User talk:Derumi: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:06, 16 July 2007

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Derumi.

This is the User talk page for 健次(derumi). If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

User Talk Archives

Archive 1 November 2004 —

title pages

Thanks for your help Derumi! For future reference, how do I make sure that the title page of my entries are capitalized properly? User5487 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)user:user5487[reply]

Generally, you just need to make sure that when you go to the address to create the article, that it already is capitalized. Before you click on 'Start the (article name) article', make sure the name looks exactly how you want it to. If not, you can just change the name in the address bar, and it should update the link for you. Then you can click the updated link and start your article under the correct name. You'll also want to check and make sure that the article you're starting isn't already under another name. Sometimes people might know a particular topic by one name, and the main article is under another name. Also, if you ever need to indent when you reply to another comment, just place however many colons you need at the beginning of your comment line. I see you are a quick learner and have already figured out how to sign. :) --健次(derumi)^talk 19:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Alanna Shelast article

I'm a very new user so I am unfamiliar with all protocols and precendents, but, I do believe this person warrants at least a one sentance blurb about her placement on Canada's Next Top Model Cycle 1

Do not ALL the second place finishers on ANTM have a page, by virtue of their placing second? Is there an official preference for Americans over Canadians and this is why an American who places 2nd on this show is noteworthy whereas a Canadian in an identical situation does not deserve a mention??? That's a bit harsh and biased and not within the spirit of this archive don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titomarvin (talk • contribs) 2007-07-07T04:10:48 (UTC)

I've only posted the notice for the speedy delete on your talk page; I am not the one that issued any of the requests for deletion to that page. The discussion for the proposed deletion of the article is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alanna_Shelast. The article had been deleted a total of 4 times, the latter deletions were because it was re-created after there being a consensus for deletion. If you think there is a good argument for the article to exist, you may wish to discuss it with one of the admins who have deleted the article, or propose it for creation here: Articles_for_Creation. --健次(derumi)^talk 04:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thanks for the revert

No Problem. Happy to assist. Peace. Spartan-James 15:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Not Wikipedia Administrator - RfA

Please have a look at his wannabe_kate count. He has 20 edits. It won't pass. Giggy _U^CP 05:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would probably have switched to Oppose if it wasn't snowed to begin with. --健次(derumi)^talk 05:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring at Tennis lists

Greetings,

I have already asked Mr. Fyunclick or whatever his alias is to stop and talk about this, but so far he has insisted that he is right about everything and won't negotiate.Ryoung122 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to do. All was fine and I barely ever posted in either group... just a tweak here or there. Then RYoung ungreyed all the players and insists on numbering non-slam events. After much contemplation I thought if I let the ungreying stay maybe that would satisfy mr RYoung... it has not and he has constantly hit me with personal attacks on my character (which I'm sorry to say I have hit back with.) It's far from my choice since it opens up all kinds of weird edits but I am willing to let the ungreying stay but not the numbering of non-slam events. I can stop posting in the discussion so people won't have to see me respond to Mr RYoungs posts but I can't let the numbering stay. Most wikis I write to seem to use the discussion to fully vet out what would be best "before" changes are made. The group works out a game plan, without changing the status quo, and only after a super majority agree will the site be updated (at least when disputes are happening). Mr RYoung appears not to follow that doctrine and I'm at a loss why. Fyunck(click) 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page!--Just James 11:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thanks for reverting my user page! Dust Filter 03:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do so! :) --健次(derumi)^talk 06:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Miracle Crusade

Suggestion: let's let this cool for a bit. The user in question is without a doubt going to get a stiff block, so let's wait for that to happen rather than continuing this edit war and committing three-revert-rule violations. It should be pretty obvious by now that this will get resolved. Tlesher 06:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's an AfD on the article now as well. --健次(derumi)^talk 06:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jesus Miracle Crusade

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jesus Miracle Crusade, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Miracle Crusade. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte & Danke

And all that! :) Thanks for the revert. Douglasmtaylor 06:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again! You're quick. Douglasmtaylor 07:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the least I could do. :) --健次(derumi)^talk 07:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moose Goheen/Temp

Go ahead and delete it, or redirect it to the Moose Goheen article. I started the temp page while there was a copyright dispute on original article. Thanks. Patken4 21:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape combat

