User talk:Notepad47

Thanks for the review
Hello! Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your review, and your opinions which I humbly accept. But, may be you should have seen my review form a bit more carefully. The articles Polyclonal B cell response, Clone (cell biology) lymphangion, lymph vessel were totally written by me. The article lymphatic system has many substantial contributions from me. Same with artificial sunlight, lymph node, lymph vessel. You can see the histories of the concerned pages. But, yes you're right about my editing pattern in the last 2&mdash;3 days.

 —Ketan Panchal t aL K   18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Greetings
Well, I'm fine, thank you. Kariteh (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

???
What are you talking about!?!

You joined yesterday and that gives you the right to edit other people's conversations!?!

It is for Future perfect to reply to. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

your editing of my comment above
I have no idea who you are or what your history is ... and we presume you have past history on the wikipedia ... but editing other people's comments as you did to mine above is likely to make your stay a short one. See 08:41, 22 July 2008

Thank you --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My edits to Demographics of the Arab League
I actually said why I made the edits in the edit summary. "Disam" means to redirect a link from a link to a disambiguation page to a link to the intended pages. Disambiguation pages (such as Indian) are not meant to be linked to. The Arab League articles had "Indians" as a link, which ended up at the Indian page. I simply changed the link so it goes to Demographics of India, which is the place where the link should go. If you disagree, you can always change it to something else, but it probably shouldn't be "Indians" for the reason that I stated. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I said no such thing. I did not say that your stay will be short. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been here for 3 1/2 years (an administrator for 3 years) and I have almost 100,000 edits. I think I'm being rather nice in this case. You are doing nothing at the moment but attacking users. Calm. Down. Being in attacking mode does you no good here. We are not a message board or a blog or anything like that. Generally, if you are nice to other users, you will get your way or part of your way around here. If you continue attacking people like you have been, you will be blocked. So calm down and stick around. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just about every edit you've made has been an attack on a user. A good example is here. I'd consider putting words in user's mouths and accusing others of threatening you when they aren't an attack. You've done that several times. Alot of "explain or else!" stuff. We just simply don't do that here. I just see alot of aggressive behavior. Please please don't give people time limits. In the end, if you want to revert an edit in good faith, go ahead. You don't have to threaten people or give them time limits to do it. Just do the edit if you think people are being incorrect. That's what be bold is about. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it IS a tricky thing to learn. Some edits are going to be almost always uncontroversial, such as adding a category, disamming. What we call minor edits. Yes you will run into cases where you make a minor edit that makes someone upset but it's fairly rare. Now if you are making significant edits such as adding several sentences, removing paragraphs, etc, then it is a good idea to consult with others before you make the change, especially when you are new. And you did get that right about consensus. If there is a consensus on the talk page and someone makes an edit against consensus, then it's ok to ask them about it. But be nice. :) Something as simple as "why did you make this edit?" is sufficient. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup edits
The change to the logo positioning was an experiment. I wasn't too keen on the result anyway, so I've reverted it. The second image was changed to float left because this is recommended by MOS:IMAGES. I've kept this change. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"be more understanding"
I suggest you read WP:VANDAL if you haven't already. I follow all of the guidelines set by Wikipedia itself, and have been vested with this power because of my display of correct judgement. Please do not insult me by saying that I am in any way hurting Wikipedia by carrying out anti-vandalism work. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 08:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My above comment is in absolute calm intention, and so is this. I have not made any attack upon you or anyone else, and I would appreciate it if you did not make false claims towards me.  I will not stand for you wasting my time, therefore if you add another vague comment on my talk page without any valid point, I will not take the time to answer it.  I appreciate your understanding of my views on this, and hope that you can come to agree with them. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 09:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, one more thing, if I may. I am cooperating with Edward Vajda and other "mainstream" linguists on the Na-Dene article. They do not think my approach is POV and consider it necessary to mention that Haida used to be a part of Na-Dene and why, although they do not think Haida belongs to Na-Dene. If my approach was POV in the Amerind article, please, forgive me, but I really want to inform the readers there have been at least some reasons to believe in Amerind. I have also given space in enough for the discussion of the validity of the arguments, but I cannot do everthing at once. I need more time to find the sources etc.--Pe t 'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 09:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Amerind
Hello. Please, could you be more specific as to what precisely is POV in what I edited? I do not understand. I kept the criticism almost intact: yes, the methodology is highly problematic, I agree. However, several pieces of information had to be corrected, or at least, explained in a more detail, like why Greenberg thought Amerind existed and why Ruhlen still advocates the hypothesis (the pronominal pattern, the ablaut, etc. - by the way there had been no information on the main living advocate of Amerind, Merritt Ruhlen, before I added it - is that not a fair and NPOV approach?). I have also requested in the discussion on the Talk page of the article that we add whether those two main arguments are valid or not, and why. Is that a POV? I agree 100% the hypothesis is highly controversial and I am not aware it would be a POV. But I also feel the readers should know how that hypothesis arose. For example, there is (or was, before I added it) no information on Edward Sapir, the actual predecessor of Greenberg in postulating the (generally unaccepted) unity of the non-Na-Dené, non-Eskimo-Aleut languages. Is that not NPOV? I think it is. Please, let me know, which particular pieces of information are problematic, if I may ask you so. Thank you. --Pe t 'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 09:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, I somewhat altered the references (I used the clickable ref tags, which I consider more user-friendly, and began to use the citation templates, which is going to take some time, of course). Is that ok? Thanks for your message anyway - I would not know otherwise. --Pe t 'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 09:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean the templates (like that I wanted that Bill Poser used inline citations - oh, sorry, I could not recall the correct template asking for inline citations, but I did explain that). Moreover, I did not delete any information at all, if you look carefully. Were those incorrect steps? Well, I know many linguists who support Greenberg and Ruhlen's views, so if anybody claims s/he represent the majority, I only demand (if not rejecting their opinions) that they properly source whatever they claim. And I agree Campbell is an authority. So, to sum it up, what I demanded were better citations. That is what the second edit was about, if I recall it correctly. Is that ok? Please, look at the current version. Do you still consider it POV? I only think it is more informative. Please, tell me if I am wrong, but as a linguist, I always need to know at least something on the rejected theory. If only in order to learn from other people's mistakes. If we said "Hitler" was evil, would it not be ok to say why he was evil, but also why so many followed him? (Not that Greenberg and Hitler were comparable, of course)--Pe t 'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 09:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

