User talk:Vhgk3z5b/Archive 6

AlistairMcMillan

If I offended you I sincerely apologize, that was not my intention. But Wikipedia is not the place to add rumours. AlistairMcMillan 08:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

You can sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end of your comments, like this ~~~~.

Do you have any supporting links? I added specs for Beta 1 that I found on Microsoft's site, which are pretty vague but the best I could find. [1] AlistairMcMillan 09:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, could you add a note to Paul Cyr's RFA about the "negative experience" you had with him. There seems to be some correspondence here, but I'd like to know what actually happened. Thanks. Harro5 03:19, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Alistair explained the situtation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AlistairMcMillan (#4 under neutral) Paul Cyr 01:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Bluevale Collegiate Institute

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluevale Collegiate Institute you said it was a "Non-notable highschool". I think the added list of notable alumni, and available info from the web, indicate the school has easily now be shown to be notable. Perhaps you could see the revised article, and school's web site, and reconsider your vote. --rob 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Way ahead of you ;) Paul Cyr 21:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Vista image

Why think you that previous image of Vista Logo not is passed? 82.182.82.20 06:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the PNG image allows alphablending. Paul Cyr 06:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

82.182.82.20

Thanks, I dunno how I missed that. Blocked for 3 days. -Greg Asche (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Arrogance

Would you mind keeping your arrogant remarks to yourself? Thanks. --85.74.133.232 17:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Those are not arrogant remarks. If you feel like you want to experiment, please use the sandbox, because what you have done is considered vandalism. --Akhristov 03:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• You made subtle edits to a [page] in order to render images inaccessible. That is considered vandalism, which is why I put a vandalism notice on your talk page. And for your information my "remark" is simply a template used for vandalism. If you have a problem with that, take it up with a Wikipedia admin. Paul Cyr 04:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Cheap shot?

I had forgotten we had come across one another in the past, until you mentioned it. I also remember mentioning your user name recently. I honestly can't remember where, or what I said, though. Can you help me out? By the way, I have no problem at all with people disagreeing with my viewpoint as long as they do so pleasantly. -Splash^talk 23:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, I found it by looking through your contribs: [2]. You should not have modified my comment there, but I'm not going to revert you. It wasn't a personal attack, at all, I was merely commenting that your suggestion of speedy keep didn't have any basis as far as I was concerned. Maybe I should explain: as WP:GAFD#Shorthands says, using the modifier "speedy" almost always means you think there was something wrong with the nomination e.g. "speedy delete" means you think it shouldn't have come to AfD at all. "Speedy keep" usually implies that either you think the nomination is in bad faith (this interpretation appears to have been removed from GAFD for some reason; the interpretation and usage remains, however) or that it is so completely wrong that the listing should never have been made and that there should not be any debate. Either way, it's a comment on the nomination that I did not think was justified in this case. I'm sorry you found that comment offensive. You should still not have editied my closure comment, though. -Splash^talk 02:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

After a previous debate with you on an AfD, on another AfD you told me oh get off 1 when I made an honest vote. I felt that you were retaliating against me, so I told you then that if you continued I would report you. Because of your previous actions, I feel that you were simply making these comments out of spite and contempt. Perhaps you weren't, but based on your previous actions it definitely doesn't seem you singling out my comment wasn't purposefully rude. Paul Cyr 03:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you and I have rather gotten off on the wrong foot. I think we both need to actively demonstrate good faith toward one another rather than simply passively assuming it. I do not make comments out of spite on-Wiki, period. I make sarcastic ones, sometimes, and you were evidently upset by one of them. I'm sorry for that. I hope when we next come across one another we manage the whole thing better. -Splash^talk 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm always willing to keep an open mind, so if you want to start off on fresh note, I'll agree with that. Paul Cyr 23:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Dubya Tee Eff?

