User talk:Awiseman/Archive/Mar2007

March 07

Beer Pong Addition #2
I came back after a week from a snowboard trip and realized you removed the information about UCSB and considered it Vandalism. First of all, using sources for beer pong is ridiculous; it’s been created ad hoc at many universities. The reality of the issue is that Beer Pong was created far earlier at UCSB during the 1930's. Unless all my professors are wrong, including some noble laureates, then the origin of beer pong is indeed UCSB. Of course they could ALL be lying, destroying the basis of information that they seek to defend, but that is very unlikely.

You must also remember that just under 2% (1.86%) of the entire United States alcohol consumption takes place in the 1 square mile city that is Isla vista. This is a fact, call the Santa Barbara Sheriffs Department and ask.

Due to this fact, using frequency rates of college kids drinking, it becomes common sense that the game would originate at the school which has the most drinking game tournaments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.245.237 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC).


 * You've got to have sources for that stuff, I don't know what more to say. --AW 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Texas Embassy
Your recent "move" was by copy and paste rather than the page move tab. This means that the edit history is no longer connected to the content properly. I will restore the content at Texas embassy and Move it to Texas Legation —MJBurrage • TALK  • 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops --AW 07:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What Are You Talking About?
Dear Sir:

I received a "note" from "you" sent to my IP address (which was found when I visited Wikipedia again today) and it alluded to asking me to "be polite, etc. - civility - when addressing others" or something to that effect. Can you PLEASE inform me of what (exactly) you are referring? What page/topic/subject...and what instance wherein I supposedly violated whatever it is you feel you have jurisdiction to dictate to me how to write (whether it be opinions on a discussion page or facts on a main page).

I am an educated man with post-graduate degrees and a stelalr professional career...but even I am not able to infer what instance you refer. The times I HAVE written anything for a Wiki entry, have always been based on fact. The times I have submitted my opinions on a discussion thread, have always been in an equal tone to that of others. In fact, I dare say I am far MORE reserved and tempered than many others who post comments. I do NOT need to be insulted by YOU with your chiding to be "civil"...without being given any examples of my so-called incivility.

I have heard joking references about so-called "Wiki-Nazis" and people who feel they have some type of dominion and control over Wikipedia (as if it belonged only to them - and "outsiders" were verbotten). I think this should be addressed in future versions of the DSM. As a point of fact, after the THOUSANDS of dollars which I, my family, and our foundation have given to keep Wikipedia running...I could easily claim such dominion for myself and start sending snarky messages to others telling THEM how to behave.

But I would never do that. Because I value two basic tenants above all: 1. That everything posted on a Wiki subject reference page should be verifiable fact; and 2. That in discussion pages, the First Amendment prevails. It's a free country my friend. I do not curse, threaten, belittle, or defame other users. However, if some people are so sensitive that they cannot stand to be proven wrong in their theories (even in the face of incontrovertible evidence)...then THEY should get up - walk away - seek help, and get a LIFE.

Sincerely,

Mr. T. Griffith vaproman at yahoo dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.195.127 (talk • contribs)


 * Are you kidding me? You called Akon "Black trash", then you told me to get a life. If that wasn't you, then please disregard the warning, but it came from the same IP address used to post the above message . --AW 07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Military brat
Well, somebody beat me to the category of military brat, but I went through last night and updated all of the brats on the List of famous military brats to have the category on their page. Well, the category has already been nominated for deletion. The reasoning is because it is a "non-neutral" term and parental occupation is irrelevant. Thus, I'm letting people who have contributed to the Military brat article know so that they can support keeping the category. Here is the link to the discussion Balloonman 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * THanks, I'll check it out. I have been away a bit --AW 07:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Userboxes
You'll want to check Userboxes as well as create a subdirectory inside your userpage for this purpose (e.g. Awiseman/Userboxes).

Oh, and keep in mind that wise people never brag about it :) -- Saoshyant  talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --AW 18:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, feel free to use any of the code available in my userboxes. Good knowledge of Wiki markup as well as XHTML is a must-have here.-- Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles)

Please substitute user talk templates
You did this: so the new user clicked the section edit link and did these:  and, introducing a bug in the talkinarticle template, which caused some "noinclude" stuff to be added to the user talk page whenever someone used the template, so I had to do this:. Others might not have removed the extra stuff, confusing newcomers.

To avoid these complications, henceforth please substitute user talk templates. Thanks! -- Paddu 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Weird --AW 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hitler quote
''Agreed. It's poorly written anyway, it doesn't make any sense - how would Hitler influence them not to persecute? And who said that?'' Hi, the reference to that sentence means that Hitler was encouraged by the fact that since there was no public prosecution against the perpetrators of the Genocide, he would get away with ridding the Jews. If you have a better way to clarify the sentence go ahead, I'll try to find the source for it. Regards, --MarshallBagramyan 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I responded at the article's talk page --AW 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Hey AW, thanks very much for the welcome on my talk page. I'm really enjoying editing and contributing. I am, of course, hitting some frustrating bumps along the road and could use an objective eye once in a while to advise me on how to deal with disputes, or better yet prevent them. You seem like a pro. Anyway, thanks again! NYDCSP 03:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

First Battle of Tapae - factual questions
Please take a look at the discussion page for First Battle of Tapae, which you have worked on in the past - I am proposing that some of the content is incorrect and should be moved from the page. Please have a look at my comments and provide any cites you are aware of. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 12:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)