User talk:DiscantX/Archive February 12, 2019

But Fiverr really is fraudulent
Fiverr DID disobey the Terms of Service of other websites and it DID teach illegal things. Fiverr also sells fake Twitter followers and social media Likes. Proof in these links:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScamsAreHorrible172 (talk • contribs) 08:13 Oct 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but WOT is crowd-sourced opinion. It is essentially a forum, and forums aren't reliable sources. In order to include such accusations in the article, it has to have been written about by reliable sources. For example, can you find a newspaper that discusses Fiverr breaking the TOS of other websites?
 * The other issue is that articles are supposed to be unbiased. While it would be acceptable to discuss fraud etc (so long as proper sources are found), the wording and tone needs to be changed from "Fiverr is fradulent" to "Fiverr has been accused of fraud by..." In fact, that would be a good place to start. What are the answers to these: Who has accused Fiverr of fraud? Has it ever gone to court? Is the person making the accusations notable? Who has written about these accusations? Is the person writing about the accusations the same person as the one making them? &#160; Discant X  09:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Uh, WOT is VERY credible, even though it may be of opinion, it exists for a very good reason, and opinion is just human nature. Without the existence of opinions, humans would be little more than robots. Speaking about robots, Fiverr gigs are microworker abuse and RATING MANIPULATION. I WAS a former WOT member until I accidentally posted the wrong forum thread. I still have enthusiasm for WOT. Fiverr's ways hurts my feelings and hurts other people's feelings and allows cybercriminals to gain more false credibility in their unethical claims against WOT by placing fake likes on their anti-WOT accounts on Facebook. Fiverr's mere existence hurts others, and Fiverr is illegal. FYI, I found more proof about why Fiverr sucks:

ScamsAreHorrible172 (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Untitled insult
bumhole. how dare you revert my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.255.226 (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask you a question for some help. How can I contact you?
Based on some edits you did, I like to ask you some questions. How can I contact you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.235.171 (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC) ;


 * Contact me here if you would like, by replying to this comment. Just answer to this and I'll respond.


 * Edits to Wikipedia are supposed to be public, so what you say to me (or anyone on the internet) really shouldn't be something private that others can't see. That's the beauty of a community built encyclopedia; if it's something to be put out as a public article, then the discussion of it should also be public.


 * That said, I'll answer any question you have. Let me know.


 * I feel you may be referring to my edits to Au pair, in which case I will certainly give you whatever advice I can. My particular feeling on that article is that many of the people who helped write it are somehow connected to the subject of it. This is allowed only in a very restricted sense. People who know about a subject are accepted to edit an article so long as the article isn't changed in a way to promote or advertise the end goal of anyone involved in editing the article.


 * If you do have questions though, please do ask me here. &#160; Discant X  11:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki isn't censored
"Fucking" isn't profanity either. It's an old word meaning "quick." Please see WP:NOTCENSORED for more info. 2607:FB90:42F:75E8:0:50:3B5E:7C01 (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia may not be censored but the addition of the word "fucking" to that article is not necessary as you are not using it in proper context. Please see WP:PROFANE. &#160; Discant X  03:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, I'm Andyjsmith. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Safe-space because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Andyjsmith, sorry I read that line completely wrong. I shouldn't be skim reading edits at this time of night. You were right, that should have been reverted. My apologies. &#160; Discant X  11:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, for what it's worth, now that I look at it, I was trying to revert the edit that changed | threatening to threating. &#160; Discant X  11:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Trans-Pacific Partnership
I'm just reverting the page to how it was before the changes under question. The word controversial has been in the article for quite a while and there is a talk section about it. So let's discuss it before making changes to the article. I've contacted the administrators about this page (Administrators%27_noticeboard). Martinkunev (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think we both agree on discussion. Let's consolidate the discussion to the talk page then? &#160; Discant X  12:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Fine, let's engage there. Until consensus has been reached the edit should not be made." That's why I just reverted the edit, but you applied it again. Please check who is the first who edited (here it is: ). Martinkunev (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, you're right there. If you want to revert my revert I won't touch it until discussion is done. But I do feel that having the word controversial is politically charged. The controversy should be described in the article, not claimed in the lead, if that makes sense. People can make their own judgements on controversy, they don't need our charged words telling them what it is or is not. &#160; Discant X  12:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have explained my point of view in the talk. Martinkunev (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I cannot restore the page to its original state, because User:Phoenix7777 got me warned for the 3-revert rule. Martinkunev (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Best, I think, for all parties to leave the actual article be at this point, since ARBCOM have their eyes on it now. Doesn't mean we can't keep discussing it though.&#160; Discant X  14:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I'm pretty sure I meant WP:ANI, not WP:ARBCOM. &#160; Discant  X  12:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Biblio  worm  21:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss
A while ago, you reverted an addition I made to the Trans-Pacific Partnership article. I attempted to start up a discussion on the talk page, explaining why I made the addition that I made, and why the source I used was appropriate for the article, but you don't seem to have noticed it. I would appreciate a discussion of this, as my addition to the article lasted a grand total of four minutes, and I still think it's a relevant source and point to be made about the TPP. Thank you. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had meant to reply but became distracted. I have left a response there now. &#160; Discant X  03:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused
I made an edit on the page for White Eskino saying that it was the band Harry Styles was in before One Direction. You deleted it and I don't know why Chonce77 (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Chonce77, Two reasons: That page was a redirect to Harold Horwood, who wrote a fictional book called White Eskimo. Now, if you would like to make an article about the band White Eskimo, I suggest it be done at White Eskimo (band), but please review what is required of an article; reading WP:YFA would be a good start. The other reason I reverted it was because you included the line: "Friendly Remimder: LARRY IS REAL". This is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you have any other questions, let me know. Cheers, &#160; Discant X  03:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Fever Code
Hi there! About 10 hours ago, James Dashner showed us the official cover for the Fever Code on his Twitter, so I tried to change the image to the official cover. ElectroRaptor (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ElectroRaptor, Unfortunately you posted a link to the image on twitter. The image must be hosted on Wikipedia. &#160; Discant  X  01:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi DiscantX

