User talk:DigitalC/archive 2

Anonymous of Project Chanology
Would it be possible to locate a reference that claims these attacks were perpetrated by the same group, that does not first cite Kevin Poulsen or Wired as its source? Reprints of the same source that cite that source are effectively just the same source, reprinted. As far as I can tell, the fountain of information regarding this claim still belches forth from a single point, that of convicted felon Kevin Poulsen via his position at Wired magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That other chan
There was some business that went down about 2 years ago now that ended up with many WP admins with a bad taste in their mouths. Mostly from the WP version of the Digg effect, really, but still, enough that at least admin I knew publicly derided it, and likely led to its placement on the auto-edit list.

Hope this explains your concerns from the Anonymous (group) page.

Logical2u (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 07:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your warning here and recommendations are laughable. Unlike your edit, my edit WAS discussed on the relevant talk page. The information in question is currently being worked towards wording that is NPOV. No consensus has been reached at this time. Please refrain from using my talk page in the future. DigitalC (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You've reverted an edit three times. I needed to leave this warning here so that I might have you blocked for WP:3RR, if you go to 4RR--you can archive or delete this warning if you choose.  Discussing it amongst anti-science POV editors does not legitimize your right to go beyond 3RR.  Sorry about that.  And I will respect your wishes to not come here, unless I have to drop another 3RR template. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have already disrepected my wishes for you to stay off my talk page. Please stop with the harassment and the personal attacks. DigitalC (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did not break WP:3RR, and I have never asserted a right to go beyond 3RR - in fact, I've never gone beyond 3RR.DigitalC (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution in the Process of Screening United States High School Student-Athletes for Cardiovascular Disease
I'm wondering if you've read the article. It discusses how bad an idea it is for chiropractors and naturopaths to be involved in cardio-work. As such, I feel my direct quote accurately represents the authors intent, whilst the version you have inserted two sentences below it in fact does not. The word "augmented" isn't even mentioned in the article, and frankly has an extremely ambiguous meaning in the context of the wiki-article. Let the authors speak for themselves on this. Jefffire (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Filll, I have already taken the challenege. Thanks though. DigitalC (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

re:Estevan
Dab pages are still "articles", so you would use AFD. -Royalguard11 (T·R!) 15:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will prod it first. If it gets removed, I'll take it to AfD then I guess.DigitalC (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How DARE you remover my question
This had a serious purpose and the term I used is from a poem by Brendan Behan. I'm now going to restore it, with the poem, and to report your rude and unhelpful conduct on the Reference Desk talk page. Might I suggest that you stay away from matters over which you clearly do not have the first clue. Tim O&#39;Neil (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stay away from me.Tim O&#39;Neil (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris Vitali
I did the best I could do reverting back to a real old diff which was completely without 'damage'. I have given the vandal the level 4 as I suspect he will revert again. 08:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)  Felis Leo Talk! 08:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Carousel Theatre
Thanks for your suggestions and for the improvements that you've made to the Carousel Theatre entry. Cheers, 207.6.56.95 (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also signed on as a participant in the theatre wikiproject, and look forward to improving my editing skills and as many theatre entries as I can!Carole Higgins (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I just added a few new edits to include some of the notable plays, this I hope also cleans up some of the previous references cited. CheersCarole Higgins (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How to tell if a template is in use
On the left side of all Wikipedia pages there's a "what links here" link. Click on that while viewing the template, or any other page, and it shows all of the pages that link to the viewed page or template. For templates, that usually means it is in use on the linked page, but it is posible to link via the method that does not display the template, Template:template name. Also in the templates for discussion area, on the line listing the template under discussion, there is a "links" item which does the same thing. Cheers, -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I knew there was a way, and that it would be quite relevant to the TfD dicussions. DigitalC (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealbreaker
Thanks for the welcome and advice - THE DEALBREAKER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dealbreaker (talk • contribs) 01:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rick Dees
You reverted my entries. I added information about his early career and first marriage. As I indicated in the original post, I know Rick Dees personally. I was born and raised in Chapel Hill, where he went to school. I worked with him for a year at WSGN Radio, I knew his first wife Carolyn Craft; her brother, Ray Craft and I were friends in high school. I listened to Rick Dees on WKIX Radio when he was working there. I know his work habits while at WSGN and WMPS Radio. My posts were positive, complimentary and accurate. I know of no other way to "reference" adding information when the information is from personal experience, nor of "verifying" what I personally experienced. Want verification? Call me. Tar4heel2 (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Tar4heel2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tar4heel2 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose I have a lot to learn about adding information to Wikipedia.