The only vandalism i see is someone deleting the content i made for yayhooray. (unsigned by Nfrancisco 13:22, 6 December 2005)

You removed a deletion notice. Whether you agree with it or not, removing it is vandalism. Paul Cyr 23:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Vhgk3z5b/Archive 6, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

If you need more assisstance, go to Wikipedia:Administrators and go to Wikipedia policies for more information. Cheers.Martial Law 00:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC) :)

RE: NPOV tags

I removed it, dunno why it was there. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

dont erase rowena abdy

she is an important artist,,,im constructing this article in the next 24 hrs!! thank you...see my user page for my authenticity ;; thanks michael Anlace 05:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mater et Magistra

There was an edit to the page about this encyclical that essentially converted it to a hoax joke about King Louis V and homosexuality. This edit was signed by you. Please do not continue to vandalize wikipedia by doing such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.39.146 (talk • contribs)

Actually as you can see I made no such edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mater_et_Magistra&diff=36845001&oldid=36841788 Paul Cyr 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was the author of the unsigned comment--hadn't gotten around to creating an account yet. I guess the edit was the other fellow, myspacesucks or whatever his name was. I apologize. Still getting used to the whole wiki thing, and it looked to me like the revision was yours. Rinne na dTrosc 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I've only been doing semi-serious editing for a few months and I still have to go looking through help pages to figure out how to do certain things. In fact the unsigned template above was the first time I used it and I had to go through the help pages to figure out how to do it. Paul Cyr 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Template on my user page

Sorry I reverted you the first time, didn't see what you were doing. Best regards Heptor _talk 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bye, Bye Birdie

I hope it is ok with you, I went ahead and removed the speedy deletion notice on Bye, Bye Birdie and changed it to a redirect to Bye Bye Birdie, which I think the author had misspelled. Let me know and/or restore the tag if this was in error. Thanks, --Hansnesse 21:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to your accusation of vandalism on the Windows Vista article

I have responded to your claim that the Windows Vista article was vandalized. Please see my Talk Page, which you so eloquently reverted, for a reply to your accusations. Winvistaforums 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?(2)

Stop my Vandilism? what? what i put on that page, TWICE may i add, was completely true, so i don't know where the hell you got Vandalism from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpoke89 (talk • contribs)

150.176.182.29 report on WP:RFI

I've removed your report with no further action (appart from checking that it's on the CVU bot watchlist) as that IP is unlikely to get blocked right now. It is shared, and therefore there is no guarantee that past warnings have been directed at the same person. There was only one case of vandalism today, which received a test1 warning. If this IP persists, warn with test2 or test3, then report to WP:AIV (which is the place to report simple vandalism, and receives a much faster response from admins than RFI). Hope that makes sense, feel free to get back to me if you have any further questions. Petros471 20:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

{{prod}} removal

NO, removing {prod} is not considered vandalism. Template states:

You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason

User is encouraged to provide a rationale, but it's not a requirement. If controversy arises, then article is sent to AFD to settle it. That's the point of prod, it's removable, it's not about discussion (like AFD). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You recently restored a {{prod}} tag that was deleted from the article Emir Rais Kadeen by two separate users and then proceeded to warn the users that deleting these tags was a form of vandalism. I understand this was likely a minor oversight on your behalf, but deleting {{prod}} tags is actually entirely legitimate under WP:PROD as a means by which to contest the article's deletion. It is only considered vandalism to delete CSD and AfD tags from articles, not to deprod them. Typically when a user deletes a {{prod}} tag, the logical course of action is then to nominate the article for AfD; however, as I believe the article meets the speedy deletion criteria, I have nominated it under CSD/A7. If you check my talk page you'll see that I was actually just recently in a similar situation, where I accidentally ignored the policy and "reprodded" an article twice that I felt most definitely met the deletion criteria, so I know exactly where you're coming from. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, that's what I was saying, from the prod page:

This process is not for contested deletion, and edit warring is bad form. If anyone removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, don't place it back. If the template was removed and replaced, the article will not be deleted. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on AfD.

Do not discount the opinion of the creator of the article. If the creator removes the tag, the deletion is controversial and should go to AfD.

Do not assume that because an editor did not state a reason for keeping the article that he/she does not have one. If the tag is removed without an edit summary, the deletion is controversial and should go to AfD.

