This user may have left Wikipedia. That Guy, From That Show! has not edited Wikipedia since 1 October 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

User	Talk	Contributions	eMail	User Links	My Notes	Projects	Sandbox	Toolbox

Mephistopheles needs a lot of work

Grammarpalooza new addition to my family

• Archives:01 / 02 / 03 rfa

29 March 2024
Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year Interview: Interview on Wikimedia Foundation fundraising and finance strategy Special report: 19-page PDF accuses Wikipedia of bias against Israel, suggests editors be forced to reveal their real names, and demands a new feature allowing people to view the history of Wikipedia articles Op-Ed: Wikipedia in the age of personality-driven knowledge Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors News and notes: Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter ratified In the media: "For me it’s the autism": AARoad editors on the fork more traveled Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune Humour: Letters from the editors Comix: Layout issue
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Help our Wikiproject improve! Recently we have been asked to set our milestones, in which we will strive to gain our goals (which could be number of FAs or such). Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuzzerack (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love your sense of humour man :o)

"RV because unwanted intrusion of a penis"

Ha ha ha. Asterion 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you found the summary amusing.

Lately I've been trying to add some "fun" stuff to my vandalism revert summaries to keep it from getting boring.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-24 09:37Z

Does this work? Sarah crane 15:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works, cool!

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia! —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-28 15:38Z

Thank you, Guy! Wow, it's going to take a while to read all that. Thanks for telling me about it! This seems like a really neat place. Sarah crane 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but I have a couple questions, and I don't know who else to ask. How do you know when an article is a stub, and when it's long enough that it's not a stub anymore? Also, I see that some people use specific types of stubs. How do I know what stub to use for an article? Thanks in advance, Sarah crane 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bother by any means. I spend part of my day maintaining a couple of networks (my main employment, usually remotely) and the rest doing things like I did today, raking the yard and making sure that all of my lawn related equipment is ready to go for Spring. When I'm around, I can usually be found in IRC channel #wikipedia-bootcamp where there are most often people around and awake (we are from all over the planet, time zones vary quite a bit) to help people. Sometimes, it just happens that everyone is gone either sleeping or doing something else, so don't take it personally if perchance no one replies quickly. Commander Keane there on IRC is (for example) one of the most helpful Wikipedians I have been fortunate to meet.

If you don't have an IRC program and do want to connect to live channels instead or in addition to talking on pages like this one, you may want to visit IRC clients as it is very useful for learning about communicating live on IRC or you can ask me questions about it if would like to.

Regarding your question, stubs and links from there as well as the discussion page may help you with information regarding your question. There are many gray areas regarding stubs (and many other things here for various reasons) so it may well be that you won't find a precise definition due to many differing situations. That is one of the Good Things about Wikipedia, it is very often flexible about things.

If the stubs link doesn't have what you are looking for, let me know. Thanks for the question and don't hesitate to ask for more information here or on #wikipedia-bootcamp.

There is another option as well. You can add a section to the end of your user page like == whatever ==, put in your question, and add ((helpme)) at the end. This will signal software that will send a message to IRC live chat (sometimes it is delayed) and someone should get back to you soon.

-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk)

Thanks so much! I'll look through there. Sarah crane 13:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks, it's good to be noticed! This place is very friendly. Much more so than many big message boards and stuff. Maybe it's because we're all trying to do something productive together, instead of just chatting. Have a great day! Sarah crane 19:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I wish that was true. I've tried to be nice to everybody, but it isn't always returned. You've been very kind to be, and I need a little help, so I thought I'd come to you.

(refactor, I moved this latest comment into a new section here) —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-05 21:41Z

(refactor, I moved this content from this section above) —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-05 21:41Z

Well, now I wish that was true. I've tried to be nice to everybody, but it isn't always returned. You've been very kind to be, and I need a little help, so I thought I'd come to you.

I worked very hard on the Northrop Grumman article, and even put it up for peer review. But on Wikipedia:Peer review/Northrop Grumman/archive1, a former employee has been harrassing me. I'm not sure what to do. At first I got mad at him, and then I apologized, but he's just gotten worse. He's deleting parts of the article that are critical of the company, and he's accusing me of all kinds of things. Could you look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Northrop Grumman/archive1 and maybe give your opinion? Thanks a lot. Sarah crane 19:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a comment that I hope will calm down the situation without taking a "side" because personal attacks need to be avoided irregardless of what is being discussed so there aren't "sides" to be taken. For your part, I'm glad to see (again!) that you are a reasonable person and will apologize for your part in {whatever}. We need a lot more of that here on wikipedia :)

Be assured that many editors are watching what is happening on that page as well as any talk page discussions between you and the other party and will take appropriate actions to help stop problems.