America, and your rights in WP
As per your comment to another user's talk page, no, this is not America, you do not have a right to free speech, nor do you really have rights to anything except privacy. Editing here is a privilege, not a right.

Also, please read Wikipedia: No personal attacks, as your attacks and name calling are against our policies. Also, please note that Tj9991 was warning the anon user according to the policy stated at Administrators' intervention against Vandalism. The policy is that vandalizing users must be warned four times before being reported, and the messages you saw were templates for such warnings.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 10:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would highly recommend reading WP:NOT if you haven't. As I said, you are going to get alot of attention making the posts you were making. People uninvolved will step in and comment. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''The user has been posting inappropriate criticisms and warnings on talk pages, and when I tried to give an indication of that to User:Nick Cooper on his talk page, User:Notepad47 removed my comments from there. Also, Notepad47 removed another comment I'd posted on this particular talk page.''  —Ketan Panchal  t aL K   22:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Messages
Well, first of all, I can get involved wherever I please, as can any other Wikipedia editor, secondly, what rights do you think you have exactly?—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 03:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are indeed one to talk, one who has not read policy. Indeed, we editors are allowed to get into other's conversations.  WP is not myspace, or facebook, but a collaborative work, if you want to have a private conversation with someone, take it to email.  But all that is besides the point, in regards to warning IP addresses, or anon. users of their vandalism.  First, the warnings are completely neutral, and don't stomp down or crush the editors as you imply, however, your warnings do, and are quite rude.  You also do not have the right to refactor other people's talk page comments, as it is against policy.  You do not have a right to attack people, no matter the circumstance.  Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments were not helpful, but attacks, and they are not allowed as per no personal attacks. Scrolling through your history, I see that you have commented on several others editors, again in an attack format.  You comment on content, not contributers.  Again, as per WP:NPA.  As the admin above noted, any editor may intervene, however, he must do so neutrally.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have attacked other editors, which is against the policy that I have cited above, WP:NPA, several times. Specifically, you have been trolling other Editor's editor reviews and talk pages telling them how their contributions aren't useful.  This is not an accepted practice on WP.  It is encouranged that you warn offending users neutrally, something that you have not done, and actually, you had defended an anon. account who has so far only vandalized an article, even when told that the edits were vandalism.  What you are doing is not encouraged, but is against policy.  To note this further, I see you have copy and pasted the same comment over three editor reviews, of editors who actually have a good standing.
 * Looking at your edits further, it appears your goal here is to game the system, or maybe you have some point. Both are against policy here, and I suggest you read our policy before you make any further remarks on others here.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, being in a good standing means that the editor has been here awhile, and knows policy, as well as the way that WP works. You have already violated several policies, of which I shall diff for you:


 * WP:NPA/WP:CIVILITY - diff - It's sad that you are so angry. Why can't you just do a better job on your edits and avoid letting your irrationality get the better of you? You're only harming Wikipedia.
 * Telling a user that they are harming Wikipedia, instead of discussing the removal of the content on the article talk page, secondly, your first sentence implies you are talking down to the user in question, which is uncivil.


 * Here, you did not assume good faith, telling the user how he should take a different approach to the anon, despite the fact that the anon's edits are blantant vandalism. Further, the editor in question was simply following the policy stated [WP:AIV|here]].


 * Here, here, and here, you copy and paste the exact same review to three separate editors, all of whom are in good standing. You have barely been here but a couple of days, and are not really familiar with policy at all, yet you do something like this?  Behavior like this is viewed as trolling, as it looks like you gave no thought at all into your review, and simply told each editor that he or she wasn't trying hard enough.  Every editor on WP has his or her own way of contributing, and each and every editor has different lives.  So they make small edits?  Maybe they don't have enough time, or maybe they just aren't good at writing, or other types of contributions.  When they feel like expanding their horizons, they will.  Next time you offer a review, please do so after you have more experience here.



All in all, the admin you have been speaking with has explained things quite well, so I shall leave the rest to her/him. I take back my game the system comments, but the others stay, as it does seem you are trying to make some kind of point, what, I don't know, but your attitude towards others seems overly aggressive, and your edit to my talk page pushes this further, as you are classifying me as ignorant despite the fact that I have been here far longer then you.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 05:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it does, as ignorance would mean having no knowlege of WP policy, of which I do. After being here for long period of time, one does learn the basics and get to know policy.  This is one reason why RFAs(requests for adminship), or requests for adminship coaching get turned down, there is a minimum amount of allotted time that a user must be active(four months I believe), as well as a minimum edit count, to show the community that you have enough experience and knowlege that you are capable to undertake such a task.


