I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I added a few relevant links in various wikis, which were all non-commercial links. You stated I was spamming Wikipedia with links with "many different articles to the exact same unrelated web page." The links were not the same and the content was directly related. Please rectify your mistake and clarify your comment about banning me. I apologize if this is not the correct place to contact you, but I was unsure of how to contact you and thought this was the only method. Thanks.
Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to add a link to unitedelite.net for each and every Wikipedia article. Please stop advertising your website in Wikipedia. This is not the appropriate place for individuals to advertise themselves or their work. - Tεxτurε 22:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I did not add a link to each and every Wikipedia article, rather perhaps 4 DIRECTLY RELATED articles with different URLs. I am not advertising 'my work' in Wikipedia. The links are to 3rd party legitimate information. You have a very narrow view on references, as the ones I listed were direct sources. Perhaps you should read the links before you delete them. Furtermore, I believe your myopic totalitarian type response to this situation borders on a poor attitude and practice for a Wikipedia editor. Maybe reporting your informal and rude methods to the Wikipedia higher ups would be a benefit to the community. I wouldn't feel this way if you offered any sort of valid retort to back up the serious and baseless claims you so carelessly throw around.
Perhaps you can educate me on what constitutes a relevant link. I am considering utilizing the dispute protocols created by Wikipedia, such as mediation or contacting an advocate. I would be interested in seeing if a survey agreed with the relevant links to direct sources of information being included under articles regarding the same topic.
Not 4, but 12 in one hour. I was not saying you had done every article but that you should not. Happy editing. - Tεxτurε 19:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You claimed I listed one URL "for each and every Wikipedia article" or 12 articles, which ever is less in your belief. However, I only listed perhaps 4 or 5 -various-articles- for that URL, while listing video links (one underneath an already existing link to that same video's transcript) and other media links like to the Library of Congress and for a rare 1951 political comic book about Stalin (quite pertinent to today consider our economic situation with large deficits and dollar devaulation). I appreciate the assumption that I was the author of these original source documents, as I'd relish my work being carried by the Library of Congress or the Bush Presidential Library.
In any instance, I will carefully consider your comments, I appreciate you pointing out any of my mistakes, and will try to follow the policies more closely. I do realize I added several links in a short period of time, but that was only due to my desire to enrich the content by adding relevant links in what I considered the best references; direct sources. Anyway, I consider this issue resolved. Thanks.
You recently reverted an anon's addition of "Joseph Smith" to an informal list of people considered prophets (in the Religion article). I'm mildly curious why. Perhaps you're concerned that the list will become too long? One-dimensional Tangent20:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On examining your contribution page it becomes obvious that you spend much of your time rapidly reverting vandalism and frivolity. However, as in this case it is not always apparent why you consider something revert-worthy. I understand that it would be time-consuming to document your reasons in every case, but it would be helpful to others to at least add "vandal" or "redundant" or "biased" or whatever to the Summary line of your reverts. Even such brief information would be useful -- moreso, perhaps, than documenting who you reverted (since that info is available in the page history). Apologies for unwanted advice. One-dimensional Tangent20:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate unasked advice. I listen, and when appropriate, follow such advice. Following similar advice I have begun trying to provide more information in the summary when I respond to the user who made the change. I haven't always followed that pattern but I am trying to find a good middle ground to properly track actions.
Adding Joseph Smith to the example (I did not take it as a "list of prophets") seemed too controversial a move for something intended as the strongest examples to make the point. If you disagree we may want to move this to that talk page to give it wider visibility and get the most viewpoints.