Sorry about that, I was revering vandalism but then realized it spanned across a few edits, by the time that i reverted you had reverted too, so i undid my edit. Then you edited it again. hahh i was like @.@ :) Thanks. ✬Dillard421✬ ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It happens to me, too. :) --健次(derumi)^talk 07:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not violiting the nuetrial point of view buddy

Bonham is not "arguably" the greatest. Just because a few ignorant idiots believe so does not mean it's a fact. Seriously if you put this in Bonham's article, then yuo might as well put it in every other person who is regarded as one of the greatest on ther instrument's articles. Now stop this or i'll have you banned. Zephead999 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes you are. You cannot make claims for Led Zeppelin or John Bonham being inarguably the greatest without support any more than I can make a claim that Ween is. I note that you have been warned previously for editor attacks and violating neutral point of view. --健次(derumi)^talk 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? You don't think he is one of the greatest? If that's the case then it's laughable, but seriously untill you put "arguably" for the rest of the musicians that are regarded ast he best, then the "arguably" in John Bonham's article is being left out. If you continue to edit i will contact the owner of wikipedia have this sorted out. Zephead999 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zephead999

Just to make you aware, he has already been reported for violating 3RR here. He has done it to multiple articles already (today, alone), but has only been reported for one. Bsroiaadn^Talk 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up. --健次(derumi)^talk 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Bsroiaadn^Talk 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked indefinitely, just in case you didn't know by now. Bsroiaadn^Talk 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fale warning tags

Please do no post false warning tags on my talk page. I'm not some newbie, I know what I am doing, and fake little warning tags telling me not to do behavior I am not doing are completely pointless. I will assume good faith here and assume you didn't look at my posting history, or that you are new and clueless, or something like that and not assume that the tag was put there solely to be harassing. In the future, though, you should be more careful. DreamGuy 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real warning tag. Please read WP:3RR, and you will see why your behaviour may apply to this policy. Assuming good faith does not mean calling me clueless and presuming that I haven't looked at your posting history. Please note that the 3RR policy does say: Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Rather than attempting to conduct an edit war under the auspices of 3RR, you should strongly consider open, two-way debate at the articles talk page. Please do not dismiss this warning. --健次(derumi)^talk 20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False warning tags II

Listen, I *told* you not to put that nonsense on my talk page. If you'd read the policy you are quoting you would see that I am not violating it. Insisting on putting false warning tags on my page even after you were warned is clear harassment. Because of your attitude and actions, lack of assuming good faith, unfamiliarity with the very policy yo pretend to be enforcing, it's clear that you are not trying to be helpful, just trying to be irksome. Do not post to my talk page again. Any attempts to do so with be reverted unread as harassment.

I hope that someday you will take the time to read and follow policies and choose to help this project instead of cause problems for other editors. DreamGuy 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 123: / Line 123: @@
 Please do no post false warning tags on my talk page. I'm not some newbie, I know what I am doing, and fake little warning tags telling me not to do behavior I am not doing are completely pointless. I will assume good faith here and assume you didn't look at my posting history, or that you are new and clueless, or something like that and not assume that the tag was put there solely to be harassing. In the future, though, you should be more careful. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 :It's a real warning tag. Please read [[WP:3RR]], and you will see why your behaviour may apply to this policy. Assuming good faith does not mean calling me clueless and presuming that I haven't looked at your posting history. Please note that the 3RR policy does say: ''Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system.'' Rather than attempting to conduct an edit war under the auspices of 3RR, you should strongly consider open, two-way debate at the articles talk page. Please do not dismiss this warning. --<font color="#3333FF">健次</font>([[User:Derumi|derumi]])<sup>[[User_talk:Derumi|talk]]</sup> 20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
+== False warning tags II ==
+Listen, I *told* you not to put that nonsense on my talk page. If you'd read the policy you are quoting you would see that I am not violating it. Insisting on putting false warning tags on my page even after you were warned is clear harassment. Because of your attitude and actions, lack of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], unfamiliarity with the very policy yo pretend to be enforcing, it's clear that you are not trying to be helpful, just trying to be irksome. Do not post to my talk page again. Any attempts to do so with be reverted unread as harassment.
+I hope that someday you will take the time to read and follow policies and choose to help this project instead of cause problems for other editors. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)