Thanks for the vandal patrol on 'Ngaiire' page. I do appreciate that there are people like you out there in the wild. Werafa (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's my pleasure. It's always good to get some pleasant feedback. And thank you for your significant contributions to that article, it's coming along. Cheers! &#160; Discant  X  22:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Waste Management
What was wrong with that edit? I wasnt vandalizing. 66.87.79.226 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It wasn't vandalism but it wasn't a suitable addition to the article. "There is no garbage pickup on New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas Day. If a holiday lands on a week day, then that delays all garbage routes by one day for the remainder of the week." This may apply to certain areas but isn't necessarily universal. Plus, the info on the days that garbage pickup occurs shouldn't be plopped down in the middle of the lead. &#160; Discant  X  03:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

But The Doors really do suck
I just want you to understand what you stood behind when you reverted my edit. You are tacitly endorsing everything terrible in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.52.8.142 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh come now, don't exaggerate. There are worse things in the world and you know it. What about Justin Bieber? &#160; Discant  X  04:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

...
You are a human being devoid of any value, reason or virtue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.5.111 (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)01:04, April 12, 2016

Untitled (Delete request for Emmetropia article)
Please remove the emmetropia article. IT IS PURE RUBBISH MOST OF THE ASSERTIONS ARE PLAINLY WRONG Who wrote this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4003:5160:7138:39F9:4585:8203 (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2601:647:4003:5160:7138:39F9:4585:8203, if there are inaccuracies at Emmetropia I suggest you raise a discussion at Talk:Emmetropia. If you do, please create a new section at the bottom of the page, not the top as you did with this one (I have moved it). And please include exactly which parts you would like changed, and provide sources for the more accurate information that you would like it changed to. Thanks, &#160; Discant  X  03:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep undoing my edits?
You have not explained in the edit history why you have reverted my edit. Classical liberalism has nothing to do with libertarianism. Anarchism/libertarian as a political movement was a reaction to capitalism, not about supporting it.

You honestly consider the rape of the New World (classical liberalism) to be libertarian? You must be joking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1918081 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * C1918081, I did explain: Major edits to a Wikipedia page should be discussed at the page's talk page before making the edit, in this case at Talk:Libertarianism. I see you have now done that; now, please give a few days or even weeks for people to see it and respond (not everyone checks in every day). I personally hold no strong opinion on the subject either way, except that the edit should be brought in front of the community to discuss. There are many people who have helped build that article who I am sure will be happy to discuss it. There are also several WikiProjects that might be interested. &#160; Discant  X  07:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. C1918081 (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Brand awareness
Hi, Back in April of this year, you placed a template on the Brand awareness article to the effect that it was "personal opinion essay". Recently, I have completely overhauled the article. In that overhaul, I have: Wherever possible, I tried to retain existing content and work around it - by either improving it or adding relevant sources. (My personal policy is to only delete content when it is factually incorrect, conceptually unsound or incomprehensible.) There is one case study that was pre-existing (Mini- at the bottom of the page) that probably should be deleted and I have put some comments about this on the discussion page.
 * restructured the article using logical headings and sub-headings
 * clarified key concepts with accepted definitions and explanations
 * outlined the main marketing implications arising from the core concepts
 * added relevant images where practical (mostly sourced from Wiki Commons, but created one image especially for the article)
 * cleaned up expression and style
 * updated external links and added internal links to other relevant WP articles
 * added heaps of references (total = 50 sources).

Would you kindly take another look at the article and determine whether you are now willing to remove the template? Thanks BronHiggs (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Iqbal Park
Thanks for the message i have edited the Iqbal Park article because its been expanded recently. The data already in the article is quite old and does not justify the current status of the Park. Now its called Greater Iqbal Park and its been expanded. See in the reference its been inaugurated by Government officials. Reference no 4 in original article already proves its current status. Or u can just google the current status of the iqbal park... If wikipedia want to live in the past, its upto them. i did my part. Ref: http://www.hcs.com.pk/completed-projects-advanced-project-contractors/development-of-greater-iqbal-park-lahore/in  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.204.207 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)