Overall, certain anon IPs use controversial people and articles as their graffiti of choice. Following and responding to them sometimes prompts a question such as yours. I find that to be a good thing and the discussion that results will only make Wikipedia better. - Tεxτurε21:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree with the removal; I was only prompting a reason. (I'd already considered deleting it but had decided against.) And in retrospect, I prefer your interpretation, "the strongest examples to make the point". Thanks for your thoughtful response. One-dimensional Tangent21:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the other articles are real things or words other people use, so please don't delete them. Can I keep the frankensauce recipe posted on my homepage here? Brjatlick22:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, never mind, someone else answered that, but thanks anyway. I keep getting messages left and right here, so by the time I ask the question, it's already answere somewhere else![reply]
Yes. You can keep anything on your user page. Some people are very inventive. Don't take article deletions too hard. Many people are trying to keep a high quality to the articles and it may take some time to develop content that will get kept. You can practice on your user page or in your own sandbox. - Tεxτurε22:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you had the word TANSTAAFL in your signature, are you the same TANSTAAFL who used to play mafia on the Grey Labyrinth? Mgm|(talk) 22:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
No... I used to hide questions and sayings in the signature to see who would answer. When I got bored I changed it to TANSTAAFL. Congrats! You are the third person to spot it! Haven't played on Grey Labyrinth. - Tεxτurε22:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
> Please do not delete comments from talk pages that do not belong to you. - Tεxτurε 15:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Belong to me? I thought everything here was public-domain. And the 'comment' in question wasn't particularly enlightening either, nevermind whether I agree with the individual or not. Anyway, I'll take the advice offered by 金 (Kim) - Ashu8845
Why would you think it was ok to change someone else's comments on a talk page? The articles are public domain but there is no reason for anyone to ever alter another's comments. - Tεxτurε17:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the comments... I thought you meant the talk page, when you said "belong to you". Alright, no problem. - Ashu8845
Why did your use your rollback button here? I have reverted back. Admins should either explain their rollbacks in talk, or limit use of the rollback button to cases of clear and obvious vandalism. The edit you rolled back was legitimate and your rollback seemed to be due to a content disagreement. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:06, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
OMG! You mean that's true? Are you sure? The anonymous addition was "in... Episode VI... Christenson now plays the elderly Skywalker". I rolled it back as vandalism. I found it so unreasonable that I was certain it was a lie. I'm still not convinced but in light of past "corrections" to Star Wars video I can't rule it out. My apologies. Thanks for catching my mistake. - Tεxτurε18:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's true. See here for a picture. Thanks for explaining yourself; I thought it was something more worrisome, such as that you were reverting simply because it was an anon IP or something. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Christensen just plays the ghost of Skywalker in the new DVD, not the dying Skywalker. I have edited the article to make it clear. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:46, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
What a really bad idea. (The retro-active casting call, not your edit.) It isn't even necessary. The age, damage and later effects inside the armor could easily account for the difference between the actor in III and the ghost in VI. (Not to mention the accepted history of differing actors in any film series.) I guess my VHS collection will be worth something someday... I'd hate to be the replaced actor, though... - Tεxτurε22:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You need more than a phrase to make an article and your content and titles aren't accurate. Please consider reading and practicing before making articles. - Tεxτurε22:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You keep asking me to improve your articles. The nonsense ones I can't do anything about. Articles like Mt. Blue I can't even confirm are real and since I don't know where it is in Maine either or how high it is I can't create that article either. - Tεxτurε22:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just made one about the breakdancers of New York. What are you going to delete that one to? I hope not because the breakdancers are real. just wikify or stubbing and the articles will grow. --Freedom200522:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are breakdancers everywhere. Will you be creating for every city? Is there a web site for a group with that exact name? If not I have to assume you are making all this up (much of it being nonsense) and vandalizing Wikipedia. Please don't continue. - Tεxτurε22:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And now you went and deleted my good natured comment to you....
How do you have modding privaledges?
