User:Human.v2.0/archive02

DoctorWhoForum
I have brought the issue over the content of the panel to the attention of the DoctorWhoForum; I still think that you (and others) are technically wrong to exclude the Later Appearances from the panel; one thing though, what a great story The Five Doctors is, having just bought the DVD, especially for the excerpt from "Shada" - what a pity there is not more Tom Baker in it!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

LOBSTER
DUDE I AM SO FRIGGIN [LOBSTER]ED RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOU LOBSTERED I AM. 146.115.66.68 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

miljanstanisic
Hi,

why did you removed most of the contents from Reunion [video game] page?

did you bother to save the content you removed?

people spent time to gather that information

Miljanstanisic (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lolicon article image
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing content, please discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page if you have concerns about the image. Thanks ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

?
"Wikipedia is still not for personal theories, original research, side-tangent chatter, or plain-old nonsense. You seem to have a history of posting lengthy, poorly worded chunks of text that have questionable logic involved even if they were relevant to the talk pages. Please don't, as it's just plain old annoying to try and deal with. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)"

First, what is the context of this comment? I can accept the poorly worded part and I sometimes make dyslexic mistakes that can confuse meaning. Generally though if you're questioning my logic its probably because you have not bothered to read the sentence correctly. I am trying to reduce the amount of verbal background garbage I include and make my points far more concise. I also try to be polite. I am also tidying or deleting some of my older posts which I now find contain obsolete information. - Since I don't want the hassle and do a lot of speculative research I make it a policy never to touch articles directly. Lucien86 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying things. I'm not expecting anyone to change their opinion on the Cybernetics cyborg thing. Its just that I remember cybernetic scientists getting angry over it, and if you are going to study it as a science you are probably going to need both definitions. (By the way did you know Norbert was a primary inventor of the whole field of cybernetics and real robotics.)


 * As for those older posts you'd obviously not read them before I changed them. I know its something to avoid doing because it breaks the tense, but I find my some of my writing from a few years ago very ugly and unclear. (Its like epitaphs of previous incompetence.) One alternative is just deleting the whole posts and I did try to mark them each time. Sorry, thanks, Robert Lucien. Lucien86 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Transhumanism Talk
Might I suggest that you archive the old discussions rather than remove them? It makes it easier to reference new editors to material already covered, and is also somewhat of a matter of "full disclosure" on the pages. Can be done easily enough by just copying the material from the previous page version and then adding the link to the archive page. The talk page was more than a little long, that's for sure. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, everything I have removed was archived (see Talk:Transhumanism/Archive 15). It's just that I'm having problems with my computer so I did it in a weird way. --Loremaster (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I missed that then in the list of changes. My bad on that.  And considering your comment, I have to assume that you're on your phone editing again? :P --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL Good memory! ;) --Loremaster (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

G1 template on Testingmantra
Hi Human.v2.0!

I think you noticed it, but i removed the G1 speedy template you placed upon Testingmantra. While it certainly has quite some room for improvement the article does not fall under G1 as it is not gibberish text - it is actually more of an Essay regarding Software Testing. It does fall under WP:NOR though so i replaced a prod instead of the speedy; Perhaps the article will be extended in a way some content can be merged back into their related articles. With kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 14:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and please note: Par WP:PROD any user is allowed to remove a prod template from a page in which case it may not be re-added. A prod removal is seen as an implicit challenge to a prod, which means an article should be taken to AFD instead. Personally i will leave the article alone for now since it might improve. It can always be removed at a later date if it does not. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 14:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, can I get my response in on my own talk page without an edit conflict this time? Yippy Skippy.
 * The article cannot be improved for one very significant reason: the name. "Testingmantra" in and of itself is something that needs to go.  Anywho, if you feel like going through the hassle of an AFD over someone's wiki0posted blog/essay, than have at it.  I do think that you are making an inordinate amount of assumption of improvement on this, but that's your prerogative.
 * Also, I would be thrilled to see your opinion of what information Testingmantra contains that would be of benefit to Software Testing.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios
I've always operated under the idea that copyright violations are taken seriously and are to be deleted immediately since the GNU is totally incompatible with other copyright laws. The plot synopsis was word-for-word from another site. If I hadn't deleted it, another admin surely would have. I'm certainly not against an article if that's your concern. Just the copyvio. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry. I'll restore it without the synopsis. I found it on new page patrolling before it had been tagged, but it's in the deletion log, so I can put it back with a couple of keystrokes. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind...looks as if you got it already. Sorry to put you through the extra work.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just let you know :)
Hey just seen your revert on Matt Smith and thought just in case your are intrested the BBC has annouched a new companion for dr who 5th series. And yea i kinda agree with your revert ;) Pro66 (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Dude"
Kinda, yeah. I don't do that too often but it's a habitual thing, usually when I have little else to do. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Mari Aakre
Perhaps I was a little harsher than I intended - my apologies. I have tried to find some useful links; however, everything that seems promising is being blocked by a filter. (There appear to be a couple of exhibition notices from Estonian blogs, but for some reason these are marked as "entertainment" and thus being disallowed.) I'll try again tonight and see what I can come up with. Meantime I've expanded a bit using an automated translation service; that should do for now, I hope. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Plasmodium
Why did you redirect the new page? The current plasmodium page refers to species of malaria. The one I created refers to a life-stage of a slime mold. The two concepts are totally unrelated. I created the stub specifically because the slime mold page links to the malaria version, which only notes the alternate meaning. There had been talk of creating the new page for some time.

