User talk:FakTNeviM/Archive 01

__NOINDEX__

Welcome
--FaktneviM (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Welcome
Thanks for warm welcoming --FaktneviM (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Language
You are editing articles on the English version of Wikipedia, so those edits must be a good standard of English. It is not the responsibility of other editors to read your mind and try to decode your language. BlackCab (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

--FaktneviM (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am curious
Why have you placed a welcome message on the talk page of User:208.81.184.4 who has more than 28,000 edits? Moriori (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for curious question. .... OMG! 28,000 edits? Really? Actually I known its shared IP, but want to welcome that one of last editors. Despite IP is shared by many, it could be posible that few of them like to register an account here. In any case, welcoming couldn´t be wrong. See you. --FaktneviM (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And, what's this vandal warning all about?
User:184.36.7.86 made this edit to Eucharist and you later reverted the article with an edit summary saying "IP removed content of the page". The IP did no such thing, which you would have seen had you bothered to look properly. He moved some text further down.

You then left a warning on the IP's talk page stating "This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. " Following a subsequent edit, you called the IP a vandal in your edit summary, quote, "(changed to neutral heading (after reverting of vandal)".


 * Stop spying on me, please. --FaktneviM (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to be much more careful in future. Moriori (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That IP anon removed whole "Babtist section". --FaktneviM (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I examined these compare revisions, but perhaps missed to look at very down of the page as well. :( I´am afraid. Too much tired. Need a rest. Bye --FaktneviM (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

On your edit to User: Bible Study
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Your "typos" edit was unnecessary as the sentence was grammatically correct; you actually made it grammatically incorrect with your edit. Anyway, there is already a userbox for people who know the Bible and believe it is the word of God. This one is designed to provide the opposite point of view, and whether you agree with it or not, other users have the right to express their opinion and you do not have the right to censor it by removing the "doesn't." Beggarsbanquet (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I just recognized that there are two different userboxes with the exact image and "almost" same text. Template:User_Bible_study and User:Template555/UserBibleStudy, which they looks same and doubled. Actually, they realise different intended meaning by users. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:User oops
Hi. I think you're missing some points in your changes to Template:User oops. First, you're introducing bad grammar. "These users tries...". Second, this is an individual user box (as all are) and should say "this user". -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No. See my revert more properly. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Original content was surely intended for individuals. But sentence: "These users tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know." ... see second and third bold text, which weren´t changed....of course... that is plural. For singular is User oops|I...."I try to do the right thing. If I make a mistake, please let me know." I also changed to "User oops|I" from wrong variant "User oops" on my user page. (see User:FaktneviM). I think that placing wrong variant of the template on user page is each-one responsibility. Author of the template is not responsible for other users, which wrongly understood and place wrong variant of the template on their user pages. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Do not again revert to ungrammatical text. You are being disruptive, and people shouldn't have to follow you around fixing your errors.Moriori (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you blind or what? That is exact verse as from original author. Do not not change to nonsenses and read more carefully it. --FaktneviM (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am struggling to AGF here, but if you again insist on disrupting Wikipedia by reverting the template to an ungrammatical version, you WILL be blocked from editing. No more warnings. Moriori (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You´re just wrong. But I will not to give my energy into this marginality any more. Not-wise users could continue to be such as they recently are. I will not to bother myself with it. Some logical things which others are not able to catch are just too complex for someone. WP:AGF is not synonym to WP:COMMONSENSE, as I could see now. However I have no interest to squabble about this and to explain it forever. .... Thanks. Please stop talking. --FaktneviM (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

 * While it may make more sense to have "These users" combined with "they" and "them," the fact is that you are using "These users tries" when "tries" would only be used if the subject is singular. You should use "These users try" or "This user tries."  You have done this with your ungrammatical edits to other userboxes, such as the Bible study one above and the simple-0 one below.  If you want to continue to edit Wikipedia, you need to get a better hold on subject-verb agreement.  Being bad at grammar is not a blockable offense, but your refusal to learn is.  Wikipedia is too serious an encyclopedia to accommodate your ignorance. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe this user should be banned due talking on my talk page without any racional comment. Your English is much worse than me...See your last "crazy edit" in User simple-0 template, where you suggest potential users, who meet another wikipedian with "simple-0" level to use more complex English to communication with User-simple-0. Tragedy or black comedy. ...Never mind.... --FaktneviM (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion finished many days ago. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think only problem with this template is just "lazy users", who are "too lazy" to change code on their own user pages from wrong to right  ....Thats all. Lazy wikipedians and wrong written original template... wrong grammar .... right grammar .... Just laziness.... Users should change it to right pattern on users own pages. ....(I - first person)...version of the template. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:User_simple-0