I'm only anonymous because I can't log in through the school's firewall
I'll say again here what I put on your talk page: Your IP has vandalized John Kerry (see here) at 12:08 on 11 May 2005. For this reason you received the warning. Since the previous warning was days ago I gave another chance in case this is a new vandal. - Tεxτurε17:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently joined the efforts of User:Plattopus and User:Classicjupiter2 to construct a RFC against User:Daniel C. Boyer for his continued self-promotion, hostility towards other users, vandalism of other's talk page comments through the insertion of his responses in their midst, and general refusal to interact constructively. If you feel that you have any evidence to add, please feel free to add it to the rough draft. Thanks! Postdlf20:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got blocked for 24 hours, why because the person who blocked me thought i was causing a disturbence. I was not trying to cause any kind of vandalism or was I trying to hurt wikipedia. Please give me a chance because I look forward to new articles being wikifying thats what i need help with. my grammer is bad i know but please i'm trying to get better. thanks. --Freedom200519:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to hold off creation new articles. So far you have been rapidly creating article after article with no more than a sentence each. Try to wait until you have a complete article (at least a paragraph or so of solid information about the topic) before creating an article. Try working in your user page for a while. - Tεxτurε23:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I am not quite sure if you know this, but User:Mansari (see [1]) and IP address 216.16.237.110 ([2]) are putting up multiple votes, all of them keep. One user, Rezahmadi, his only edit was to the VFD page (see [3]). Zscout370(Sound Off)20:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, IP Address 216.16.237.110, has attacked you and placed another vote on the article. He wrote: " believe that the user TEXTURE, who has placed his negative vote in many different places of the page, change people's sentences and add them some extra terms. For this reason I don't think this election is neutral. How can I trust this page when he has added his comments to many places. I am woundering how many times a person can vote for deleting a page?" Zscout370(Sound Off)21:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - thought you might want to take a look at the article now, and see whether you still feel the same about its vfd...? Grutness...wha?07:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought I'd comment on my posting of those links. First of all, I didn't mean to link to that specific post, but to the thread in general. The site I linked is a general pop culture site of a somewhat different atmosphere. Just like many TV articles link to different parts of televisionwithoutpity(with which this website is somewhat related) and almost all movie/TV sites link to parts of IMDB, what I wanted to do was link some articles to their relevant threads. I understand why you reversed some of my edits and perhaps I overdid it a bit, but I don't think it was fair for you to also reverse edits on other pages that had nothing to do with those links. My objective was to provide a link to a forum where people could discuss the relevant topic without necessarily being a big fan and providing in some cases providing a discussion forum for some articles where there was no such possibility before.--newsjunkie23:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You posted the same link to a specific entry on the star wars web site. This same link to added to several unrelated articles. When a single user does this we investigate other possible spam or vandalism. Some of your other edits were not touched as they seemed legitimate. - Tεxτurε03:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on your deletions of my posts, another complaint
Amm. Re: you switching me back, right wing nuts have called Sen. Byrd (D-KKK). Please explain why you switched it back (a simple google search would show right wingers do this even in print).
My apologies. Adding a reference to a Senator as the "democratic representative of the Klu Klux Klan" would normally be an easy vandalism and require removal. In this context I was incorrect to remove it. - Tεxτurε13:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A rename vote is essentially a keep vote as it supports keeping the content. This gives two keep votes to three delete votes, not a consensus. The page thus must be kept. Also I give great weight to a keep vote by User:Radiant! since they are so rare. - SimonP 15:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Cut out the reversions, Texture. I feel that the incidents can validly be said to be terrorist incidents - don't stoop to blanket reversions. 68.32.48.3219:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are claiming it isn't vandalism or some kind of joke please discuss it on the talk page. I have started the discussion. The assassination of Julius Caesar is not terrorism (nor is any other mere murder). Columbine was a murder-suicide. Do you claim that the students belonged to some terrorist organization? Which? Did the "terrorist group" continue after the single event that ended in two kid's deaths? - Tεxτurε19:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Murder-suicide can be considered terrorism in cases where folks want to bully someone else in submission, even if it's a form of revenge. The terrorist group need not survive in order to precipitate a terrorist attack. Mind if I point out that 9/11 was partially a murder-suicide; indeed, that some Islamic bombings may be murder suicides precipitated by loners, and they're considered terrorist attacks. 68.32.48.3219:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for a "List of Bullies" then you are listing the wrong boys. My understand is that the sad event came about because those two boys were bullied to the breaking point. It brought about great change in how bullies are handled in schools. - Tεxτurε20:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please. The Columbine massacre resembles other terrorist attacks in the intensity of violence that occurred, and reverse bullying counts as bullying as well as bullying itself. Also, the importance of Columbine as a small-scale act of violence and the fear it caused in the schools amounts to designation as "terrorism".68.32.48.3220:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, whatever you say buddy. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
