User talk:Nuggetboy/Archive/Archive-Mar2007

Edit summaries
Hello Nuggetboy. Thanks for your contributions, but as a courtesy to other editors please start adding edit summaries. Even something short like "fmt" or "sp" or "dab" is good. Keep up the good work! Stewart Adcock 07:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

C# Name
Hi Chris. I didn't see any comments on Talk:C Sharp refuting ECMA's name for the language, so I assumed you just weren't aware of the fact that ECMA names the language "C#" (with a pound/hash sign instead of a sharp sign). Note that ECMA officially owns the language, so their title officially trumps Microsoft's. So, I reverted, with comment, your reversion of the C# "wrongtitle" template. I hope that makes sense. The Rod 16:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for moving the above misplaced comment to your talk page, Chris. The Rod 19:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

William Calley
In regards to the William Calley issue at Lake Worth, Florida, you can look at Posterofwilliamcalleyinfo's edits to see that this is not an isolated incident of this sort of nonsense. I've just about given up with arguing with him about listing him at Jewellery and hope somebody will less patience than me just ends this charade. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense? Even jewelry lies in the grey area -- I am willing to abide by consensus. As for Lake Worth, if you look around the Wiki as I suggested, you will find that Calley's inclusion on a list of famous residents is very much in line with who is included on these lists across the wiki -- the fact is that that this is an extremely notable person. Also, if you look at the rest of my edits, you will find that the ones I have actively pursued (eg Fort Benning, Americal Division) present extremely strong cases for including Calley. Perhaps you should be more suspicious of Ricky81682, who seems unable to presume good faith and has refused to engage me directly in a dialogue over this issue (he never responded to my post on his usertalk). Posterofwilliamcalleyinfo 13:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Last Derek Smart revert
Sorry man, this was not in response to your edit. - Chris 23:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, I think I got caught in an edit conflict. Stifle (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart
"I am considering filing an RFC against User:Supreme_Cmdr due to conduct and persistently ignoring consensus. Would you certify the basis for the complaint if I filed such an RFC? Stifle (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)"


 * Sure, what do I need to do? - Chris 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm building Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr at the moment. You can add any relevant information there, and if you agree, just sign under "users certifying the basis for this dispute". Stifle (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding: your comment on your suspicions that SC is really DS, even if true, I doubt that the Autobiography guideline will resolve the edit war. I also doubt that it can be proven, however many the similarities in the opinions, tactics & attitudes displayed by SC to those of DS. Tomlouie 19:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Thank you for the question. But sorry I'll stay out of this instance of application of the guidelines, since it seems a bit more personal than the kind of issue I usually address on Wikipedia. I'll just make one point, that WP:BLP may be more relevant than WP:EL here. -- JimR 11:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Florida Power & Light/Sandbox
This sandbox that you created has been nominated on AFD, because sandboxes should be in user space not article space. If you want it, or any part of it, please move it into your user space and the redirect can be speedied. If not, it can just be deleted. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE up for deletion
Hi Nuggetboy,

I note that you contributed to the XPLANE article at one point. If you're still interested, you might want to weigh in at Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24. I am not canvassing here, just thought you might want to know.Dgray xplane 04:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage! Hut 8.5 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, problem with DS page
Thanks for your kind words of welcome on my user page. I went to the Derek Smart talk page this morning, and found that Supreme_Cmdr responded to my comment, stating that the "Hostile Intent" and "Knightblade" forums were still on the BC3K forums. I went to the |BC3K forums and, sure enough, they are up there now. I swear to you, when I looked at that page 36 hours ago, those forums did not exist. I'm bringing this up with you since, hopefully, when you replied to my comments agreeing with me you took a stab at the link to vouch that my statements were true.

While some of the behavior (username choice aside) made me suspicious when I went through the Talk page archives a week ago, this clinches it for me: Supreme_Cmdr has to be Smart. There's no other logical explanation. I can't bring this up on the Talk page because he'll complain about slander; on the other hand, he's making me out to be a liar when he does stuff like this. What the heck do I do here? Cardinal2 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to this...