 * Judging by your edit here I'm inclined to think that English is not your first language. You are clearly introducing grammatical errors.  You will be blocked if you continue without engaging in discussion to understand why you are being disruptive.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or am I missing your own brand of irony? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Level O" cant understand previous text at all. There is no personal issue. Just racional edits. Be benevolent as I want to be. See You. --FaktneviM (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If that template means irony, I just convert it to "normal sense" ... (for those who can´t undestand English at all....There are surely many people with such condition....There is new advice ... be polite+benevolent and use their native language or other, which they can understand....)....Normal template have bigger sense than that previous sarcastic joke. I have big sense of humour, but vilifying other people is shameful and non-permissible. --FaktneviM (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First, you're missing the irony of the user box. It's supposed to use complex English.  Simple readers wouldn't be reading it.  Second, can you please explain how "This user have" is proper grammar?  Shouldn't this be "this user has"?  I'm trying to understand what I'm missing.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Big typo. ... He has, She has .... so If you doing so quick (scary about blacklisting between I finishing it... both smileys ... :)) --- :(( ... --FaktneviM (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to correct "what you think is better" (?), but do not bleat, detract or even gird at other people. Please stop! No humorous in this case. --FaktneviM (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I get the impression that if I correct your grammatical errors, you will simply revert the changes without discussion. Your grammar is just plain wrong.  I don't know how else to put it.  Separately, your edits to Template:User_simple-0 change the meaning of the user box.  There are several users who have that box on their user page.  Why are you making a unilateral decision to change the meaning of the box?  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read my response. --FaktneviM (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see all of your answers. Maybe it'd be best to just reply at the bottom every time.  Let me start over.  What are you trying to accomplish?  It seems that you are expecting Simple readers to be reading these pages.  That's not what we're doing here.  This is not the Simple English Wikipedia. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Original ironic meaning of the userbox is plainly disgusting. That´s all. No other discussion is needed. --FaktneviM (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think discussion is needed. Your personal opinion of the user box, while important, cannot be the deciding factor.  Several users have that on their user page.  You cannot make the decision that they cannot be allowed to have it.  In a show of good faith, I ask that you revert it to its original form and open a discussion to gather consensus on it.  Any other action would be disrespectful to the processes that we operate by.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In such a case, we should ask users of this template for reason they are using. If anybody is unaware of ironic sense, (... = users who really can English very bad ... and thinking in good faith that the text means "I can´t English"...) ... ?! --FaktneviM (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation: ... "This is not the Simple English Wikipedia." Simple English Wikipedia does not!!!! mean ... users are dummies and stupid .... Simple English means little less word-stock, (cca. 2000 words) than native english speaker. It could be estimated that "strong" Simple English speaker has similar level of knowledge as it used average in spoken (colloquial English) language. ... "Just Enough for Real-Life". :)) .... --FaktneviM (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not implying that Simple English readers are stupid. I'm saying that we don't use Simple English here.  You're imposing a restriction on content that isn't appropriate.  I'll go out on a limb and say that anyone who is using the box understands the irony.  They don't need to give anyone a reason why they are using it.  You need to give them a reason why they should change it and seek their input.  The burden is on you, not them.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I´d like to offer the possibility of making two variants. First will be ironic .... rename....,,, and I´ll create a second one with name  . Do you agree? Or could you suggest any other idea, please? --FaktneviM (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think more input is needed. Let's start a discussion at Template talk:User_simple-0 and solicit third party input.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I will not bother to wait on another long talk. If it will be really needed, I am able to create my own templates which I´d like to use on my user page. Other people could use still that same (+bad) templates as were before my changes. But I appreciate your offer. See you later. --FaktneviM (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You may not create templates in the Template name space for only your use. If you want your own templates, you can put them in your User space.  If that is your plan, please revert all of your changes in the Template space.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I´ll do that only in case of strong pressure against my changes ("scenario" what is not much expected). One change (User simple-0) was disputed to this moment. And little bit in a case of (User simple) ... which is intended as simple-N (native, ... almost highest knowledge). --FaktneviM (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a request for a third opinion so it can be determined if further discussion on the topic is necessary. Please contribute at Template talk:User simple-0. If you choose that participating is not in your interest please revert your changes to the template. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I reply there ... Here is my last revision of that template. I did also changes in simple-N level and simple-5 level and user simple english (=general user category without specific level of Simple English knowledge) ...If community will prevail to result of changing, I´ll do my own userboxes in my user space (and offer to share them with others). In any case, thanks to all for consideration of this ironic vs. normal sense. --FaktneviM (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's be civil and productive