 * I would recomend you take a look at editor mentorship so you can learn the basics.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 05:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have actually already addressed the issue which you questioned. The manual of style for dealing with vandalism, or the policy on such has already been written, and I, along with others, have been following it.  It is in place so that the admins who block users for allotted amounts of time do not have to filter through false requests or users who were just testing.  The notes on vandalism, or, warnings, were written in a neutral style, so that there was no way they would be of offense.  Please see User talk space warning messages for such templates.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, in response to your recent messages, I am going to ask you to stop calling me ignorant, as it is uncivil. Secondly, in regards to what you refer to, the warning messages that have been prewritten do help the editor they are being given to, if they editor simply follows the links that have been stated clearly in the message.  Although it is a guideline to always assume good faith, not all of us do.  I have a habit of assuming bad faith of edits which are blatant vandalism, however, if an edit that is a test passes my gaze, I try to welcome the user.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 06:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any more uncivil comments and you will be blocked indefinitely, Notepad47. I'd suggest editing the encyclopedia as its what we're here for. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling a user ignorant qualifies as uncivil. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw. Wikipedia is an open forum. These are not private conversations. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know why nobody has come to the point, but to me it is pretty apparent that the user in question has had an experience of editing Wikipedia in the past and is trying to get on nerves of other users. Otherwise how does one explain the immediately getting involved in the editor review process after creating an account? I might be immensely less intelligent than Notepad47, and a bit less blind, too (otherwise, how does one explain the total overlooking of what I'd posted under the sections of "Contributions I'm proud of" in my editor review?), but it took me about two months of active intense editing on Wikipedia before I learnt of a process called editor review. And, this user comes and hurls insulting "reviews" around. Also, there was something in Nick Cooper's issues with this user that suggested possible sockpuppetry. But, if every one else is trying to follow a procedure by being formal before getting to the point, I'm sorry for accelerating the matters just a bit.  —Ketan Panchal t aL K   18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh. Some people care about the past histories of editors more than others. My interaction with Notepad47 wasn't particularly civil, but I ended up making a constructive article edit because of it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)He certainly seemed to be a sock of somebody, but unless it's obvious enough that you know which editor he was, it's easier just to get them blocked based on disruption and personal attacks, as with this guy. WP:BEANS, but I agree with you. Dayewalker (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I remained civil as best I could. I couldn't exactly pin down what point this user was trying to make, and his edits are what clued me in to that point, or the fact that he may be here just to disrupt.  Those with new user accounts down generally find that another user has a user review unless they put it in big bold letters in their signature, or on one of their userpages.  As to the point, I felt that he/she was trying to make one, but as said earlier, I couldn't quite pin down what it was.  As to the user's attitude, it seemed like he or she thought they were in a better position to make insulting comments at others, such as the editor reviews noted above(which doesn't make sense coming from someone so new), and some of the comments he or she left on other's talk pages.  I believe I noted one above, when he or she states: It's sad that you are so angry. Why can't you just do a better job on your edits and avoid letting your irrationality get the better of you? You're only harming Wikipedia.  This seems like the user is talking down to another user, does anyone else share this thought?  What cements this further, is that the editor states that he or she is a professor of a university, which to me sounds like that he or she is asserting the fact that they are more qualified to be making judgments of others, despite the fact that the editor may or may not be a teacher cannot be proven unless they waiver their right to privacy.


 * On Socks, I do not know if it is possible that this user may or may not be a sock. It would seem that if they were a sock, they would not have tried to unblock themselves, as in, if they had been here before, and were blocked before, they may have tried it previously(why try again?).—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 01:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Elitism
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia Elitism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dayewalker (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Benedict
I have removed your comments at Benedict, specifying Pope Benedict XVI as a member of the Hitler Youth. That fact is suitable for his own wikipedia page, but it has no place on a simple disambiguation page. Please do not give under weight to details. Dayewalker (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely
It's obvious that you have an axe to grind and view Wikipedia as some sort of debating society. You've been uncivil, disruptive and have barely even attempted to be an editor. Given your attitude, it's also very possible that you are a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Many users tried to be patient with you but it's obvious that you don't want to be civil or try to contribute to the encyclopedia in a meaningful way. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your conduct over the past day or so, at least, has been tendentious in the extreme. There are methods of debate which don't involve implied insults and explicit threats at every corner... – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for future reference, you can't unblock yourself . You can fill out the unblock, but an admin has to review your case and unblock you. Luna's comments above are only comments, your unblock request hasn't been approved/rejected yet. Dayewalker (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Complete lack of understanding as to what we are...and no desire to change. The unblock request demonstrates that. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And please don't use Sockpuppets. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt but since I haven't been attacked in well over a year and you are the only non-vandal I've blocked in about that time frame...just don't do it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)