User talk:Samboy/Archive4

Wikipedia 1.0
Hi Samboy, thanks for the comment. I took a look at your blog comments, and I really think you should join us on the 1.0 team! Although I don't agree with everything you say, I do believe that one of the most productive directions for WP is to organise and "distil" the content that is there and see if we can put together a collection of the quality articles. Our group is (IMHO) one of the main forces on WP for "quality not quantity". We are hoping to use a bot to help us put together around 20,000-30,000 articles for our next release, though we're still doing manual reviewing. Would you be interested in helping out? Thanks, Walkerma 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. I would love to be a part of thw Wikipedia 1.0 team.  I have been thinking "All of the articles have been written, so I don't really know how to improve the Wikipedia at this point", and this gives me a chance to make Wikipedia a better place. Samboy 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have put it better myself! I was just in touch with User:Martinp23 five minutes ago, and it looks like we may have a bot running trials pretty soon, so that's good news. Thanks a lot for the offer to help, how would you like to help? Walkerma 23:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. I have ten years of UNIX scripting (sh/awk, Perl, Python, some PHP) under my belt, and about 20 years of C programming.  I'm also a native English speaker who can read English-language articles quickly.  Samboy 00:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfect! Do you do bots at all?  I'm quite limited in my technical skills - my university taught me the basics of Algol W on punch cards!  Would you be willing to join the review team and review a few articles over at Release Version Nominations? First look at the guidelines on that page, and then at the FAQ page.  Most significant topics need to be B-Class or above, but sometimes what is called a B isn't always a B, and some projects like WP:MILHIST set higher standards for B than is standard - so you have to look over the article.  This work is the routine work of the project, but it is useful, and will remain so even once we have a bot picking things for us - if you can read articles and assess them, that would be great.  If you'd prefer something else on Version 0.7, take a look at the ToDo page (which is a bit rough).  Thanks again, Walkerma 12:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Lectures On Bad Manners
You are not well-informed. Personal talk pages are the single exception to the general rule about shared control of talk pages. They are ultimately, rightfully, exclusively controlled by their owner. The sole exception to this provision is that I not dishonestly alter what other people say and leave those editted remarks displayed. Nonetheless ...

1. I reserve the right to delete obscenities and threats.

2. I reserve the right to delete pointless, hostile arguments in their entirety.

3. I reserve the right to delete trivial clutter and outdated topics in their entirety.

In this case, the talk page of BenWillard is mine. It is NOT yours. In fact, it is in bad manners for an outsider (such as you) to revert an edit I made to my talk page. Do NOT ever do that again!

By the way, I deleted the entire discussion between myself and another editor because he threatened me twice without just provocation. In fact, it is in bad manners for an outsider to arrogantly threaten another editor on any talk page (much less, his/her personal talk page) over a simple editorial conflict since it implicitly carries the insult that the other editor is both dead wrong and deserving of disciplinary action.

On a personal note, it has become painfully obvious that you are now intentionally antagonizing and threatening me as often as possible, both in petty ways and in important ways to your corrupt agenda involving Schoolbook Chess. I am one of the few good guys here. I am a fair, objective editor who protects decent free games against commercial monopolization and vandalism. If you steadfastly oppose me on these issues, then what kind of guy does that make you?

--BenWillard —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWillard (talk • contribs) 20:14, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Talk Pages and WP:VERIFY
All due respect, but either talk pages are in bounds for WP:VERIFY or they aren't. I "retracted" a claim I made about MaraDNS in good faith because I agree that they are bound by WP policy. You followed that retraction by:


 * Conceding that MaraDNS did in fact have a memory corruption bug, after denying that it didn't


 * Referencing my "retraction" as evidence for an argument


 * Making several paragraphs of claims against/about Djbdns (for instance, "based on my experience, would deny the bug".

I agree with anastrophe. We shouldn't be modifying this page. Let's revert that last change.

--- tqbf 18:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!


has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Marlith  T / C  04:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Secession
I see that Peter from Secession evidently died a few years back. Do you know any details on how? I was unable to find any reference or obituary, and since you made the edit, I was curious. Thanks! Amber388 (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries; I'm not a citation nazi. I'm just a fan of the band's music and was hungry for information on them, as it appears to be very scarce. If you have a link to the discussion board (unlikely at this point), I'd love to read it though. Thanks! Amber388 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oop! Nevermind. I found it: http://www.nwoutpost.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=165 Amber388 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

COI
Believe me, I totally understand that seeing the article about your software get out of date is probably very frustrating.

But it is also frustrating to see software developers using Wikipedia as a venue to advertise their products.

Forgive me for being blunt but if your software is notable then someone will come along and update it. At this point I'm assuming that a few editors have the article on their watchlists, so if you post a comment on the Talk page when you think it is getting out of date, then one of them will hopefully update it. If the only way for the article to stay even fairly current is for the lead developer to edit the article himself, then it calls into question whether the subject is notable enough.

And thanks for citing Slashdot to back up your argument. Very amusing. A few years back I read that site religiously, now even filtering comment at 5 doesn't clear out the crap... AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Slige
Another editor has added the " " template to the article Slige, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)