I will look into the article situation more closely as soon as I can. It will take a bit of time because I am not specifically familiar with it and will be doing some research. Keep in mind that just because something is true does not automatically mean that it needs to be in an article. This is something that puzzled me when I first started editing but once I understood the over-all Big Picture regarding that, I understand the many reasons that this is the way things are done here. That's just a general statement and doesn't reflect your editing in that article because I have not looked at it closely yet.

-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk)

Thanks. I don't need to be right, I just want to be treated with basic respect. Thanks for doing so, it means a lot. Also, I looked at the Peer Review page, and I hadn't realized all that mess is taking up so much space on the page! It's like half the whole peer review page for all articles is taken up by this one spat about NG! I don't want to waste peoples time when they're just looking for articles to improve. Can I take the peer request down? I'm kind of sorry I ever put it up. How do I do that? Sarah crane 23:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I found Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, and I read it, but it doesn't seem to apply. Maybe the peer review just needs to be reset? I don't know how to do that either though. Sarah crane 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look into options regarding that. Also, I would strongly suggest that you completely avoid replying to personal conflict type comments and that includes defenses about your character and related issues. Take the day off and relax. Wikipedia isn't going away any time soon.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-06 00:08Z

I'm trying to do that. Thanks. I've been writing articles about owls instead. But I have another question: I know I'm not supposed to revert-war, but a user deleted a lot of info I added to Northrop Grumman, and I don't see how any of what he removed was controversial, and so I reverted him. Was this right for me to do? Now he's just removing a link of mine, but it seems like a valid link. What do I do? Do they just win because I follow the rules and they don't? Sarah crane 15:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let them break the rules and establish a pattern for doing so. In the long run, you will come out on top as long as you keep a clean history for avoiding the same. You will get used to dealing with this but it takes time. (Note: This does not mean that breaking rules is ok for them, but that as you have seen with the Peer Review that people are not punished immediately for every infraction, instead warnings are issued unless the violations are extreme or the person has been in serious trouble previously)

I have had similar problems with a few articles. I have either tried to add information that was completely relevant to an article or remove information that was not. By trying to do it in large chunks I was reverted quite often by groups of people who would not keep an open mind and consider that there are other views. Edit-wars would start which are Very Bad for Wikipedia. Personal attacks about completely made up things happened as well. Those attacks were often just bait to get me to blow up so several people could point at me as a disruptive editor. Instead of taking the bait (most of the time anyway, I'm not perfect) I backed off for a while and came back to the articles to slowly add or remove the information I believed to be important. This was a much easier road because if a person adds for example 3 sentences to an article, they can debate those 3 sentences without much confusion. If paragraphs are added, the talk page can quickly turn into a mess and that makes it less likely to get information added. (Links are considered more like adding paragraphs because they link to large amounts of information)

When I backed off I worked on non-controversial articles and tried to forget about the other articles for a while. What I did keep in mind was that Wikipedia has been here for a while and is not going away, patience is a virtue as well as Rome wasn't built in a day. As long as your information is reasonable, follows Wikipedia guidelines, and you take a slow approach, don't let people bait you, and avoid revert wars, you can accomplish almost whatever it is you want to do.

I personally avoid making more than 2 non-vandalism reverts per article in a 24-hour period. Pushing the edge by doing 3 reverts in a day while permissible is not usually looked upon as a good idea as can be seen at WP:3RR.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-06 19:29Z

Is not copyvio please read my answer at the talk page regarding this or discuss at the talk page of the article. I am reverting it back to what it was. Mystic 14:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the instructions in the copyvio notice. You cannot just keep reverting people to make it go away.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-13 14:34

Thank you for your compliment! But now you've got my curiosity... I've only edited a few pages, which ones did you notice? Charlie Sheen? GWB? Bob Newman?

Your GWB and Bob Newman edits. I watch quite many pages to keep an eye out for POV pushing and it's nice to see the opposite. We need much more of that sort of editing.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-05-01 15:51

Thank you very much! —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-05-05 15:07

Hi, could you add a voice of reason regarding the claims about AWB to User_talk:William_Allen_Simpson#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)? I just don't know what to say to him anymore. thanks Martin 14:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Guy, from That Show! wrote

I put a list in your Sandbox as well as the "words" I searched for to generate that list.