I'll give you a couple minutes to respond but otherwise I can't see why I shouldn't revert the redirect. (''PS someone just vandalized your front page. : Wellspring (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Article title
An article that you have been involved in editing, Commentweeting, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Triggerhappy?
FYI, i am systematically creating disambig pages about NRHP listings as part of WikiProject NRHP's work. wp:NRHP is just about to complete its listing of all 84,000 or so U.S. NRHP-listed places, indexed at List of RHPs. It helps in our setting up the list-table articles, to have the disambig pages set up, so that we can see which sites should be pipelinked to some unique name (usually adding City, State disambiguation). It is a little unconventional for there to be a lot of disambig pages set up in advance this way, but I make a point to create at least one stub article for each new dab page. And the remaining redlink entries comply with MOS:DABRL which explicitly allows for them. Also FYI, I asked for and got a long discussion with disambig project people. So what i am doing is okay, i fully believe. Happy to discuss further if you like. About being trigger-happy, my point was you were slapping a deletion tag onto an article when I am in the middle of doing the work. If u gave it a short while, you would have seen a bluelink replace one of the redlinks. Cheers, doncram (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Help !
Hello

First of all I have to say it is a great work what you are doing on wikipedia, realy.

Would you please check this website ( humansfuture.org ), it is a scientific, informative and well made site.

Long time ago it was spammed by some ignorant member and then was blacklisted by some wikipedia adminstrators here.

I tried to convince them to unblock the site to give it a chance to be used on wikipedia as a good source of information but they dont see the value of it, maybe beacuse it is not their field of interest or speciality.

Please I need you to help me and to support my proposal here to get the website unblocked.

That site deserves a chance, right ?

Thank you --Xhuman (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

idle vandalism threats
You threaten to charge me with "vandalism" for repsonding to your rude "bloody hell" comment with an insult of my own, which I promptly thought better of and deleted myself within a minute of posting it? My word, you certainly seem to be out to start fights. 97.120.107.95 (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * About the only thing that you are correct on is the "idle" bit, because they were idle comments. I almost commended you just now for coming forward and owning up to the insults in a registered username, until I saw that you had simply wedged this in beteen another user's comment and signature.  The fact remains; if you are going to respond with "I'm too busy fornicating with your various family members" without even spelling "fornicating" properly the first time around, I'm going to correctly label you as pants-on-head-retarded.  If you had left it there I would have tagged it as vandalism, and as it was I still could have tagged it for disruptive editing.  As it stands I posted a comment on your IP talk page.  In the future if you are unable to deal with someone being told to be bold instead of wasting time on the talk pages, then I suggest you at least turn on spellcheck.  Have a good evening. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you've never made a typo. Your tenacity in harping over a one-letter typo I corrected before you even spoke shows your dire need to row and cause trouble at all costs. More than a nonsensical busybody, you're quite obviously the true vandal. Seek counseling. 97.120.107.95 (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If it'll end this absurdity, then I will somewhat concede a point: If I leave a message on someone's talkpage and it can't be characterized in form as either the use of a template or in the form of an obvious question, then I am probably only doing so for my own amusement.  However you wish to read into that, I don't honestly care at this point.  --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: my moves and redirects
I'm history merging pages to fix very old cut and paste moves, so the history contains all the edits once I've finished my work. Graham 87 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Degeneration
I just noting that Degeneration is not the first or only Japanese CG film set in that universe. The 2000 film, "Biohazard 4D Executor" is also set in it, though is only some 20 minutes long.-- OsirisV (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh...
Ever heard of a joke? And try entertaining the notion that half the population is female and not keen on being referred to as "Dude." Drmargi (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Linnea Aaltonen which you contributed to, is currently up for deletion
You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. Ikip (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for the response. Ikip (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Merges
Gah! Thanks very much for pointing out my mistake with the link - I used the same base edit summary so it got repeated a few times. I'll make sure that doesn't happen again. Note that I didn't start Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (2nd nomination), I just !voted in it - seems like it's going to be kept anywayObviously the merges (hope that's right) have been bold and I can have absolutely no complaints if any of them are reverted - as has happened already in a few instances. I have really just trying to be do cleanup work in the topic area of webcomics/webcomic authors, currently there are many articles which will never be able to brought up to any kind of encyclopaedic standard simply because sources covering them don't exist. Other articles are on topics for which a decent article might be possible but are so bogged down in original research and excessive plot detail that anyone looking to improve them would find the task that much the harder. My previous approach was to start deletion discussions for comics which show no evidence of notability - most of which have ended in delete (see: Articles for deletion/Better Days (webcomic) (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/The Book of Jesse, Articles for deletion/Bardsworth, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21st Century Fox: Romantic Comedy of the Future, Articles for deletion/The Suburban Jungle (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Vigilante, Ho!, Articles for deletion/Todd and Penguin, Articles for deletion/Wapsi Square, Articles for deletion/Wapsi Square (2nd nomination) (keep), Articles for deletion/Twokinds (2nd nomination) (ongoing), Articles for deletion/Dead.winter (ongoing)). However, going through the relevant categories it became apparent that an alternative approach - which could preserve more information - would be to consolidate the content of author/webcomic article's. I have been careful to avoid removing any content that is sourced and relevant to an encyclopaedic treatment of a topic - when stated as such these are true merges, not simple redirections - anything that has been cut out has been what constitutes - in my opinion at least - excessive plot detail or original research. My hope is that the consolidated articles - although still often poorly sourced with sometimes questionable claims of notability will prove more viable and easier for anyone interested in the topic area to expand, reference and generally improve upon - even splitting out previously merged content when sufficient sourcing is available for a high quality treatment of the topic. Most of the pages in question are not frequently edited and do not have active talk pages, in such cases I find that merge discussions can be a lengthy and inefficient process - being bold is simpler and if anyone objects - as you just have the edit is reverted and no "harm" is done. To be honest it's the kind of instance where an "Articles for merging/discussion" type central forum might be useful. I hope this has helped explain my actions and restored some of your faith, regards, Guest9999 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Merges page points to the already-existing forum for discussing proposed mergers, WP:PM. Netmouse (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to "Flash Forward"
No-

