User talk:Renamed user 5417514488/archive 14

Looking to help make WP as accurate as possible
I was wondering, do you know of any Wikipedia collaboration effort (such as a wikiproject) that systematically checks/corrects factual inaccuracies or disputes? I'm interested in helping to make Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica (maybe even better someday). Thanks! +A.Ou 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Hello. I'm a little concerned by your recent edits to whale/dolphin/cetacean articles because it seems out of character. You seem like a good editor usually, and then you went and labelled these articles as NPOV for not mentioning some people's particular religious beliefs on the origins of the world. Now, you seem to know enough about Wikipedia that I would expect you to know why that was a bit silly. What happened? Skittle 14:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what your 'point' was supposed to be, but I would expect you to know from your experience and clear reasoning abilities to know that that point is not supported by wikipolicy. From the very page you link to:


 * "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."


 * Not wishing to be insulting (really), but consider the Flat Earth example. It might merit a brief mention in the article on the Earth, but you wouldn't mention it in every article on geography, would you? You would feel free to mention countries' positions relative to each other without adding the qualifier "...although Flat Earth believers think this is not true." You wouldn't bring it up in the article on plate tectonics either. That would be giving it undue weight. Equally, if we were to mention some Fundamentalist Christians' views on the origin of whales, we would also have to mention the Cosmic Egg creation belief held by many Hindus. Neither of these views add to the reader's knowledge and understanding of whales and how they are viewed by those who study them.


 * So my concern was, knowing that you must know this, why the action? It seems out of character. Skittle 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research
Hi Yuser. Just to let ya know, I don't plan to add WP:OR to articles anymore. I'm just sayin' this because to you cause I feel that its unecessary that you have to go about your way to warn me about it. That's why I'm always gonna confirm these things with another fan before I go ahead and do something crazy (like open a poll or somethin') 'Kay? I meant no offense, cheers to you too! Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine; I was just checking, because you were saying to JRP "it hints ..." etc., which isn't a good enough reason to add the category. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "it hints", JrP said that . I would never say anything like it hints. I would just say they can because "so and so"... meaning, I'd give a very good reason why such a character would deserve a category. Know what I mean? Cheers! Power level (Dragon Ball) 14:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed where I have lost my cool. Please show me specifically where I have gone wrong. regards Merbabu 05:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Help
--&quot;P-Machine&quot; 06:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)I just got some heat for shortening my talk page how do i archive it? thanks

Thanks for the archive i got some heat for trying to take the top stuff off to make it shorter--The brown curse 06:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok i am really great ful (would you know any game articals that need handling?) the signiture is my new nickname--The brown curse 06:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks bye--The brown curse 08:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from user page
Listen, my friend, I wrote the article on popularity, dont take it as an offence, but noone else attempted to write it, so I did, dont put me down for trying mate, I gave it a go, by all means edit the heck out of me, but dont pay me out while doing so, I mean, if you know a better way of describing popularity then go ahead, describe away, but come on now, unless you are young like myself, and know what it takes to be popular in todays society, how can you have a serious input into it. If you feel like discussing it, my email is And1style@hotmail.com.

Thanks. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.101.254 (talk * contribs).
 * No, I'll discuss it here, thanks. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yabasic userbox
BTW, what happend to the yabasic userbox? We had a big discussion about what logo to use and now it is gone? Made the entire discussion useless :p DarkLoki 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why labeled as advertising?
Hey :) I recently added this link http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/features/endurance/ to the Wiki article on the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. Kodak did a feature on it because the photographer on 1916, Frank Hurley, carried Kodak cameras but it's in no way advertising and the site has a lot of cool pictures from the expedition. If you want we can remove the "Kodak" from the descriptive text but being such a nice website I didn't want it lost to other people who might be interested :)

Thanks!

X. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xelene (talk • contribs) 20:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Arguement
Me and Someguy are not arguing anymore. That whole dictionary thing was like over an hour ago anyway. We were able to reconcile at the end. Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. It was a civil arguement though :) Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please chek your boot.
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. From:  Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

? Hi your boot inserted me this. Please fix your script. Nasz 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What's going on here? Need a hand with anything Yuser? --Deskana (request backup)  22:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly
you have been told before about striking other users comments. Descriptions of FACT cannot be uncivil - she DID delete comments, she did describe them as "trash" - I will report you for vandalism if you persist in removing questions to other users on such weak grounds. --Fredrick day 00:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was acting under Wikipedia policy, WP:CIVIL, by striking your blatantly uncivil and inflammitive comment. Please do not continue to harass me or threaten to report me for vandalism if I continue; your actions are totally out of line. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have it your way - I will be upfront and tell you that I will oppose any RFA you make on the grounds of weak understanding of policy (I say this because you identify yourself as an admin hopeful on your userpage). --Fredrick day 00:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like getting constructive critism. However, please be careful when commenting in my RfA; the 'crats would likely interpret your comment as being in violation of WP:POINT and ignore it. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No I don't think so - I'd point to your edit, the context, the policy etc - I'd would take literally hours writing up my reasoning (plus I'd look for further evidence by examining your entirely edit history) - and you shouting WP:POINT, again indicates a weak understanding of policy and guidelines. Anyway this conversation is over, I see no further purpose in carrying it on - you see things one way, I disagree and will base my comments on that basic (which really is what all editors do at RFA). --Fredrick day 00:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the day . Seriously, if you think I'm demonstrating insecure knowledge of policy, I'd love you to tell me why (with diffs, quotes, et cetera) - after all, why should I not improve to become a better admin? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Just noticed this on User talk:Zoe. Yuser31415, your understanding of WP:CIVIL is faulty (and, yes, of WP:POINT too). You struck out a post that may have been unwanted by Zoe, but was certainly not "blatantly uncivil". I think your action was unhelpful and inflammatory, and the above interaction is not what I would hope to see from an admin candidate. &mdash; Matt Crypto 00:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are incorrect. WP:CIVIL explicitly gives an example of "taunts" being forbidden; that comment was nothing more than a taunt designed to fuel the situation. I'd love to speak to you on IRC, however. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not on IRC at the moment, but you can email me if you want to chat out-of-band. Striking someone else's comments is something you should really only ever do if the comment is indisputably uncivil. In this case, the content of the message itself was not uncivil. By calling it a "taunt", you are interpreting someone's intent. Even if you are correct, it is murky and ambiguous territory. &mdash; Matt Crypto 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing reverting my userpage after I have put it in an archive - if you want to be an admin, you are going around it in a funny way. Even if I had just entirely blanked it, it's not against policy. Now go back and revert your actions. --Fredrick day 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize you had archived. My mistake ... but please stop going on about my future RfA. I'm getting bored of it. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)