User talk:Mini-Geek/Archive 2007

Incompetency restored
Mini Geek, what yoe were doing? The Bishopric of Reval was never a secular state! See Estonian and German articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.110.66 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, it looked, at a glance, like it was vandalism since so much was removed, and the editor was from an IP address. --Mini-Geek 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: bit the newcomer?
You wrote on my talk page:


 * JFreeman, I think that with 72.134.55.98 you bit the newcomer. It was his first edit ever, he added things testing formatting. (diff) I know that wasn't the right place for him to test, but giving a message like that (level 3 test) suggests that he's been doing it repeatedly and on purpose to be a vandal, instead of just being new and not knowing better.

Mini-Geek, thanks for the feedback.

I try to figure out which edits are just newbie tests and which are gibberish vandalism, but I obviously didn't look closely enough on that one. I've retracted my warning but left yours.

I do think we could use a Level 1 "nonsense" warning (something like "please make sure your edit really says what you intend to say before you save it"). I don't think that message is brought out in the existing Level 1 test warning.

Anyway, thanks for your anti-vandalism work, and for the heads-up on this edit.

--JFreeman (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that instead of that, it would be good if, on your first post, it gives a message saying something to the effect of "If you want to test to try out formatting on your first post, please use the sandbox." And yeah, we all make mistakes. --Mini-Geek (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In the article about hypertension i changed "African American" for "Black persons" because of the accuracy of the term used. I might be wrong, but in the wikipedia article "African American" it saids that that term could be considered an American-centric description of the ethnical group. In that i agree with the article. About the racism that might be interpreted from "Black persons": It could be interpreted that way in USA, i think, but not where i live. I dont live in USA so i dont know how is it, but in my eyes "black person" is as fair as "blond" for characterization purposes.

I am logged by my IP so it might change soon and i would like to keep the chat in this subject. my email is rafacarrascosa :a-t: gmail.com

59.144.161.143
He dislikes that I removed some user guide-type content from HTC Wizard. Some people are just weird. Thanks for taking action on it, though. Wibbble 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Dear Mini:Geek. I am OK if he chooses to remove some content that I had posted. I would have preferred it if he was courteous enough to include an appropriate tag and also there were already a list of HTC tweaks and a section dedicated to them. I just added a few more tweaks and wibbble chose to remove only the tweaks I had added and not the ones which were already there. When I put them back he again removed only my edits. This made me realize he is a vandal. Since I am not one to easily get perturbed, I continued doing the good work for the sake of HTC Wizard users. Wibbble continued to remove them, and finally he removed the entire section on tweaks. I then included a link in the external links section pointing to the website which has the tweaks. Wibbble removed them too. I think he is a vandal and not I. If in doubt please read the vandalism section on Wikipedia. Thanks 59.144.161.143

Dear Mini:Geek, I saw your comments on the wibble talk page and it would seem as though you are talking about some martian. I am here and I read the comments too. The 3RR states that if someone posts some material thrice, then it can not be removed. That is 3RR. If you go to wibbble talk page, you will notiec that he has made no contribution but only removed material that people have painstakingly collected and posted. He is a parasite kind of a person. I think he must be a very unhappy person in life. But then this is almost insane on his part. 59.144.161.143


 * You don't understand the 3RR. Please read it before citing it. It actually says that one person can't revert the same thing three times in 24 hours. It does not say that if you add something three times it has to stay. Wibbble 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also remind you of WP:CIVIL. If you can't follow the wikipedia guidelines, you might want to consider if you should participate in wikipedia at all. Wibbble 22:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Talking about being civil!!! Please go and read the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes section. It clearly says that :--

Quote

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.

Unquote

Sorry Wibbble, you are the ill-mannered one. Period. 59.144.161.143


 * I started discussion on the talk page and have repeated invited discussion there. I'm not the one that's randomly vandalising wikipedia by reverting random other changes! Your behaviour in this matter has been nothing short of terrible. Wibbble 15:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that you are suffering from some kind of a complex. I have decided not to respond to your comments from now on so please excuse me. --59.144.161.143 10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

right wing nazism
nazism is considered right wing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.189.81 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)