Have fun ;) —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-05-05 13:18

Thanks for the list, it'll probably be a couple of weeks before I actually use it, but I'll let you know when I'm done – Gurch 22:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are barnstars for the most ridiculous edit summaries, I'll gladly award you that :-) Tintin (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, summaries like that can look like vandalism until you actually see the edit... Morgan Wick 04:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. But, my opinion is that people have learned to use mischievous summaries to do Bad Things. That said, I will go back to my normal grammar/spelling summary due to it being cooked up on IRC for minor amusement this last weekend.

Regards, —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-05-15 05:06

Thanks for editing the grammar but more thanks to your sense of Humour "Grammarpalooza '06 wikipedia world tour let's party naked!) " XD.Burning phoneix 06:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you enjoyed it. It's nice to see that tedious work is noticed even when the user makes (hopefully) humorous edit summaries when doing that work!

Regards, —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-05-15 06:44

Hey, just wanted to say that I like your user name and I like your attitude. You seem to have just the right mix of principle and flexibility that Wikipedia needs. And you caught my typo! Thanks! Eixo 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-05-18 08:32

at Show!|That Guy, From That Show!]] 17:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Chandler. I came here because I liked your name (how did I get here? Editcount AfD, yeah) and your page is very humourous. Keep up the great editting, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It's always nice to see when our efforts are noticed!

-- That Guy, From That Show! 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you’re a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Might you be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Ancient Near East warfare task force, which will include wars of Ancient Egypt such as Battle of Megiddo? See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Ancient Near East taskforce? Neddyseagoon 15:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask for your critical input on the Ahmose I article I and another editor have been contributing to recently. He's place it up for peer review and I would particularly welcome any comments you may have on this article, in particular any holes you may see in it, or areas you think need more material. I don't think we are aiming for Featured Article status just yet, but we're at the point were any useful criticism from someone with more than a passing interest in the subject would be appreciated.

Cheers! Captmondo 15:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I felt funny hijiacking a talk page to say as much, but that kitten is beyond adorable. Nothing like a newborn kitten to instantly reduce the wiki-stress. Thanks for sharing. ^_^ -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American english is great and its what i use, but the Zoids pages are written in Commonwealth English because Saberwyn is from Australia...sry to say u kinda wasted ur time there. I guess I'll leave the changes...except the ones that break links.-Giant89 00:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert back and fix other errors only. Thanks for the note.

Best regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 00:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem dude. I want to thank you for taking an interest in the article. I have had a hard with the commonwealth english in the past, but its really a waste trying to change things. Hope to see your Zoid's edits in the future.-Giant89 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit with the edit summary "JS: Reverted vandalism by 81.178.246.85 to last version by Stevertigo. Please do not compromise the integrity of pages." That seems like a template-type message, so maybe it wasn't really what you meant to say in this case.
But if it was, what made you think that was vandalism? All this person did was add a {POV} tag, presumably because he thought it needed to be made more neutral. He/she should have provided an explanation, but just adding a tag without explanation doesn't usually constitute vandalism--a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
So I'm just noting here that it's important to be careful about demarcating what's really vandalism and what's just bad or disagreeable edits. --Mr. Billion 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was an honest mistake and not as may otherwise seem. I had linked another users rollback script and the programming for it evidentially recently changed. The script is here and I had no idea that it had been changed in such a way. You can look at my javascript and see that I updated it August 1st and the link above shows that the linked javascript changed later.

I'll get the old copy and hard code it in my monobook javascript. Thanks for letting me know about the change.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked my user page essay! — Catherine\^talk 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it seem just a bit unfair to leave this message with me, but not to leave a message with the other editor in question?

• You have made many useful contributions to wikipedia. Please re-focus on that and not on a personal issue with another editor.

Best Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 05:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the suggestion, but I would have felt more appreciative if you left the other editor a message as well. Leaving one solely with me seems rather biased. --Zaphnathpaaneah 14:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was biased...but in a positive way. Though I may not agree with all of your views I do respect your contributions to Wikipedia and would hate to see you discouraged by Deeceevoice's recent actions. The message wasn't a warning, I was hoping to stop the back-and-forth with the other editor.

Looking at it again, I realize that I could have worded it much, much better.