FaktneviM. You need to do two things immediately. First, you need to read and understand WP:AGF. Second you need to read and understand WP:CIVIL. Stop calling editors lazy and start addressing their concerns in a productive manner. Accept the fact that you may be wrong in some cases and that you need to be constructive in your discussions to seek consensus. If you don't have a firm understanding of what consensus is, please read WP:CONSENSUS. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is probably no AGF from his side. Rather personal attacking on me and making malicious gossips. --FaktneviM (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "There is probably no AGF from his side" is a perfectly good example of you not assuming good faith. Show me the specific words that you believe are a personal attack.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks I read all 3 recommendations many times ago. But in this case there is not AGF from his side. --FaktneviM (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you know there is no good faith on his side? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont know that, but....(see below)...
 * Specific words that I believe are a personal attack.
 * (1)He wrongly edited "User simple-0 template" --- suggesting nonsense.
 * (2)He clearly stated "on my talk page" that I am stupid and do only errors and that he is perfect and I am surely dummy.
 * (3)He clearly stated "on template talk" that all my changes were surely wrong, because I am stupid and cant English.
 * (summary) ..... Tone of his comments...are generally speaking "personal attack" .... (+++ see his wrong suggestion in template revision.... :-D)....Everyone could do some mistake. FaktneviM, Beggarsbanquet, Mufka, etc.
 * --FaktneviM (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the word stupid in any of his comments. I think you have an issue with feeling that other people think you're stupid.  Perhaps someone has told you this in the past.  No one is calling you stupid and no one has engaged in a personal attack on you.  You must admit that you have been made some grammar mistakes.  It's entirely appropriate for someone to point that out to you.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I admitted mistakes every time and always I do redress of grievances. ((((For example ... "non-vandalism edit" in previous case in Eucharist article...I did personal apologize to that user and welcome him with 2 belated welcome templates after. Of course, I did article change take back as well.)))) --FaktneviM (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Despite he doesnt wrote it literally, his comments are quite close to that conclusion. --FaktneviM (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Try not to take anything personally. If someone changes something you've added, discuss it with them and see if you can agree on something.  You're dealing with a lot of different personalities. Keep that in mind.  Everything here is a collaboration.  Your ideas may not gain acceptance from the other editors.  Try not to accuse people of being lazy, just assume that they're doing their best and try to work with them.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have neither time, nor psychical energy to solve endless and imaginary disputes, even in case of those, whom only aim is heavy tire of me. Not personally, but I just recognize my own health is not enough for someone with so called "unique personality" who sometime call to me. Previously I thought everyone could be "fool in his own way", but nowadays, someone here is suggesting me that I "have to" accept all dissimilarities of other people. That suggest "I am not able to obtain", because damage my wish to help here as a result. Thanks for calm friendly talking. End for today. --FaktneviM (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:User simple
I'm really trying to be helpful here. But your grammar is very bad. Will you please allow me to fix your grammar mistake at Template:User simple while maintaining your preferred language? It appears that you think you are fixing the grammar, but you're changing one mistake to another mistake. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the last revision also very bad? :))


 * Why do you not to change it to correct one instead of reverting to poor and misleading super-easy meaning. Just be bold and do not talk every meaningless change which could be . Do not inform me of every marginal changes on my talk page. This is place for serious problems, not minor ones. --FaktneviM (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * From watching your previous activities, it seems that if you disagree with any change that is made, you will simply revert it without discussion. I was attempting to avoid an edit war. Why do you keep putting the stuck tag on every conversation? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 7:47 pm, Today (UTC+2)


 * Another personal attack?


 * Anyway, I agree with Your latest revision. It is quite good compromise and significantly shorter text of the template, (and size of whole template image).


 * FaktneviM (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 - future
All threads will be archived at the end of June 2011.

Stop write bellow this heading. Do not create another talk topic. In serious!!! need, please use already existing headers at my talk page. Thanks to all for understanding.

--FaktneviM (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)