It is Suitable for Wiki. Just not an independent page(I have now spoken with somebody else).

I was told to put it under the cancellation part of the Flashforward page.

It is not a fan page, etc.

It is to educate people of the fan campaign and efforts to bring the show back.

Thank you for responding!

Kris

--Krisp8888 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit to CTRL-ALT-DEL (webcomic)
As I obviously have no source, due to Tim Buckley and his lackies deleting my posts, can I put that it is SUSPECTED that he bans people merely for criticising him? Lenzar (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really, no. Most people are aware of this, and by most I mean "people who know anything about the man/comic outside of what is said on his site". The thing is, there no source for it. I would say it could count as libel, but it's not illiegal to ban someone so it probably wouldn't even count as defamation of character without a source. It just can't be on here without a source.
 * I wasn't entirely joking about the journalist part. Find out what town he lives in, find some of the journalists there, and send them well-thought-out letters about the issue and Buckley in general. Unfortunately, until a reputable source says something about this activities, even if it only says they're "alleged", they can't be added to the article.Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
for making me aware of that :) Timeshift (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kings of War
I've declined your speedy as it looks quite NPOV to me. Notability might be a quite different matter. Peridon (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Lint (material)
In light of our discussion at Talk:Lint, I have created Lint (material) as a general topic on the aggregation of textile fibers. Please have a look at this article and let me know if you would be amenable to merging either Pocket lint or Navel lint, or both, into it. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

R'lyeh
Please take note here and study the changes before reverting to corrected material. Thank you. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7 on A.T.Raghu
Hi, I wanted to let you know I have challenged your tagging of A.T.Raghu as WP:CSD A7. In my opinion, the films the subject has directed or worked on are a sufficient claim of importance to pass the low threshold of criteria A7. As for the more rigorous standards of WP:BIO the article looks very iffy, and I have no objection if you would like to pursue and alternative deletion process, such as WP:AFD. Monty 845  19:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

CSD notification
The page D BASE School of Computing looks like it may be a valid CSD, but I prefer not to delete a page unless the creator has been notified. I understand that sometimes automated tools fail to do the notification for some reason. Not sure if that was the case, but could you make the notification? SPhilbrick T  19:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Transhumanism
Hello Human.v2.0. Your opinion is requested on the Talk:Transhumanism page as well as the Fringe theories noticeboard. --Loremaster (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Attack pages
Thanks for tagging that attack page, which I have zapped. If, as in this case, the author is a new user, there is no point to the "Thank you for your contributions" sort of welcome message, but uw-attack is worth adding to the author's talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...then if he does it again, as this one did, he can be blocked. JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Procenat.com
Hello. Please leave the translation tag in the article, so admins who don't read Croat can verify that it's spam, and if speedy is declined, it can be translated. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)