My posting to Deeceevoice's talk page would accomplish nothing positive. And, most likely she would see it as a provocation due to the fact that she's in the middle of one of her periodic rampages.

Sorry for any misunderstanding, -- That Guy, From That Show! 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:17th Lancers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.. Because you were in the history, I wanted to pass this along. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not DeeCeeVoice personally that upsets me. It's the perspective she reperesents, just like EditingOprah. The two of them, to me, are the classical 80s 'negro' stereotypes. The black attitudinal female and the dimwitted black male that never left the inner city. Never do they step back and let other black perspectives contribute without them trying to assert their dominion. "We are the real black, you all must get our permission to speak" is how they come across. I find them more aggrivating than the whites because they act like white racists. Same centralized mentality. Same "American version is always right first" perspective. Its their perspectives that have caused me to see that this forum, this Wikipedia will not be effective for Black people until more black people participate. For now, maybe a dozen or so really do on issues that need it. I see the contributions elsewhere by others, but that's just it. They do a good job, they make their points, and I need not open my mouth. But here, these two, they create more damage than good. I don't want to have anything to do with any article they are involved in. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do this, as it breaks the assessment system in very obvious ways. (I entirely agree with the comment next to that huge FBI tag, incidentally; but that's an issue to bludgeon that particular project over.) Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 06:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a mistake. I intended on removing one, not all.

As a matter of fact, I'm a member of that particular project, which makes this doubly embarrassing.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok; no problem then. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do your own research before slamming the things that you do not understand.

The image you uploaded was a hoax. You admitted this on the talk page for it [1].

-- That Guy, From That Show! 18:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add links to sources below, thanks in advance, -- That Guy, From That Show! 02:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, That Guy, From That Show!, are you That Guy, From That Show?
Whiskey Rebellion 04:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GIen's RfA: Thank you![edit]

That Guy, From That Show! for your Support! I I feel truly humbled & honored by your support in my RfA, which closed at 90 / 5 / 0. Thank you! If you need me for anything, just say the word. For now however, just like Mr Potter here: My mop & I shall thwart all evil :) IThank you once again my friend. GIen

PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)

Thanks JzG! Look forward to working with you :) - GIen 05:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was/is this? Rich Farmbrough 23:28 27 August 2006 (GMT).

IIRC, someone requested that I do a search of the entire en.wikipedia datadump for templates that included something specific that needed to be fixed. I'm sure that project is long finished.

(Usually I make notes when I create lists like that)

-- That Guy, From That Show! 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your question from a few minutes ago on #WM-tech.

Perhaps the popups could be fixed instead, to check the page, an see if the tab says "watch" or "unwatch"?

Just a thought.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I'll look into that.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 05:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TGFTS, I just wanted to drop a note letting you know that it is not my intention to edit war with you over the intro. I really don't think that statement belongs in the there and, as I respect your edits and suggestions, I'm hoping we can find some common ground ( perhaps adding further explanation and putting it somewhere else within the article?). Frankly, I think having that sentence in the intro is unencyclopedic and misleading. Beyond that I doubt its veracity ( but besides all that I Love It!). Levi P. 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been discussed in talk for several years. I do not proclaim that OBL is innocent, but the truth is that OBL is not publicly officially wanted for the 9/11 attacks. This is about Wikipedia guidelines, not about beliefs. See this diff for more information.

I'm not concerned with whether you think he is innocent or not; I'm concerned that the assertions contained within that sentence be sourced and put in the appropriate section within the article. Levi P. 18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your rewrite of that part here. It is more precise and I support that change.

Good work, -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we were able to come to a compromise that, I think, improved the article. Hopefully we can work together in the future on other issues dealing with 9/11, especially since so many of the disputes seem needlessly contentious. Cheers Levi P. 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.- Oh, I did get a little "cranky". I didn't really mean to direct that at you, it was more directed toward Pedant and his sarcastic shouting. Levi P.[reply]

I'm pleased as well, there appears to be a consensus about the introduction. It took 5 years to accomplish that and hopefully we can all work well together and get the rest of the article in shape in time so it will be included on the Wikipedia CD.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 04:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. PS: I don't mean to use such a harsh template, but you did after all violate WP:3RR Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the 3RR, it was my first. I honestly didn't realize that I had reverted 3 times in 23 hours and 50 minutes. Usually I try to stick with 1RR.

