User talk:Dscos/archive7

=October 2004=

Abu Ghraib
FYI, I commented on the (c) status of the Abu Ghraib photos here. – Quadell (talk) (help)  12:05, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the "©" tip! But unfortunately it doesn't work in Opera, the browser I use. Digging around, I discovered I can use &amp;copy; for the same thing though. Thanks,   – Quadell (talk) (help)   16:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg
Because this discussion was wholly silly and took up way too much space, I have removed it. You can view it in it's entirety in this version from the page history. blankfaze | (беседа!)  05:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the inspiration. I've put Neutrality and Jayjg on my watchlist. --- Xed 11:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed, Neutrality is a GREAT user. I trust him very much.  I strongly disagree with you weariness of him.  It's unwarranted, my friend. blankfaze |  (беседа!)  15:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The watchlist seems to have created a stir. The response has certainly highlighted the undesirability of Jayjg's adminship. Time will tell on Neutrality ---Xed 20:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, I guess so. blankfaze | (беседа!)  20:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship
Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:04, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem, I have faith in you. blankfaze | (беседа!)  00:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changing American to English spelling is not a "correction"
Hi, Blankfaze, I noticed that you changed two words in the corset article. Favor to favour (but you spelled it wrong, as favuor) and um, one other word ending in "or" that you ended as "our".

You are going to get a LOT of resistance if you cruise Wikipedia looking for American spelling to correct to English usage. I don't care much, as I'm bilingual (Leftpondian and Rightpondian) but I do not like having my spelling "corrected" by those who do not understand that there are systematic differences between US and UK usages and that both are RIGHT.

Grump. Zora 03:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * :-P, first of all. Secondly, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement 'Changing American to English spelling is not a "correction"'... British English is the proper form of the language, and in my opinion, should be used in all articles not explicitly about an American topic.  Thirdly, do not assume that I "do not understand that there are systematic differences between US and UK usages and that both are RIGHT";  I understand very much that there are systematic differences between US and UK usages and that American English is RIGHT, when in regards to American topics.  Elsewhere, American English is a corruption of proper English.  Thanks, though, for being civil about this :-).  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  03:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Bah. English, in whatever dialect, is the wrong form of PIE. We should change everything over to Avestan! :-) &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 03:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * LMAO. blankfaze | (беседа!)  03:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sheesh! Out of your own mouth! Fine, I'll change the spelling back to the American version. I'll be gracious when courtesy is displayed, but I'm certainly not going to grovel to British imperialism. Zora 05:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) (obstreperous former colonial)
 * Well, do as you please, but it might get dirty! Also, please note the notice at the top of this page: "Also, no horizontal rules allowed! Ever!"  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  05:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Israel systemic bias
I may agree with your assessment about Israel, but there is enough arguing about Israel to fill several telephone directories on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a person by person account of the casualties in Israel/Palestine - there isn't one for the Congo. Xed 23:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly understand your comment. blankfaze |  (беседа!)  23:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about your comment on WP:Bias. Xed 23:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I know THAT, but what are you trying to say, just that you agree with it? What's the Congo thing about? blankfaze |  (беседа!)  23:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm saying there is already enough on Israel/Palestine, including a person by person account of the casualties, yet there is no such detailed account of Congo Civil War. The latter is the sort of thing that WP:Bias is targeting. Xed 00:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I know, I know. But I'm not really interested in the Congo, nor do I know anything at all about it.  Thanks, though. blankfaze |  (беседа!)  00:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Help! I'm being attacked
User:Jayjg, the notorious Zionist POV pusher, has been stalking me all over Wikipedia reverting and deleting most of my work because he can't stand to see NPOV edits to pages related to Israel. He is extremely biased, as you well know. Now he is trying to get me banned so he can continue to censor Wikipedia without having to worry about maintaining a NPOV. I'd appreciate your support. Requests_for_comment/Alberuni. Thanks. Alberuni 15:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination
G'day mate, thanks for your support of my nomination for admin! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem, you're a great user. BLANKFAZE | (что?!) 03:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

