User talk:Syberghost

Aegis

Allo, I saw your complaint on /., and decided to take a gander. Generally it's a bad idea to put "trivia" in front of something, as that invites knee-jerk reverts (as you've encountered) and screams non-notable (that guideline is more for articles, but I'm sure you get the idea, as we're trying to write in encyclopedic style). Take a look at how I've modified your addition to Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. I've done a couple things besides removing the "trivia" word: I used the footnote system (ref and note) to create a footnote to the source, and used single brackets to title the external link. (This is way more than most people bother to do, but it's optimal IMO.) But anyway, Welcome to Wikipedia. It takes a while to learn the ropes, but most people here are friendly. Hope you eventually find it to your liking. - mako 08:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...

[1] Actually very thoughtful and creative. I like it. Thanks! Also, welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol...

"Experimenting." Cute. Dan 16:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an official step in the warning process. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. -Syberghost 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, look. I have over 1300 edits... and it's not really vandalism because what she did was racist. Also, it's my talk page, so while you have the right to put the sophomoric message on my page, you don't really have the right to put it back on after I myself have removed it- that's sort of vandalizing, you see. Dan 16:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I have an obligation to put it on your talk page, prior to escalating to the next step if you do it again. Read the Vandalism policy. You're not the first person we've had to go through for this exact issue, with this exact page. However, I won't put it on there again; I'll just make a note of it in the history if we have to go further along this chain. -Syberghost 16:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid, which specifically speaks to the use of the word "racist" (among other words) in Wikipedia articles. In a nutshell; it doesn't matter whether she's racist or not, it's not appropriate to use that term in a manner that takes the position she's racist. It's perfectly appropriate to include quotes and references to people who say she is, if you include them properly, and I encourage you to do so. -Syberghost 17:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally, you should be advised that removing vandalism warnings in your talk page is considered vandalism. See WP:TP#Etiquette. -Syberghost 17:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion, read up the changes at Ann Coulter, and thought I'd point something out: WP:VAND says that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism," and that the templates like {{subst:test}} are only to be used in cases of vandalism. Dylan 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I apologized to him for that, but thanks for reminding me. I'm still learning where I fit in this community, and any feedback is welcomed. -Syberghost 02:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden

Well, first of all, I only upper-cased the B in the category that I had just added (Category:Celebrities appearing in South Park) -- it was already upper-cased in all the other categories that were there before I arrived. I initially put the new South Park category down with a lowercase B because that's how his name is spelled, noting that for some reason, all the others used a technically-incorrect uppercase B. I discovered soon after that using a lowercase B causes the article to be categorized in its own section titled "b", and not along with all the other, standard "B"s.

Even if you change the piped term, the article will still appear as it is titled, not as the piped alphabetization name is shown. Dylan 02:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I'm glad you were able to solve the dispute. :] Don't worry about the withdrawing of the case, I'll take care of it. Cheers! --Keitei (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, don't be surprised if it comes back; although I was satisfied, others were not, and the revert war continues. -Syberghost 14:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Reagan listing has not been removed, so I am taking up the mediation. Not sure what the current status of the dispute is. Perhaps you can fill me in. Please chime in at [[2]]. Danny Pi 23:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Surveillance Program

Thought you might like to know I created Terrorist surveillance program last week after Nareek's argument that the "Warrantless surveillance controversy" page was limited in scope to the controversy itself. My plan is to try to keep this new page limited to verifiable descriptions of the Program, and keep all discussion of the "controversy" at the other page. I'm sure once the others discover it they will try to skew it toward their POV. Any help you can give in expanding it and keeping an eye on it would be great.--WilliamThweatt 21:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I had thought about doing that myself, but didn't have time to devote to doing it right currently. I'm glad you started it. I've added it to my watchlist. So far every substantive idea I have for it you've already done, but if I come across something I'll throw it in there when I get a chance. Thanks! -Syberghost 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Ronald Reagan

Did you mean to leave that message at User talk:Smokingmaenad? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Us Orlandonians gotta stick together.  :) -Syberghost 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

re: profanity in Ann Coulter

LLamalimbo1 posted the following on my user page instead of the talk page. Moving it here:

the profanity is completely relevent because it is in the lyrics of the song. the deletion of the profanity takes away from the meaning of the song. The profanity is an integral part showing the message of the song. it is a direct quote from the lyrics.

Responded on the Ann Coulter talk page. -Syberghost 17:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Spontaneous Dental Hydroplosion

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Spontaneous Dental Hydroplosion, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Spontaneous Dental Hydroplosion. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Danaman5 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)