User talk:Argumzio

Commentary
"Assitor"? Really? How intelligent and assuming good faith of you. Thanks. Huw Powell (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've outstripped me by light-years in demonstrating "good faith", surely.—αrgumziωϝ 05:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind you disagreeing with me about article content, after all, that is how we make WP a better resource. However, I don't come here to encounter a stream of insults from a stranger.  Please try to stick to content improvement, as I will also strive to do.  Thanks. Huw Powell (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Spare me your underhanded way of not manning up by taking responsibility for your snide remarks towards me. If you have anything to say about content-oriented issues, let's keep the discussion on the relevant talk page. Thanks.—αrgumziωϝ 02:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I made no snide remarks about you. You have repeatedly insulted me on this wiki, for no good reason.  Please take your snuffy attitude home and play nicely. I made this comment here because you were incredibly rude to me in edit comments and on talk pages and I request that you please stop such behavior.  I do not understand why you are so rude to me. Huw Powell (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I called you out on your abdarian grandiosities. That is all I have done thus far. Observe for yourself, since your comments strongly indicate you like to play the ignorant victim (when all you have done is attack an article's content without rational basis): . These remarks qualify as: "wow, you don't know anything" and "wow, you aren't smart at all". If you don't comprehend the logical implications of your own words, then I suggest you keep your trap shut before I begin reporting every further instance of such rubbish; this includes your lies about my insulting you, for I have done no such thing. This is my final warning to you out of courtesy.—αrgumziωϝ 15:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to Talk:High IQ society. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you. Alan (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that reference to Camelot was not an insult (and I'm aware that insults are qualified as "personal attacks"). But it was certainly humorous. When you would like to issue a warning that is backed by legitimate evidence in support of your claim, please let me know; and get a clue: I'm not a newbie here.—αrgumziωϝ 17:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are not a "newbie", please stop responding as one. Warning templates are intended as constructive criticism, not as punitive measures.
 * Further, you may wish to keep in mind some data that was given to me in a long-ago Intro to Psychology course: the words we use convey only 11% of our intended message, with the rest being relayed through tone of voice and body language. It's very, very difficult to detect sarcasm or snark in a Talk-page comment, unless the writer of the comment makes a conscious effort at displaying it.  In this case, there was sufficient question regarding the intended tone as to warrant a cautionary note.
 * As far as I'm concerned, the matter's done. --Alan (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you're joking Mr. Alan! Calling me a newbie based on your presumptous and baseless estimation of my "tone of voice and body language" (something that couldn't possibly be communicated through textual information); however, sarcasm is very easy to notice, especially when someone says "wow, you're so smart" when they obviously mean (according to the context of visible, textual information) the very opposite! There is no "sufficient question" regarding what I have written except that I have been upholding the very thing you seem to have taken not liberty of recognizing: the principles of Wikipedia. In the very edit you mention, I'm trying to get others to realize that they're making fools of themselves by going on about completely irrelevant things when they should be focused on improving an article (if they are there to do so). So please, stop bothering me with this useless harassment.—αrgumziωϝ 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have great care here. You're treading dangerously close to crossing the WP:PERSONAL and WP:LEGAL line, despite what I'm counting as an offhanded compliment by paraphrasing the title of a Richard Feynmann book.
 * I already said that as far as I was concerned, the matter was done. You, however, appear to be working very hard at keeping it open with your acerbic commentary.  Neither of us can win, so the best thing both of us can do is withdraw. 懂嗎？--Alan (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't understand--at all. I have no intention of bringing this to a legal setting, even though libel might be a basis upon which to make a court case. Furthermore, all I have done is talk about the content of your baseless comments towards me, not you (and I could hardly care who you are). So, please, let me restate what I have already said in more direct terms: stop wasting my time by 1) calling me a newbie, 2) harassing me here, 3) claiming I've violated NPA when I haven't, 4) threatening me for making an allusion to a book title, 5) and being all-round unhelpful by igniting a case you never could have won anyway (and I'm not responsible for what you've started, so don't try to peg your words on me). The case is closed as long as you stop persisting with this nonsense; I, for my part, have every rational and human right to defend myself against false accusations, so stop making them. Thank you very much.—αrgumziωϝ 16:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of High IQ society for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article High IQ society, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/High IQ society until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

As a past active contributor to this article, and to the list issues at the core of the AfD, I thought you might be interested in this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Butterfly Labs 60GH Bitcoin Miner Single SC.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Butterfly Labs 60GH Bitcoin Miner Single SC.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The proof is in the source page for the image: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/dbtgallery.php?do=view_image&id=1169&gal=gallery . Or am I to understand that this doesn't qualify as "proof"? —αrgumziΩϝ 16:04, 25 November 2013 (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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)