sounds totally daft, but it might be the best possible thing to do. He loves to teach, and he really appreciates people who really want to learn to become good editors. See if you can get a bit fired-up about improving some articles, rather than just patrolling for vandalism – bring out the creative side of your personality. Cheers, Pesky ( talk) 09:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
To address his claims against me
-I am a graduate of Harvard. I have a PhD in medicine. I focus my career on biomedical research in Boston.
-I am not an "ignorant" American.
I am not interested in working with a user that has been blocked so much for incivility. I would rather be friends with someone who relates to me and doesn't clash with me.
Cheers to you too. Maybe something used in your surgery was something that me or another doctor at my work helped work on;) Hghyux ( talk to me)( talk to others) 01:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
But hey, you know, these things happen, and we can all choose not to have "permanent enemies" and so on. Enmity is such a destructive thing; we miss out on a lot. Malleus's block log includes some really, really bad (and totally unjustified) blocks, for things which nobody in their right mind could have considered blockworthy, and in some instances zapped out by people just wanting to shut up the opposition in a content dispute etc., and some by admins who have been desysopped (and / or banned), and so on. So the number of "honest blocks" is much, much lower than the block log might suggest. Gross injustice can happen here, too (and it does).
The ability to call a truce is one of the most mature abilities we humans have. But nobody can force a truce on someone else. At the moment I'm hardly touching article-space, other than fixing the odd typo in something I;m reading (mainly because I'm editing under the influence of either pain or painkillers, depending, and I'd rather not screw up an article!) So I'm focussing a bit on bridging the thought-processing gaps and communications gaps between autism-spectrum and neurotypical editors, doing a bit of policy discussion, and wishing my supraspinatus, trapezius, deltoid muscles etc. hadn't been so badly affected for so long by the nerve compression in my neck. They burn, now they're functioning again. 'Specially the supraspinatus, which had obviously lost most of its functionality. Pesky ( talk) 04:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Insights into other aspects of people are often enlightening. You might find this amusing, for instance. Pesky ( talk) 05:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
2. The article on listed buildings state the equivalent in the US is the National Register of Historic Places.
3. My belief is that trucing is in fact an immature act because it shows that you do not have the developmental ability to continue to stand your ground. Even if your wrong, for example, in my instance,
User 1: That deletion nomination was wrong!
User 2: I nominated it for (reason 1), (reason 2), and (reason 3).
User 1: Are you mental?
User 2: No.
User 1: Do you understand what (insert rule here) means/is?
User 2: No.
User 1: (TELLS USER 2 TO READ RULE)
User 2: TRUCE
Notice how User 2 seems much more open now to a "feeding frenzy" as I say from User 1's fancub.
4. Did you know about WP:DRUNK?
Anyways thanks for talking to me. I appreciate some civility on this site. Hghyux ( talk to me)( talk to others) 23:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I tend to believe that there's good in pretty much everyone, and if I can't see it, then it's my lack of perception which is at fault. (It's taken me decades to get to this stage!) As with every community, some people are more spiky than others, some take great offence at things which are just water off a duck's back to others, we all have glitches. Every single one of us has glitches. I've known horses worth over £1M which had more glitches than ones which sold for less than £10. With a £1M horse, people are prepared to put up with more glitches!
One of the biggest "barriers" to communication which we have on here is the multicultural thing; sometimes even though we speak the same language (well, almost) our understandings of the nuances of it are so wildly different that it would probably be better if we actually spoke different languages. Here in the UK, we chuck around words and phrases which carry much less weight than the exact same words and phrases do in other countries. This causes a heck of a lot of problems here in WikiLand. I wouldn't take offence at Malleus calling me a silly old cow, for example. (Though it would be different if someone with whom I'd had no previous interaction did the same thing, but even then I might shrug it off with a chuckle and a self-deprecating grin. I can be a silly old cow, though I do try not to be, most of the time!) To give an example of the lightness with which some words are used here in the UK, I used to hang out with a set which included various forms of aristocracy including a princess. And several times I heard her say "Don't be such a cunt!" to other people in the same set. And with absolutely no intent to cause serious offence, at all. More like "Don't be so nasty / stupid!" would be in different cultures. It may be worth considering, as you would if you were speaking a different language (which we almost are, really), just automatically (as an internal translation thing) toning-down some of our BritSpeak by 75% to get the approximate equivalent in AmeriSpeak. We use the same words as each other, but with wholly different nuances behind them.
And yes, I did know about WP:DRUNK, though I prefer Wikipedia:Editing_Under_the_Influence, o n the whole! It makes me chuckle more. Or possibly "cackle", as I'm rapidly approaching the Crone phase of life ;P Pesky ( talk) 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Why did you just Considered my page to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenar328 ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't know that! Anyways, thanks! But I recommend you to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BITE . Now, may you please cancel the deletion of my page? The other Wikipedian was right, Keep my page for now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenar328 ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't because the discussion has already started. You can however add your feedback to the discussion. Hghyux ( talk to me)( talk to others) 16:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 18:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC) ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 18:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
An article at AfD can be speedied - [WP:Deletion process#Early closure]] - and I do it reasonably often (delete them, that is). I've messaged the one who told you they couldn't. Peridon ( talk) 19:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This page 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. |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
You have two cows. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley ( talk) 01:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This page 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. |