Again, apologies, -- That Guy, From That Show! 08:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia. With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 01:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please do not use blink tags.

erm... -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! It's... that guy! From... that show! Anyways, thank you for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. As an admin, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent spelling corrections on Globular clusters. FYI, modelling is correct spelling in some English speaking countries (eg England). Normally people don't change between different spellings from different regions. Stephen B Streater 20:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I wasn't aware that word had a different spelling. (I had ignored all of the common ones like 'centre', so this was a mistake)

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 20:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned a few new spelling variations here too. Stephen B Streater 21:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious if your name was a tribute to Brian Posehn.

Why are you reverting my changes to Osama bin Laden? Do you not consider that man a terrorist? Do you support the murder of innocent people? Does the prospect of sensory deprivation appeal to you :-) ? Please don't push pro-Islamofascist propaganda. Thanks. Cerebral Warrior 16:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, it isn't about beliefs. Here, we should to follow policy and guidelines.

Also, avoid Ad hominem attacks, thanks.

-- That Guy 12:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 07:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pop by the RfC at Talk:Al-Qaeda#Request_for_Comment:_Use_of_the_term_terrorist and give your opinion? I'll probably move the whole discussion to wp:wta soon. yandman 07:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I see you've already had an encounter with one of the editors in question (two posts above). I'm trying to get him to understand that calling others traitors or "Qaedafans" is a personal attack. yandman 07:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that you will convince him. His "arguments" avoid addressing what is being discussed and he tends to attack the person instead.

Since his primary tactic involves using loaded words to attack/describe someone instead of dealing with the issue in debate, convincing him to not use that same tactic in articles is not likely.

That said, many other editors, new and old, will benefit from a(nother) discussion about Word To Avoid so I'll drop in.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 14:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ps: could you have a look at his userboxes and tell me what you think of them? I've suggested he remove them on his talk page, but I doubt he'll listen... yandman 14:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, May I know if the User page User:Cerebral_Warrior violates any wikipedia rules. Please check all of his user boxes contents. I want to ask from you before posting on ANI. --- ابراهيم 14:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's playing and will quickly get bored without food (IMHO) -- That Guy, From That Show! 09:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you responce is not very clear to me. But I think you meant that he is not violating any policy? For example saying things like "This user believes that many parts of the Koran encourage violence." --- ابراهيم 09:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. He's going against guidelines, but not violating policy. There's no strict policy about being a complete ignoramus. If you go to his talk page, you'll see that we eventually agreed on letting him give his silly views as long as he kept the warning that says the opinions are his own. If you see him adding racist material to articles, that's a different matter. yandman 09:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have defined 'playing' better as Yandman has thankfully done.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 09:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now got it. -- ابراهيم 09:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatguy, are you american, or have you ever lived there? Reading CW's page, I had a look at who that Ann Coulter is. Wow. Then I found a link to an "O'Reilly" guy and ended up reading the entire article on Fox News. Again, wow. And don't get me started on their election campaigns... Are all their pundits so full of bile, or are we just seeing the dark side of the moon? I mean, in England there's the Sun (from the same guy as Fox), but no-one takes that seriously (the topless women on page 3 don't help), and even they're not half as virulent. yandman 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a USA citizen, and yes, in my and many others view media has become that bad. Unfortunately, most of the mainstream media is similar to the SUN over there now. (I am very familiar with the garbage that pours out of the SUN). This is not the 'dark side of the sun', it is pouring out of TV sets 24 hours a day and it is most often taken as fact due to media here rarely saying 'by the way, we were wrong the other day'. That is a very rare occurrence excepting some newspaper organizations.

Luckily, my grandmother taught me about Critical Thinking starting ~8-years-old of age and I have tried my best to constantly evaluate everything I see and/or read since that time. RIP Grandma, everyone said that you were nuts (for example) after instructing me to read different newspapers from different places each day instead of just relying on one...

Sadly, lately our comedy news has most insightful and informative information available. (Some examples: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report).

An example of how Badly Things Have Gone Wrong with media here in the USA (view video). Another you might find interesting is the Jeremy Glick (author) article.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 10:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"lately our comedy news has most insightful and informative information available". While sad, I believe this is true everywhere. In Britain, Private Eye is by far the most incisive weekly, and in France (a country whose written press I hold in the highest esteem) "Les Guignols" is the only televised news of any use. Anyway, at least you have the New York Times. It was interesting to see that it is criticised for being too liberal: here the general opinion is that it is very good, if a little right wing... yandman 10:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have 500+ channels available here, yet somehow (not unsurprisingly) we we can't view French, Arabic, and other (besides BBC, which is sent to the middle of upper channel non-main-where-news-channels-are-normally-listed purgatory) 'foreign' news sources.