 * Much of the information in the existing article is not referenced, and two of your references links are dead links (Living Network #4, and #2). It irritates me that I am being edited in this way, and that personal experience holds no water. I'm not sure I understand how it is you are the gatekeeper of information on Rick Dees as well, with all due respect. Please explain your apparent "gatekeeper" status. Possibly it is that you are the original article author, but many of your comments in your original article appear to be unreferenced. My contributions were positive, insightful and material, and based on personal knowledge of the man and his first wife. I referenced my information as per the guidelines, so I am at a loss as to why you delete my additions. :Tar4heel2 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Tar4heel2

19A and etc.
Hello! Thank you for your update on the status of the article about highways named 19A. Unfortunately, I am still of the opinion that the article's value is questionable. However, I will add that is just my opinion and I have been known to be incorrect on occasion. Okay, on several occasions. :)

I also took the opportunity to look through your Talk Page and your past contributions. I must say that I was very impressed with your input here, and I was also impressed with the intelligent manner you handled people who made unpleasant accusations against you. Furthermore, I am glad that you took the time to politely inform me of the updates to the 19A page -- it is a pleasure to be in contact with civil people here. I would hope that you can accept the following as a token of my appreciation for your Wikipedia work: [barnstar moved to user page]

Be well! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind note. I am sorry to hear that the Chiropractic article has been the source of stress.  I know that Homeopathy has brought out the very worst in many people here, and I am hesitant to jump into that fray since I've had more than a few unpleasant encounters on Wikipedia in regard to debating subjects.  I have no problems in having an intelligent discussion with people who are of an opposing viewpoint, as in our current debate on the highways.  But there are too many people here who have significant problems respecting the contributions and observations of others.  Fortunately, there are people like you who bring brainpower and sincerity to the forums, and I am grateful to have made your acquaintance. Be well and enjoy the day! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Julian the Apostate
Hey, on the talk page over there, you wrote "Julius of Rome", rather than Julian. I emended your post with [sic], but you may want to just correct it. I hesitated to do it myself just out of courtesy. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ucluelet
Hi there. I haven't yet commented on the page move request you've made, but I did want to leave a quick note for you. Specifically, for the time being, could we limit page move discussions to towns and cities listed here. We'll certainly move on to the others afterward, but let's clear the backlog of the larger communities first. I also have a proposal for how to deal with other communities once we've cleared the current list, if it interests you. Mind matrix  01:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. DigitalC (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations
Your comment is so off base. What point pray-tell is being made? No where does it say that test cases need to be made. Should I just speedy them as lacking content and not worry about making what you call a disruption. Read WP:DISRUPT, I am explicitly seeking community input - your accusations are false and you owe me an apology - unless you are trying to deter useful editors in which case see WP:DISRUPT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that I have seen no policy that test cases need be made, however if the first couple AfDs DIDN'T pass, then perhaps it may have made you reconsider filing more, and decreased the administrative work load. DigitalC (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to be active here. I keep an eye out from time to time, but I'm not convinced that things are better here. But I did note that some particularly stupid comments had been made.Gleng (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Spinal emphasis
Take a look at Dematt's talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 06:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Julian the Apostate (again)
I am contacting you because you participated in a recent discussion at Talk:Julian the Apostate about changing the title of the page. That discussion closed, and immediately afterwards a new proposal was created to move the page to Julian. Please give your opinion of this new proposal at Talk:Julian the Apostate. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I do thaaat?
Thanks :-) I have no idea what happened!.-- Dēmatt  (chat)  04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert on the History of the telescope
Hello. On this edit, you seemed to have deleted some content that is currently being discussed on the talk page of that particular article under the pretense: "remove unnecessary information that does not add to article". It seems my gesture of goodwill that was made in hopes that you may feel welcome to enjoy Wikipedia has gone without notice. I think reading this article may help with our problem. I think you're my arguement. InternetHero (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the talk page for the exact reasons why that should not be in the article. You have not responded to the comments there. - DigitalC (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. On this edit, you changed a colon placing for an unknow reason to me. The clauses entitled, "he did not attempt the formation of a parabolic figure" and "he besides found the spherical abberations" are listed because he didn't attempt to form it. By coupling the colon and the word 'besides', it gave the reader an insight into the mind of the great master (the insight to why the attempt wasn't made). That is good writing my friend. Please don't give me the NPoV tags, I actually know the five pillars quite well:

Wikipedia NoR:

''Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:''

''* only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and

* make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the sentence. This has nothing to do with the five pillars, and only with what the sentence means. The sentence in question is "...[He] did not attempt the formation of a parabolic figure on account of the probable mechanical difficulties." We cannot list his thoughts on aberrations after this with a full colon, because they are not mechanical difficulties. (That is, they have nothing to do with how difficult it would be to built a parabolic figure). I hope this clears it up for you. DigitalC (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I understnad where you're coming from. A listing of many kinds rely on a placeholder and the placeholder above isn't the mechanical difficulties—its the mind to which can fix those difficulties. If you're going to keep doing this, then you're going to be labeld as an edti-warrer. I'm trying to provide a dispute to this and you keep ignoring my discussion and reverting. I am making a note of this. InternetHero (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One form of dispute resolution you might want to try is getting a third opinion. - DigitalC (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That is useless for a simple colon, but I already did for the telescope page. InternetHero (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert on the telescope article
Hello. On this edit you made a change to the history section. The topic in question is currently in discussion. Please try to optain a refuting arguement before editing. Thanks for yout time. InternetHero (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please link to the diff, so I know which edit you are talking about? DigitalC (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, thhst is the edit to which this sectoin is attributed to. InternetHero (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think (although I'm not sure since you didn't link the diff), that this is the change you are refering to? - DigitalC (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing... InternetHero (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will take it to the article talk page. - DigitalC (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit-war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. InternetHero (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken. I have not edited that page this month (ever?), and am not currently engaged in an edit war there. Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:WQA for User:InternetHero
This edit accuses us of racism, and I have posted a Wikiquette alert to request an outside analysis. It seems a little bit silly given that I arrived at that page to resolve a dispute, but hope that I am socially savvy enough to recognize when all of my words are being binned in a fight rather than being read in a discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks fo the "Orange" patrol.
Hi, DigitalC.

I've been patrolling "violet" for about a year, and I occasionally encounter problems with "orange" on the same articles. I just started to patrol "orange," but I notice that you are already handling it, so I will stop. Do you intend to do this periodically, or is this a one-time effort? It's worthwhile in either case, and thanks. I picked a list of dabs with "medium" activity, and I try to stay on top of them. If your "Orange" effort is one-time, then please let me know when you are done and I will adopt it. I do this because it's an easy way to help, and it's a more fun way to explore Wikipedia that simply hitting the "random article" link. -Arch dude (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Arch dude, thanks for your message. It does seem to be an easy way of helping the project, and one without content disputes! I had intended this to be a one-time effort, but it does make sense that Disambiguation links will continue to be created. If you don't mind adopting it, that would be great. - DigitalC (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bless you. Please go ahead and finish up your work on Orange. I will then adopt it, unless you decide to so. Yes, it's usually simple mindless work, but it's amazing that there are sometimes content disputes even in disambig work. If you are doing this simply to disengage from dispute craziness, then be prepared to abandon a disambiguation effort and pick up a different one if necessary. For example, "Orange" may lead you into trouble with Irish politics. For the record, you can look at the disambiguations I am patrolling on my user page. Some of them accumulate more than one new prlblem per day. -Arch dude (talk)

Newfoundland English
Where did you find the proper grammar "How are you?" listed for the Newfoundland English phrase: "Where ya to?" It means "Where are you?" If I wanted to ask "How are you?" in Newfoundland vernacular, it would usually be "How are ya?" or How's it going, b'y?"--WPaulB (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

list of jetix shows
if you going to do that then you will have to go and tag ever dam channel list of programs there is for the uk as none of them by your standards are verifiable. they are verify by the channel own websites if you ever bothered to look, past programs can not be verified so it should;d be deleted because it not there? no it verified by the fact people collect the information--Andrewcrawford (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)and please sign your posts
 * Yes there policy but sometimes the policy can not be used, ther eis plenty of examples of articles that do not follow policy, if you are goign ot be like this go down the lines and deleted ever ;lsit that hold information about old shows for channels and i am sure a lot of people will complain jsut because policy says so--Andrewcrawford (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)