User talk:Hurricane111

Please sign your comments by tagging --~. Thanks!


 * /Archive1: September, 2004 to December 31, 2005

Thanks for the Welcome
Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia! RobD0tz

Happy new year
Saw you're on-line right now so I thought I'd stop by to wish you best luck for next year. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The Source of all evil (Article)
What do you mean? All information there is 100% credible, basically, anything written by me is completely true. DOn`t worry, ok. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by DarkFireTaker (talk &bull; contribs) 02:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

Tlapacoya
>>Many thanks for copyediting/wikify this article! You did an outstanding job!! << Thanks, Hurricane, for the kind feedback. It was certainly quite a challenge and I was wondering whether anyone would care. Gives me the will to go on! ; ) Madman 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pappu Ali
It's crap, but I had to remove your nn-bio tag, which is only allowed for biographies of real people according to WP:CSD. Sorry. jnothman talk 05:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Loungevania
Not sure how it doesn't meet micronation status, according to the rules set down by wikipedia, but whatever. And I referenced Pugachev's Rebellion, natch. David 13:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

yeah, got your reply, if it really mattered they did have all the currency, etc. except in electronic form, but I really don't care if it gets deleted or no, I got plenty of other stuff to keep me busy. Have a nice day! David 22:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your message
Hurricane, User:Paul Barlow started calling me a Hindu nationalist/right winger and this caused me to call him an aryan supremacist because he only wants his POV presented on Aryan Invasion theory as well as Max Muller. Please warn him also. Shivraj Singh 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

AIT
Thank you for your message. The problem is on the Aryan invasion theory page and on Max Müller. I do not believe that it is possible to debate with Shivraj, given the nature of his responses to discussion. I was documenting the debate on discussion pages before going to RfC. Paul B 21:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:TomFrogman
I've warned not to create any more nonsense articles and deleted the two you tagged. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Uppingham School
Just like to say that all that stuff that you removed was all true - do you even go to Uppingham? No, so you have no idea what is true and what is false...unlucky. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.19.50 (talk &bull; contribs) 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

Uppingham School
Surely someone who goes to Uppingham is a reputable source - should i provide you with names who agree with it?? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 135.196.19.50 (talk &bull; contribs) 16:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

Join wikipedia?
Dont you be fucking tellin me to join I am a member. Tevin27, im just not signed in

FUCK U

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.182.209.39 (talk &bull; contribs) 21:52, 27 January 2006(UTC).

Wikimedia Canada
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 04:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Titles
There has been a long standing agreements between various users and administrators that the Wikipedian Manual on Style would not apply to Canadian politicians and statesmen, as long as they were not too excessive. For example, Ambassadors would not have their article begin with His/Her Excellency, but Governors General, Lieutenant Governors, Prime Ministers, Premiers, Cabinet Ministers, Justices would be allowed to have their article between with certain honourifics such as His/Her Honour, or The Honourable/The Right Honourable. If you like you could refer to Homey or Proteus. Eddo 04:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I haven't been editing Wiki for a long time, been focusing on LSAT and law school applications. I remember there was a section in that same Canadian board started by administrator Homey but I can't seem to find it anymore in any of the archives.  Eddo 05:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Santa Paula Gang Activity
Thanks for clearing that up. I don't know what that original Gang Activity entry was trying to say anyway. Thus my comments asking for evidence and or clarification. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.30.216.181 (talk &bull; contribs) 23:53, 9 February 2006.

Evolution
The user is inserting large pieces of POV stuff about creationism in the article, which I revert. I have invited him to come to the talk page, what he refuses. Any other suggestions for me how to deal with that? --KimvdLinde 03:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you would go back and read my edits you will see that I never inserted POV stuff and I only inserted facts. The user KimvdLinde is using his/her own POV in frivolously deleting my contibutions. Please assist. --Axa4975 03:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I already asked Axa4975 to bring it to the talk page for discussion, I will be there. --KimvdLinde 03:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have copied the disputed piece on the talk page for discussion. --KimvdLinde 03:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ligurian language interlinks
Hello, I've just changed wrong interlinks in Ligurian language but you have reverted my modifications. This article is about ancient (pre-romance) ligurian language, so right interlink should be:
 * Ligurische sprache in german;
 * Antico Ligure in italian;

These others are about modern (romance) ligurian language:
 * Ligure in french;
 * Lingua ligure in italian;
 * in polish.

