User talk:Dharmabum420/Archive 1

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! -- Perfecto 04:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cite sources[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions. When contributing material to Wikipedia, please cite your sources so others can verify your work. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not the editor's opinion. Please see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information, or contact me on my talk page. -- Perfecto 04:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Dates[edit]

Yo! In "historical review" paragraphs like the ones you just edited, I imagine it would be useful to have the years link to give someone context. Like what was happing in 1903 as Stephen and Leopold were in Dublin? Just a thought. I know they discourage too much of that, but it can be useful. John (Jwy) 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we're doing an online reading of same at http://dolphinsbarn.tribe.net/. A chapter per month. Just started. John (Jwy) 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I joined up with the group. I'm buried deep in an Eco novel right now, which is heavy in its own right, but I've read Ulysses twice and probably have something to contribute, and I'll pick it up again asap. A chapter a month is a nice mellow pace, at least until you get to "Circe". Dharmabum420 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo again. Read up on the date format thing in WP:MOSDATE. Your recent changes (i.e. putting comma between June 16 and 1904 (hah, got it right) breaks the preferences thing. John (Jwy) 18:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its the June 16, 1904 - I realize now. the 1904 not in brackets breaks it. I'll experiment. . . John (Jwy) 01:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain fade. For some reason I thought you made further changes. I've changed one spot in the first paragraph so that the preferences will work. John (Jwy) 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Patrickrose[edit]

Happy to help! I particularly despise user page vandalism, even above other forms, so I don't hesitate to click that 'rollback' button like mad. And thanks to you too for catching the vandalism by same on my page only a few minutes later. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 09:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! The least the vandals could do is come up with some imaginative, or colourful language to describe people when vandalizing a user page. Page blanking is hardly worth the revert. :) --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remagine vandalism, et cetera[edit]

Thanks for helping out with that. He has just sent me a very cordial email and I'm working it out with him offsite.
Greeting from down South in Seattle.
You should really get Tiger. It's worth the cost to upgrade. Spotlight, the active search feature, is incredibly helpful.

WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 10:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running it on an iBook G4. I have 1.33GHz and 768 MB RAM. It is workable, though I'm not sure about 1.25. I'm not going to be upgrading past 1.4, however, as Apple has said that 1.5 will no longer support Classic. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 10:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

For reverting vandalism to my userpage.[1]--MONGO 09:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. It's much appreciated. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 02:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto again Prodego ^talk 13:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto some more Darth Panda 23:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A blanket "no problem" :) - Dharmabum420 23:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Was being a little trigger-happy lol. Thanks for the message. Batmanand 08:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: formatting of Tharkad (BattleTech)[edit]

The poor formatting is why I deleted it in the first place. 68.88.201.1 01:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would, if I knew the appropriate keystrokes/embedded text to use when Wikipedia boxes every goddamn line and fails to word-wrap like that. It does it at random and is a mystery to me, as is how you fix it. 68.88.201.1 01:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

71.131.2.251[edit]

Hi, This user has repeatly vandalized the Lick-Wilmerding and Urban High School wikis, among many other. I gave 71.131.2.251 his/her fourth warning, I think he/she should be banned at this point. Are you an admin? --SeanMcG 06:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: 24.37.237.176[edit]

I would like to know why you're keen on reverting a false accusation of vandalism on this user. I've removed it and you've renewed it. As it does not seem you were directly involved in the matter, I'm curious. User:Goldcity

You're welcome[edit]

No problem :-) Akamad 10:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest[edit]

I like the way you rewrote the introduction. Much more concise.

Czolgolz 13:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ortega status.[edit]

Hello,

A few days ago, I edited the Joshua Ortega article. There were few (if any) hyperlinks in the article, and I thought that it might have been overlooked by accident. The stub tag was added to the article not out of malice, but to ensure that the attention of a Wikipedia veteran such as yourself deems the article appropriate.

Perhaps this analysis is wrong, but I have noticed that whenever I add the stub tag to any entry, it gets the attention of Wikipedes, who decide what the appropriate course of action is. The article is about eight weeks old, and I was wondering if it qualifies as a "vanity article" that was planted when none of the editors were paying attention.

At any rate, since you have deemed it sufficiently large to have graduated from being a stub, could you also categorize the article as appropriate? That would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Folajimi 22:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)^(talk)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Hi Dharmabum420 (I like the Kerouac reference in your name, btw).

I'm wondering if there's any chance I can convince you to rethink your vote in opposition to my RfA. You wrote: Oppose as mostly per Grue and Starblind. No shortage of admin candidates with much less controversy.. I would politely suggest that that is really not true. See, in part, the answer I give to question #9. I know there's an easy sense of "where there's smoke there's fire" that editors unfamliar with a particular candidate can get, but I believe if you look deeper you'll see something different. The one single really childish edit Starblind points out was nine months ago, and was immediately self-reverted. I was absolutely wrong, but it was early in my edit history. Grue points out an RfC against me, but if you read it, I am confident you'll agree the matter was spurious and vindictive by the creator. In any case, it was also 8+ months back.

What I believe you'll find are indeed candidates with much less "controversy", but those candidates will, to a person, have either significantly less total edit history, or more pointedly, very little edit history in "controversial" topics (race, sexuality, media figures, politicial categorization, bio-reductive science, etc). The plain fact is, that if you edit politicized topics, as I have tended to, pushing strenuously for NPOV wins you a lot of "enemies" who want articles to assume their dogmatic POV. If you look at a lot of the discussion following both support and oppose votes, you'll see some good examples of fervent POV-mongers whom I believe I have dealt with with quite impeccable professionalism. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being interested, editingwise, wholly in tropical fish, national parks, or 13th Century Chinese history (or whatever), but RfA candidates who have done that have not yet had to face and negotiate with a lot of the most wild POV-warriors. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note...[edit]

Thanks for your note. And thanks for understanding what the proposal is all about. You are exactly correct. There are quite a number of editors who would like to fight annoying vandalism, but get frustrated by the process, so they just go back to editing in their areas. It's not a huge problem, but there are plenty of editors that deserve to at least have a shortcut to do what they can to stop vandalism. CSCWEM is just the latest example of a possibly great Admin (one day) that would provide a great service to Wikipedia provided a rollback tool. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Van[edit]

Thanks for your comments! No offense, but a lot of vets don't know anything about cat breeds. Not sure why this is. A siamese cross would have "points" on the coat (darker color on the muzzle, feet, ears and tail). If your cat looks like a van, there is probably no siamese in there. Those of us who deal with Vans a lot think that there may be a personality link with the genetics of that particular coat pattern, but it can't be proved. Also, that pattern does appear natuarally and in many cases, Turks have taken their cats to live with them in other countries, so the Van genes could be out there. Regardless, I'm happy to know you have a wonderful cat that you enjoy. And when it comes to kitties, there is no such thing as too much detail :) Cheers! Pschemp | Talk 22:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main problem[edit]

Is that Avriette knows the scope of the problem. Avriette just doesn't care, which is why I removed the comments. To each his or her own. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY. On Avriette's user page, he talks about that users should edit instead of worrying about vandals or trolls. It's like. HELLO. If we didn't stop vandals and trolls, users wouldn't make legit edits. Can you imagine if RC Patrol went away? It's bad enough with it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has problems with civility. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succesful RfA![edit]

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stub[edit]

:) any time. Easy mistake to make. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]