Technology and freedom of press indeed...

/love my country's principals, not very happy with the media

-- That Guy, From That Show! 11:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a disturbing video. Maybe we should donate a few copies of Wp:npov#POV_forks to CNN... And what's up with the 2 ad-breaks in 13 minutes? yandman 17:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest to expand previous dates like 11th millenium BC because Upper Paleolith is event but not a timeline. Igor Skoglund

I'm not sure what you mean precisely, Upper Paleolithic covers time over a period of 30,000 years.

Still, I'd be glad to help expand dates/events. Please let me know more.

Thanks (again) for your contributions to Wikipedia -- That Guy, From That Show! 09:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is long period. I suggest more detailed timeline. Igor Skoglund.

		The Original Barnstar
		This is for you extensive work with the Osama Bin Laden. I really was quite impressed. Congrats and keep up the good work! Sharkface217 04:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

-- That Guy, From That Show! 18:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

applying for your very own Wikimop? It really is No Big Deal... Guy 22:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time. And, I should say (again!), thanks for your contributions to the Wikipedia project. I'm a good judge of character (for the most part) and you haven't disappointed me at all.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

way to take one for the team ;) JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I do feel 'dirty' still.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently nominated Image:Youngkitten.JPG, an image you have created, for FPC. See the nomination subpage here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Abu Gorab, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

If not then why not you go for it? I wish to see people like you to be an admin. --- ALM 16:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Iandres 08:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)) Hi, just received your latest instruction. To get here and send a reply to you, I clicked HISTORY from my TALK PAGE and then I clicked TALK (the one just beside your username). Your username page does not have TALK but DISCUSSION and so I clicked DISCUSSION and wrote this message. Did I get it right? Do I have to go to HISTORY just to click TALK or clicking the Username will do. Anyway, I'll just keep on trying until I learn the proper way to send message reply to other WIKIPEDIANS. This WIKIPEDIA is NOT USER FRIENDLY, specially when it comes to HTML codes, quite confusing and very disappointing. THANKS[reply]

Iandres

Yes, it worked. -- That Guy, From That Show! 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not pleasant, I do think it is a historic image. You're right -- it is somewhat morbid, but so is the photo of Mussolini hanging -- Image:Mussolini_e_Petacci_a_Piazzale_Loreto%2C_1945.jpg. I would ask you to question whether or not an image showing the manner in which Hussein was executed (perhaps especially in light of the controversy over him being harassed by the executioners immediately prior) has no encyclopedic value: I believe it does: it gives one a pretty good idea of what took place. Jackk 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try substituting a more morbid picture in the Assassination section of John F Kennedy and you'll get quite a bit more feedback on this. (Or, every other article about a popular person that didn't die of natural causes).

That said, I'll leave it (the pic) be. If SH was a more-liked-than-not public figure, I would have boatloads of support but since SH was not it's a losing battle due to there being different Wikipedia biography standards for public figures not liked by the majority.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOURE THAT GUY FROM THAT SHOW!!!! --Discharger12 04:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"94 words removed because they are..." Well, i'm sure you know the rest. I was wondering just how precisely those particular 94 words were really that horrible, because I added in the U.N. thing, and it seems to be related to Dogma to me rather than just, well.... I mean, it's a United Nations policy that specifically calls for Dogma as a whole to be rejected. Homestarmy 17:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you had some well thought out arguments about AverageIQ-Map-World.png being deleted, do you think you could weigh in on the deletion debate over this image? --futurebird 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please unblock 202.76.162.34? I don't want to create an account for that address. And could you please delete Multimedia Applications Development Environment? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.180.66.13 (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry to spam you if you aren't interested. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#April 25th for more info if you are interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you change your donation options for the AWB project here?

Thinking if anyone wants to donate, it can be passed onto the wikimedia foundation.