172 Bureaucrat Nom
Strongly oppose? Why? 172 10:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No offence, but you're not someone I'd trust in that position. You're not exactly the most NPOV editor I know.  Ideally, I'd like all bureaucrats to be the type of user who does not edit-war. BLANKFAZE | (что?!) 10:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This coming from someone with a detailed summation of his political views linked to his user page... We all have a POV. Every individual's worldview is shaped by his activity and his/her consequent relationship with society. Yes, of course this does not exclude me; so I'm not bothered at all by your first statement above. As for "revert warring," this is going to be inevitable if one actively edits articles related to modern history and politics. I stand by my behavior on a number of contentious topics as necessary to maintain basic scholarly and encyclopedic standards; and other users have noted the considerable restraint I've exercised in conflicts, given my professional expertise. I'm not going to bother to persuade you to change your vote (this is just  a response to your above comments), but please let me know if you have specific objections to any of my work, which you can find listed on my user page. Thank you, 172 12:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, we all have a POV, but not all of us push ours into articles. I like you, 172, but I just don't think you're suitable. BLANKFAZE | (что?!) 20:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No, we all do. Our POVs are at the root of everything we do... Besides, can you point to any evidence that my biases have rendered any article unencyclopedic? As a historian I am trained to put my the ethic that this entails ahead of advancing an ideology. 172 08:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree; if one makes an effort they can separate their POV from their activities here on Wikipedia. For instance, I have reverted numerous POV additions to George W. Bush, even though I agreed with many of them.  Sure, I have a list of political opinions... but I'm not rushing out to the same-sex marriage article to push my POV there.  No, no evidence.  Just my opinion. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 08:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * POV can also be rooted in which facts you know and which facts you don't know. Even when one makes a conscious effort to be as impartial as possible, he/she may not see the same picture as other editors whose backgrounds sharply diverge, even if he/she has extensive academic and professional experience at his disposal. But this may be a moot point for our purposes here... Just to respond to some of the comments above pertaining to my work, I still doubt that you can find evidence that I have contributed "POV" content unsuitable for certain articles. 172 08:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WTF Bush Edits
I replaced a blurry off-angle pic (uploaded and changed today), with a none blurry traditional pic, from the same event. PPGMD
 * No, the image you inserted was the vandal picture of Bush with the Goatsex man on his laptop. BLANKFAZE | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 21:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Umm no, that would be kind of hard since it was a picture I took myself. Take a look at the pic yourself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_43_10-19-04_Stpete.jpg
 * A user Stpete has edited it so it's smaller so he may have editied it, but a pic revert is a simple mouse click away. PPGMD
 * Ah, well, sorry if I have incorrectly accused you. The George W. Bush article is under a vandal attack right now, so it's hard to keep things straight.  I would ask you to hold off editing the article until the vandalism slows down (if it ever does!). <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 21:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I just hate blurry pics, so I am going to edit it back in, with a note that we have reconciled our differences about the edit. I don't get involved in the political stuff too much on here. Just had a better pic and uploaded it. PPGMD
 * Nevermind, my friend, I just made the edit for you. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 21:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anon edit
I reverted an anon edit to your user page Geni 03:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 03:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FOX News revert
Regarding your message on my talk page - I reverted because the edit claimed the channel's slogan "the most-watched cable news channel" resulted from success during the 2004 Republican National Convention. As a sometime FOX News viewer, I have seen that slogan for as long as I can remember, and certainly much earlier than this year's RNC. I'll use an old-fashioned revert next time. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 22:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks for the timely response.  As for the second part of the anon's edit - it seemed to be just a wikifying... perhaps you oughtn't have reverted that part :-/ blankfaze . (что??) 17:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Supporting nominations
...only when the opposition is based on edit counts. ;) Ambi 04:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * As it very often is. blankfaze . (что??) 17:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Ambi 04:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rollback
I'd like to ask you to watch your "trigger finger", so to speak, when using the "rollback admin function. If you want to revert changes, please explain those reversions - save rollback for dealing with pure vandalism, since that is it's intent. Improper use only adds to confusion, and unnecessary conflict. -- Netoholic @ 05:21, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
 * Other users, specifically Raul, have already explained to you why your changes are being reverted. It was not necessary to go over it again.  Anyhow - stop making those changes.  They do not have majority support, and they will not be allowed to be made without first holding a public, advertised poll on it.  Until then, your change will be reverted on sight.  blankfaze . (что??) 17:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Reverting to the "proposed" version is already supported by Raul. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion. Stop causing problems. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Your recent reverts are only important to you because it is me that is making the edit. That proposed text has been there for weeks, and your removing of it is not based on the proposal itself, but rather just to attack me personally. Other proposals are on that page, and singling out mine just proves that point. As such, the proposal should remain, and you should voice your concerns on the talk page. Leaving the proposal (marked as proposed) is a compromise. -- Netoholic @ 00:09, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
 * Hahahahaha. "just to attack me personally"... YEAH, Netoholic, I watch you like a hawk youst so I can run around reverting your edits, JUST to attack you personally... Don't take yourself so seriously, mister! <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 00:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion revert war
Blank - please do not edit war on Candidates for speedy deletion any more. I'm talking it over with Netoholic, and it would help matters if you didn't. →Raul654 01:00, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * As you wish. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 02:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nirvana (Band)
Hello Blankfaze. I noticed you reverted my edit on the Nirvana article. I was merely updating an old link for the lyrics in the article because the old "home.att.net" website site is gone. That site merely redirects to the www.myclassiclyrics.com site now so I thought I would make Wiki current.
 * Oh, ok, sorry. We've had some trouble in the past with people changing that like to crappy websites.  But go ahead and make the change again, then. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 20:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realize until now there was a comment input field where you could actually say what your update pertained to. I should have used that.

Re:Deletions
So what should I do if I come across an image that's tagged with ? Should I switch the tag to and list it on Images for deletion? –spencer195 18:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You should check to see if it meets the criteria for speedy deletion of image at Candidates for speedy deletion. If it does, go right ahead and delete it... if not, IfD it :-) <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 20:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)