User talk:Aerion/Archive 1

Welcome
Heya, always nice to see a new face on RC patrol! Welcome. As always, if you have any questions feel free to ask at my talk page. --fvw * &dagger; 01:43, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

USAMO
I've added the source citation, and apologise for not doing so in the first place. Thanks for the kind words, and I appreciate your reminder. Mwl 06:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(insert section title here)
Before making edits to pages like Ohio Wesleyan please make edits on the talk page. Thanks.

Highly selective is not POV. This is a fact. Consult Barron's, Fiske and Pope's guides. Okay? Then, it becomes a fact.

-Ranamim

Asbestos is a user with a long history of editing or personal jealosy for Ohio Wesleyan's pages. Therefore, he makes edits that are more or less trivial. He has never made any constructive and meaningul edit to Ohio Wesleyan pages. I do not regret any remarks that I've made about his because him and Jmabel and simply stupid. I rarely allow myself to qualify people in this despite the fact that I am a PhD student in an Ivy institution but these two simply have no respect for formal logic. They must have been raised in a bard on educated in a poor manner. However, asbestos does make edits that I have to revert back.

Highly selective is not POV. In the context of schools. No matter how you look at it, it is a fact, not a statement to attract attention. Nothing to argue here if you have 100 references to support a claim which is a fact.

--Ranamim

If you want me to stop posting on your page, then stop making edits that make no sense or at in this case when you are unfamiliar with Asbestos history. Thanks.


 * Oh, come on. I saw an edit that appeared to be POV. I saw in the history that somebody agreed with me. I changed it. I was trying to be helpful. You, in the meantime, are making personal attacks on people, which tends to make you lose credibility in my book. Aerion 02:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The personal attack is not an attack. It is outrage at the logic of someone who consistently complains about should be trivialities. Shouldn't that be a reason enough to lose credibility in someone? In addition, this guy Asbestos simply can not argue his case. If you are not outraged at someone's inability to argue a case with solid logic and yet obstinate about making changes, how would you react??

-Ranamim


 * I would react much the same way I am reacting to you, as in my eye you are exactly what you have described: someone with "inability to argue a case with solid logic and yet obstinate about making changes." Please be willing to compromise - I haven't seen you do anything yet except insult those who disagree with you. Aerion 04:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

=
Yes, because it does NOT make sense. I concede in cases when I am wrong but the cases with Asbestos and Jmabel over Wesleyan and now over this triviality are not only stupid but pretty deliberate if you ask me. Asbestos does not delete comments (as a matter of fact why don't you do it?) like "making it one of the most selective colleges in the US" on the page of his own alma mater, CT's Wesleyan. Yet, he feels comfortable making edits to Ohio Wesleyan's page? Why? What's the difference? Are we arguing over which college deserves it more? Well, that's debatable and then a reference to a publication that settles should do. If it is about the fact that it is POV, then there is absolutely no difference or is there?

As for your comment about me arguing my cases...what purpose do you think 3 posts in one day on your profile, this page and Asbestos page serve? An exercise in writing? Hardly. If you can not follow the logic of the paragraph about, that's a different issue, but it shouldn't be anything new that I am saying...just repeatiing it over and over again and Asbestos just ignores it or simply doesn't get it. So, yes, when it reaches a limit, I don't hesitate to use the right adjective to describe people who "simply doesn't get it".

Thanks.

Ranamim

Ken Jennings
Sorry, but my comment you edited from the Ken Jennings entry was fact, not POV. During her match against Jennings, Nancy initially appeared to be no threat to him; in fact, she lagged behind him considerably until he stumbled on the two Daily Double questions and the gap between them narrowed as a result of his errors, not her intelligence. Additionally, if Nancy was anywhere near as good a player as Jennings, she wouldn't have won only one game. Clearly, she wasn't as skilled as he was, a fact, not POV, viewed by millions over the course of two evenings. TOM 19:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey, I watched the episodes, and I agree with you, but it's still biased. With only two data points, we can't say for sure whether or not she was more skilled than Ken. That she lost doesn't "prove" that she is less skilled. Let's say "suggested." In addition, the phrases "finishing in last place" and "a win of $2.00" don't go very well together. Aerion 19:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, you can't deny that she played a pretty solid game, slowly building up her score. I believe she got 10 questions right and 1 wrong, although maybe that semi-guess on the last question of "No Soup For You!" shouldn't really count. Aerion 19:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(you really should learn to use section titles)
As for the other user Aerion,