If we dont hear from you in 72 hours or so, i'll just remove you from the admin list for the time being, so we can have it open if people want to donate. If you want adding to the admin list again later, i'll do it no problem

Cheers

Reedy Boy 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- That Guy, From That Show! 16:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!! Reedy Boy 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Martinp23 passed on your apology, thanks

I appreciate your concern, and could see why you thought something had gone amiss. I was fiddling around with the settings, and i put my address in thinking it was personal donation address, then realising when i got the email that it wasnt, for which i changed it to abc@xyz.com, then finally to the WikiMedia PayPal Address after speaking to phil boswell about it.

So i also apologise for the confusion that was caused

Cheers

Reedy Boy 09:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've seen a lot of paypal scams and when I saw the Wikipedia donation link changed to a UK address I got very concerned and locked things down until it could be sorted out. That's really the only reason we have admins, to watch for really Bad Stuff and do something about it.

I didn't assume anything bad about any admins. It crossed my mind that someone may have hacked in so I changed things until it could be sorted out. No other privileges were changed and now everything is back the way it was (I think, let me know if otherwise).

Keep up the good work!

/I need to get the mailing list for admins & developers back up.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We want your cat, his name is TURBO!!!

Hi TGFTS. What script do you use for edit summaries? It looks handy. Burntsauce 20:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really awesome. I can't imagine how anyone can go without it and it's almost a year and a half old. Quarl wrote it and you can find it here. It does depend on some other scripts so you won't be able to use it by itself.

Here is my complete script and I haven't had to change it since last August (2006). Much of it is Quarl's excellent work.

Let me know if you have any questions but it might take a while for me to reply.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you're this guy, but I always figured he was that guy (because of that show). But I freely acknowledge I could be wrong.--NapoliRoma 01:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help in Muhammad picture dispute. Can you please help in improving this article and help me in filing an arbitration case? I have to file arbitration case in a week and need help. Thanking you in anticipation. --- A. L. M. 09:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I saw your answer to Will Beback's problem with uploading watchlists to Vandal Fighter. However, I have tried this method and it refuses to work for me. I don't think it's anything to do with the program (I'm running 3.5b 26, if it is to do with the program), so the way I'm saving the watchlist is probably wrong. I've tried all of Firefox's options for saving it, but VF doesn't like any of them.

P.S: Sorry if you're not the person to ask, you just seemed to know about it.

Thanks in advance, CarrotMan 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to ((inactive)) and/or ((historical)) status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you are listed as a member of Wikiproject:AncientEgypt, I'd like to recruit your help in reviewing the article Ancient Egypt. The article is listed as top priority in the Wikiproject and as a vital article by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, but appears to have failed to meet Good Article criteria at its last nomination. The article is in need of some serious attention.

In the past week, I asked for (and got) the article to be semi-protected to protect against the constant barrage of vandalism. This protection lasts for two weeks. I also did a little clean-up, added a map and so on. I would like to see everyone in Wikiproject:AncientEgypt have the chance to add their input to Ancient Egypt, and get the article up to featured status as soon as possible. I believe the article is at least 80% of the way there, and some focused attention will bring it the rest of the way.

The most pressing concerns seem to be the culture/architecture section, and the achievements/unsolved problems sections. Also, the entire article, especially the achievements section, the sources, and external links need to be seriously checked for accuracy. These sections also require a little organization too.

Ancient Egypt ought to be the top priority of Wikiproject:AncientEgypt, and I look forward to working with everyone to get this article cleaned up and hopefully promoted to featured status. Thanks for your help, Jeff Dahl 03:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone whose opinion I value, I am asking if you would take a peek at Talk:KV62, and voice your opinion on the suggested move. I am not trying to solicit an Oppose vote, but instead am trying am asking people who have an active interest in things Ancient Egyptian to contribute to the talk as well. Cheers! Captmondo 17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you add it please? If you know it, of course. 10x --Stypex (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'd appreciate it if you toned down your edit summaries. I know some of the grammar mistakes on Wikipedia--even on featured articles--are quite embarrassing. I do not think, however, that it requires churlish comments in the edit summaries. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

noob

I am going to make changes to the Cowboy hat page see:text

-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

I'm having an issue. I noticed that you were the administrator who was working with Sdean on the Gruvis Malt article in its beginning. Now this page has been around for awhile, but now one of the Administrators Ckatz is hitting it hard, saying that the band isn't notable. Now, since you were supporting the article in its inception, maybe you could provide some help as to showing that the band is notable. I don't have a clue what to do. The article is in my user space now. Gruvis_Malt

--Ccomics88 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. What exactly happened here? I guess you were trying to correct a typo, but... somehow it didn't go down that way :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have asserted that the "terrorist" label is a descriptor to be avoided yet it is specifically stated in the relevant rules section that:

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears.