So removing prod tags is not vandalism, and he shouldn't be reprimanding users for doing so. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Sorry about that, it was an honest mistake. I assumed prod was just a simplified AfD, with the same conditions. I should have read the policy regarding that. Paul Cyr 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yah, no big deal -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Windows XP

Would you mind explaining how removing vandalism is considered vandalising? Unless you're referring to some incident I'm not aware of, as the last thing I've done is remove some guy's random inserts in the Windows XP article. Z98 17:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource

You might be interested in reading s:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. Per extensive recent disscussions Wikisource is no longer accepting unaffiliated reference material such as source code. Please contact me with any questions you might have.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 05:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Windows Aero

Yes, that was an accident... you posted that in the same minute I was inserting my comments into the stream. Sorry about that! :-) Warrens 23:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Icon Comparison

Thank you for retagging the image. I (incorrectly) assumed the contributor had created the montage. In the future, please list copyvios at Wikipedia:Copyright problems as well. Thanks again. Superm401 - Talk 02:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring on WP:RFAR

Please don't edit war on the requests for arbitration page. --Tony Sidaway 03:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've examined the text you have removed and I do not think it's a personal attack, though as a characterization of a pattern of editing by three editors, it may be something you disagree with.

I'm not taking sides, but I see nothing particularly uncivil about Gnetworker's comment and so I have chosen to restore it. As a clerk to the arbitration committee it's my job to keep the arbitration page from turning into a brawl, so please respect this and stop edit warring. Please do use your own statement to refute Gnetworker's words if you disagree with them. --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Regarding your accusation of personal attacks, I intended no comment to be a personal attack. It is verifiable that you and your compatriots mostly edit Microsoft articles, that you aggressively police against anything negative about Microsoft, and that you devote much (no doubt useful) time and energy to the subject.

Your comment on my Talk page was: "Disagreeing on articles is one thing, but posting remarks that users are zealots or fanboys is uncalled for." Do you mean like this one, where you call me a "fanboy" (which is laughable, which is why I didn't complain about it at the time). I am certain I have never used that term to apply to you. If anyone is owed an apology, I think it would be me. -- Gnetwerker 03:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the things you are complaining about (like this), are not even remotely personal attacks. Please reconsider your hair-trigger on WP:NPA, and get some third-party advice before making any more accusations. -- Gnetwerker 06:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to interact with you any further. If you wish to take you complaint to the administrators, please do so. However, please leave no further messages on my Talk page. Thank you. -- Gnetwerker 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Confused about reverting

On the Best Buy article, a contributer new to Wikipedia has made some edits which do not conform to policy. The user felt that the article was POV, so added POV to balance it, instead of correcting the article to make it NPOV. In addition, the user's contributions are original and not verifiable. I tried explaining the problem to them and pointed out specific Wikipedia policies, but they feel that they are truely balancing the article. I'm going to try to explain the problem to the user once more. However, I do feel the user is making a good-faith effort, so rather than keep reverting (which would start a revert war) or being bossy to the user, what method should I take to resolve the issue? Paul Cyr 18:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Come to a compromise? Computerjoe's talk 18:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why I am going to try to do next however you can't really comprimise when it comes to original research and unsourced comments. But I meant after that if it doesn't work. The problem is that I've never dealt with good-faith POV editing, so I'm not sure what would be the polite way to resolve the dispute if a comprimise can't be reached. Paul Cyr 18:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Post a message on the related talk page, gain others opinion. Also, please don't subst {{helpme}} Computerjoe's talk 18:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I have been doing, but no one else has commented. Is there a tag I can put on the page to flag it as needing comment? Hopefully my last reply the user will be able to agree with. As for subst'ing helpme, sorry, I was recently asked by another user to subst templates because I wasn't subst'ing any. Paul Cyr 18:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Zealot?

Of what business of yours is my userpage, pray tell me? I voice my opinion as i see fit and not as some (Personal attack removed) might suggest. I don't accept the assertion of personal attack, as i did not single out anybody personally. Instead of making false accusations, apply yourself to improvements of the shortcomings i pointed out. Pantherarosa 22:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Listen, I have no time nor fancy to indulge in bickering with you! I am here for contributing knowledge not for discussing trivia.Pantherarosa 23:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • You heard me.Pantherarosa 23:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Icons-compared.jpg

Hi. I realize that the image is copyrighted, but the uploader supplied the image with a fair use tag, and rational. If you don't believe this is sufficient enough, then contact another admin to process the Copyright violation report. Thanks --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Regarding edits such as this: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --InShaneee 23:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't just be thinking about that, but also WP:CIVIL. Every comment you made towords this user was sarcastic, belittling, or otherwise uncivil, and therefore unacceptable. --InShaneee 02:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)