Asbestos does not delete comments (as a matter of fact why don't you do it?) like "making it one of the most selective colleges in the US" on the page of his own alma mater, CT's Wesleyan. Yet, he feels comfortable making edits to Ohio Wesleyan's page? Why? What's the difference? Are we arguing over which college deserves it more? Well, that's debatable and then a reference to a publication that settles should do. If it is about the fact that it is POV, then there is absolutely no difference or is there?

Ignore comments about me and my logic. I want you to answer this...I skimmed the garbage which consituted 2/3 of your message about me. Am I not discussing the point at hand in the paragraph above?

I notice you keep going to other pages deleting words with the same problems. Doesn't suprise me.

Thanks.

Ranamim

Hi,

The deletions of the discussion of the Ohio Wesleyan page were made to remove the clutter. Do you mind?

Rananim


 * Yes. Please archive them instead. Aerion 23:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neo Mega Buster
Hey. This the guy who's been doing the edits to the Mega Man page. I felt the need to apologize to someone for that...I still believe my information is correct, but I never meant for the thing to spiral out of control like it has. I've made a post on the Talk page for that entry; I hope it'll clear things up in one direction or the other.

Methyl mercaptan
User:Darrien has suggested that Methyl mercaptan be moved to Methanethiol. With no supporting (or opposing) votes I thought you might wish to have your say before I make the decision on whether to move it or not. I noticed that you have contributed to the article and, if you have the time, could you please go to Talk:Methyl mercaptan and let us know your preference. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 19:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD refactor
Yes, that was my error. Thanks for the note on it. Calicocat 15:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Image tag
Well, I got the image from a [www.olbermann.org Olbermann.org]. You'll have to go back a ways in the message board to find it, but it should still be there. Good luck and don't be afraid to contact if you have any questions.

Primary candidates VFD
Many of the candidates for the June 14, 2005, congressional primary have been proposed for deletion. I am writing those who worked on those articles to request that they offer their votes against the proposal. The VFD's can be found starting at Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_8. It is my view that we ought to provide a complete record of the election and my deleting so called "minor" candidates we do a disservice to them and the historical record. Please vote against all these proposals.PedanticallySpeaking 14:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see PS has already informed you, but in an effort to get a consistent result (if nothing else) I am encouraging those who voted on only some of the mentioned articles to vote on all of them. They are all listed together on the August 8 VfD page (linked above), and I believe there are 8 total. Thanks. -R. fiend 03:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: VFD/Peter Fossett
First, allow me to thank you for your lovely lecture about the issues. I must say I got more than enough of that when I was earning my various degrees in political science (I happen to presently hold a master's in that subject).

As far as the "not very bright" comment, I was not referring to the gentleman's intelligence. If you had bothered to read the entire text, you'd see that I was referring to a comment made by someone else regarding Fossett's "bright future in politics." My point was that, based on his performance, his future wasn't bright; I can't speak to the man's mental faculties.

In the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd mind your own business, at least as far as I'm concerned. Soltak 02:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to dispute the factual accuracy of my statements on the VFD page; you did. Do not presume to attack me on my own discussion page. I would request that this discussion be closed. Soltak 02:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Composer?
Do you compose music? I've seen you around Wikipedia and you seem to enjoy a lot of the things I do. I compose music. Some original, some remixes of old video games. If you want to hear some of my music, say so on my talk page. Hevendor 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion vote
Greetings, Aerion! In the VFD on Peter Fossett you somewhat supported my position to preserve the article, which was on a candidate for Congress in Ohio. Several of the candidates whose articles were deleted I put on a special "minor candidates" page, which is now up for deletion as well. I wonder if you would offer your comments there. It is at Articles for deletion/Ohio second congressional district other candidates. PedanticallySpeaking 17:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Time Traveler Convention
An article you helped edit is being proposed for deletion. PT ( s-s-s-s ) 18:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pushover-dos.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Pushover-dos.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Secret of Monkey Island.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:The Secret of Monkey Island.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)