In the al-Qaeda entry, there are no less than eighteen citations listed saying exactly that. If you would like, I would be happy to add back the descriptor and cite all eighteen sources saying that "x, y, and z" organizations/countries consider him to be part of the "terrorist" organization. Would this be acceptable to you? Regards. Wperdue (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, That Guy, From That Show!. You have new messages at Wperdue's talk page.
Message added 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Wperdue (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Thank you for adding the ((copypaste)) tag on that article. I have removed part of the copyrighted text where the source you put has been closely copied from. I've finished the check and removed the template. Minimac (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

Loremaster wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB[reply]

1. LOL
2. Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
3. I find it disgusting that 81.151.135.248 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
4. In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hang on)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 20:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon. It's 1-3 June and registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, just mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

Our goals for the event are to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 14:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Meetup Next: 13 October 2012 Last: 23 July 2012 This box: view talk edit

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a classical music edit-a-thon Saturday week (13 October) in Sydney. The theme will be Music of France, to coincide with the ABC Classic FM countdown between 8-14 October. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online during the countdown. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/October 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney Meetup Next: 10 November 2012 Last: 13 October 2012 This box: view talk edit

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 15:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney Meetup Next: 10 January 2013 Last: November 2012 This box: view talk edit

Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Thursday 10 January 2013. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 10:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney Meetup Next: 21 September 2013 Last: Higher Ed Symposium This box: view talk edit

Hi there! You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Saturday (21 September) in Sydney at the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW), where you can collaborate with other Wikipedians throughout the day. Andy Carr, a senior librarian at SLNSW will also be helping out. The theme of the edit-a-thon is paralympics sports, but you are free to come along to meet other wiki contributors, and edit other topics.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/September 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Wikipedians in Sydney)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, That Guy, From That Show!. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as somebody who has contributed recently to articles on neuro-linguistic programming I wondered if you could have a look at this AfD, which is not getting much attention. Famous_dog (c) 07:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused. You state here that I want to "promote" NLP. Far from it. It's claptrap and drivel and as such I want it removed from Wikipedia. I tagged articles that are full of pseudoscience and unsupported waffle, and you removed those banners. What is your problem exactly? Why are you painting me as a supporter of NLP when a quick glance at my edits will show you the complete opposite is true? Famous_dog (c) 10:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, That Guy, From That Show!. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, That Guy, From That Show!. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gavin McInnes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Calton | Talk 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have 10s of thousands of edits here and never once been accused of vandalism. You're an idiot.

   -- That Guy, From That Show! 15:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like bring accused of vandalism, maybe you shouldn't have made an edit that was indistinguishable from vandalism. I mean, that looks -- what's the word? -- idiotic.

Also, "I have never been accused of X!" bears no logical relationship to "I did not do X!". Just so you know that's known. --Calton | Talk 16:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that my history here is a lot better than yours. You're pissing a lot of people off with your haphazard edits. You're an embarrassment here, and not a good person at all. -- That Guy, From That Show! 21:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My dude, you have less than 500 edits since 2006. Quit tooting your own horn with this 'tens of thousands of edits' bullshit, and don't make dumb edits. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have over 23,000 edits total without anywhere near the amount of problems people have had with your haphazard editing. You're a very disingenuous person and it's reflected both here and on your talk page. That's a very nasty reputation to have created here. It sucks to have people like you on wikipedia who are more of a problem than an asset.-- That Guy, From That Show! 14:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You fucked up -- deliberately or accidentally -- and touting all the edits you made ten years ago doesn't have a thing to do with that. SOMEBODY'S an embarrassment, all right. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misrepresent sources as you did in this edit. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, you never should change a quote. You might also want to know that direct action is a term with a specific meaning. 05:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello That Guy, From That Show!! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Daniel Dennet has not demonstrated that the definition of qualia becomes totally unusable. The concept defined might lose useful applications in some cases, but not in all cases. Plenty of research and philosophical analysis, as projects, still occur in most academic sectors related to the topic. To say that Dennet demonstrate his point is to argue that all those studies after the Dennet's formal claim/proposal are all focusing on an already solved issue, something much more doubtful and questionable that the claim indicating that Dennet's didn't demonstrate the universal lack of use of the qualia definition. Dennet's claim are not a consensus. MLearry (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]