The bulgarian article is about both languages (the ancient and the modern one).

Bye, Lucio Di Madaura

You called my edit an act of vanderlism.
Vanderlism by definition means destroying something or writing on something which doesn't belong to you and you don't have the permission of the owner. The owner of this website http://ja.wikipedia.org says I have every right to edit Tim Burner Lee's article. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veilmenacex (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Please refer to my response at  --Hurricane111 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane ~ is it ok if you send me your email?

I want to ask you a couple of things first about wikipedia.

Help with reverts
This is my first revert and I'd like to make sure I'm doing this right.

There was vandalism by Broadiemac (and possibly Surfman123) on Fresno Pacific University I reverted the edit. Did I do it right?

After a little more digging it seems that there was some questionable edits to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Turnupseed&action=history How/when do you go about blocking a user? Waarmstr 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you become an administrator?
Thank you again for welcoming me when I first started. Now I've been around for a few months and done nearly 3,000 edits, I wonder whether I should think about becoming an administrator. Grateful for your advice, please. - Runcorn 11:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You still around, man?
You haven't edited in two weeks. :( CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * :-( CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Message
IP 205.158.100.145- hey, I didn't vandalize anything, I just browse here! And I probably am not signing this correctly.... just trying to let you know that I don't want to be banned for minding my own business. No clue why I got this message...

Abaoji
I have challenged the accuracy of the Abaoji article. Please respond on that article's talk page.

Ludahai 00:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:52 3 January 2007 (UTC).

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Sitok.png


The file File:Sitok.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: Richard C. Lukas
Hello Hurricane111

I am new to Wikipedia so not sure if I am doing this right. But I'm an English major and editor in my own right, so I think I have a fair point here.

I have attempted to make changes to the page for Richard C. Lukas, Historian. It is my understanding that Wikipedia strives to give information from a neutral point of view. Therefore, I am attempting to leave Lukas' bio as just that - a bio - with no controversial opinions about his work. Which is why I removed the paragraph about historian David Engel (whose page, by the way, does not list the historians who disagree with Engel's work), and the paragraph citing the controversy regarding the Janusz Korczak award. I edited it to simply say he had received the award. To further write commentary about his book or his award shows bias, Anti-Polish sentiments, and borders on libel. As it states in the introduction of Wikipedia, "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." Lukas deserves a facts-only page, not controversy and tabloid journalism. Those things are out there for someone to read if they choose. Someone editing this page, not necessarily you, is fanning the flames of argumentative copy. I would ask that my edits be allowed to stand.

Boulder2929Boulder2929 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

- Hello Boulder2929, Thanks for your reply. 1) Having a (neutral point of view) does not necessary mean that the article should not contain criticism - as long as the criticism is from reliable source. The comment with regards to David Engel is well sourced (For example "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/david-engel-replies-to-richard-c-lukas/80D67F1AD898E32D79EC21513C0B3456").  Thus, I believe that having this criticism should not be removed unless there is consensus.  Further, it is not "libel" if the information are cited from reliable source (Reliable_sources) 2) Dispute regarding neutrality of article should be addressed via the article's talk page, rather than engaging in "revert war".

Regards, Hurricane111 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Hurricane111

I am using the "Talk Page" to dispute the neutrality, and I did not mean to start a revert war. However, I disagree with your assessment on this matter. There are many examples of Wikipedia pages that simply list factual bios, David Engel is one. Why is it alright for some people to have simple bios, and others have negative press? Stirring the pot, so to speak? Because you aren't versed in Polish/Jewish relations or you would know that this author is trying to show another side of the Holocaust through his work. And there are those who don't want to see that or know that. So you are telling me, that if I found reliable source material criticizing David Engel, say another historian's negative opinion of his work, I could list that on his page? Just for the heck of it because it's out there, properly sourced of course, but possibly disrupting his work and throwing negative opinion on his page? Wikipedia acts like a bastion of good will and proper sourcing, but these comments regarding Lukas' work, while definitely someone's opinion, cast a negative light on his page. It is unfair to allow this for some, but not for all. How does one reach consensus? Further, if you and I disagree on this matter, who do I speak to about this?

Boulder2929Boulder2929 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Boulder2929 The best place to discuss issues like this is the article's talk page - i.e. Talk:Richard C. Lukas. This is how you drive consensus to the article. Best wishes. Hurricane111 (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)