 * Thanks for your quick reply. I went out of town for a couple days, and it appears that things seem to have died down (for the time being) after the "link-or-reference" problem was straightened out. I hoped that WarHawkSP would add a note to the DS talk page (or even just my own page) that he agrees with the changes to indicate consensus on the issue. I thought when he didn't respond to my points two weeks ago he had either decided to agree with me, or that he'd just plain gave up. Apparently, that wasn't the case. I thought about posting a request for his opinion to his talk page to make sure the issue was solved, but given his previous messages, I figure it might rile him up, and it may prompt more edit warring.


 * Even though I'm pursuing other articles (Space Exploration seems appropriate given my background), this one draws me back because there's actually some human interaction going on here. After going through the archives, I now have a better idea as to why people watch soap operas. While the article needs some adjustments, changing the actual content seems to be a lost cause. As I recently experienced, changing something that doesn't even affect the content causes edit warring galore. Even grammatical errors seem to result in revert wars. Still, I see three formatting issues that should be addressed. First, the content warning bar above the External links that was placed back in mid-October should probably be removed, seeing as the Werewolves link isn't there any longer. If the issue comes up again in the future, then it definitely should be replaced, but I don't think any of the current links warrant using the bar.


 * The second - and admittedly much harder sell - is that the year-to-year format is a bit overboard for this bio. Two sections contain two or three sentence blurbs. Also, there's a gap between 1998 and 2001. I don't know if there's some written guidelines in Wikipedia regarding using this format. Changing it would just be as simple as removing the years; I don't think a whole lot else would need to be done. Finally, I would also like to see some of the "single-sentence paragraphs" combined - the "2001-2002" and "2005-2006" sections are especially atrocious - but I may hold off on that until after we achieve some element of consensus on the first two issues.


 * If you agree with me on some of these points, I'm going to bring them up on the talk page and try to get some (sigh, hopefully) positive discussion going. I figure if we can get some consensus on minor issues, perhaps it will gain momentum towards major ones (optimistic, I know). If that happens, that would probably make us eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize. Cardinal2 20:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nuggetboy, I'm just curious as to what is the point of potential libel threats that you seem to be documenting evidence towards? If I was to guess it is one of the details that convinced me personally that Derek is the person behind the sockpuppets. If I just caught you in the middle of editing or if you would just rather not say then I apologise and ask that you just ignore this note. :-) Regards, Bill Huffman 06:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

user:NYkid0709
I have reason to believe that is a sockpuppet of. DeathSeeker has been known to create many "alternate" accounts to bypass 3rr, he shies away from any discussion of his actions, and makes bizarre edits to articles connected to Xbox360. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Steven Rombom and justified vandalism.
I consider a webpage about Steven Rombom to be vandalism in and of itself. Why not start one about each and every inhabitant on planet earth then? Therefore, as long as it exists, I will treat it as such. This asswipe is sueing OsiruSoft because he likes to make money by doing nothing but annoying (and threatening) innocents. Starting a wikipedia page about this 'man' (one can hardly call him that) is so ridiculous every action against this page is more deserving than the possible action against the actions against this wikipedia entry about him. As long as this idiot is vandalizing innocents, vandalism against this man's wikipedia page is allowed, period. 194.109.22.148 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: heh
You're most welcome. --JJ the Crusader 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Falklands
If you actually l;ook yyou would see I do discuss on the talk page whereas those who revert me refuse to do so and make false allegations such as revert unexplained blanking--Swuekilafe 18:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read the 3RR page you sent me. What version did I revert to the first time? Certainly wasnt the squeak version so I dont think you are right about 4 reverts--Swuekilafe 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ie take a look a t this if you dont believe me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falkland_Islands&diff=108119857&oldid=108107690 and on the page where you report 3rr it says you need to provide the version reverted to and I donbt believe you can so please take more care in making allegations in future--Swuekilafe 18:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)