You cna probably spin it by saying it is "schoolyard terrorism," but mostly after those attacks, people were trying to solve the next school massacre, school shooting. Terrorism, as a key word for everything, was not really come into use (in my opinion) after 9-11. Now, everything I hear deals with terrorism, including eco-terrorism. Zscout370(Sound Off)00:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the user PatGallacher constantly vandalises the "Rangers F.C. and Danny McGrain" pages to attempt to put his point of view across, all the edits were discussed in talk. As he can not win the argument he has started putting NPOV tags on these pages. I was just removing the victims of PatGallacher from the vandalism in progress page as no vandalism occured
Texture, please allow me to ask you directly if I need your help on any issue before giving advice on an issue which nobody has done anything at all to stop him from abusing me on here. As for the baiting, the comments I made did not attack him directly nor had any intention to attack him. Its all back and forth and he started it. You wanted to give advice, now you did.Classicjupiter200:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This guy has been harrassing me and this artist on here for some time now. Nobody has done NOTHING to stop so, now you know. Thanks for the advice.Classicjupiter200:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish that you would have let me talk to you first before giving your, "advice". I am not really happy that you decided to give your advice before plattopus and postdlf responded. I asked them, remember.Classicjupiter200:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Texture: Don't distort my claims and then claim (if it is in other than bad faith it is difficult to imagine how) "I hope this helps you in evaluating his claim". My claims were that more than one issue was being dealt with on the RfC, which your "and" clearly shows. My other claim is that there never was an Allison Boyer article on Wikipedia and the facts bear this out. Are you arguing that factual claims in debate shouldn't be true? --Daniel C. Boyer20:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall ever asking you to revert my talk page. Can you explain the following revert that you made on my talk page, please?
(cur) (last) 22:17, 19 May 2005 Texture m (Reverted edits by Bleedy to last version by Classicjupiter2)
Classicjupiter2 03:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Classicjupiter203:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You complained about Bleedy vandalizing your user page. I saw him changing other people's edits. I reverted that vandalism per your complaint. I will no longer revert vandalism of your talk page. - Tεxτurε20:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me about the article that I posted (view your comments here). I welcome any feedback on my contributions to Wikipedia in hopes of making it the best it can be. I will move the content that I originally posted as an article to my (newly discovered) User Page.
I got a talk message saying I claimed to revert vandalism while vandalising. I'm not quite sure which you're talking about, but I assure you when I say I reverted something, I did revert it. If the page I reverted to was also vandalised, but to a lesser degree, I can promise it wasn't on purpose. You can check my actual user history as well and see I don't vandalise... I'm Thray, I just didn't log in for that edit (nor for this one since it was posted on my IP's talk page).
Anyway, to end this rant, I just want it clear I didn't vandalise anything and don't plan to in the future. What page did you think I vandalised, do you recall?
If you choose "my contributions" you will see the following for your IP:
22:05, 28 May 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Texture (Hey, whoa.) (top)
14:27, 26 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Community Portal (Reverted vandalism)
If you look at the link to the the edit made on May 26 it shows your edit. I admit to mistaking your edit for the original user who altered "you". Your edit did not revert anything but made a change to the vandalism itself. My apology for my mistake. - Tεxτurε22:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I should have noticed that on the page I reverted. Anyway, sorry for the confusion. Just didn't want people to think I would vandalize anything on purpose. Thray 02:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously I'd like to make those improvements to the Paul Bernardo article but my time is limited. The Homolka piece is not even close to done (for example, it omits the fact that Bernardo lived under a pseudonym and this pseudonym became Homolka's married surname -- among other major errors and omissions)...
Perhaps I'll have some time, but no guarantees. - Rhombus 27 November 2024
Thank you for your helpful note. I will post a protest on the user's talk page — however, as the edits were blatantly vandalistic (replacing all text with a single line of profane insult) the user falls under the 'shoot-on-sight' policy. Hopefully someone will do so in short order, as this user continues to cause problems. Wally 17:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
After making the three edits he has ceased all activity. In my experience, this can mean that he has logged off and since many AOL IPs are dynamic he will likely log on again under a different IP. Rather than block a legitimate user who may get the dynamic IP assigned to them after the vandal has left I feel it is best to merely "tag" the vandal and only act if the same IP continues to cause problems. - Tεxτurε 17:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Arg, it's an AOL IP? Greatest inconvenience since the vandals first emerged. :P You're right, of course — thanks for taking care of it. Wally 17:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know that it is or isn't but any provider with dynamic IPs causes this problem. I don't want to assume. - Tεxτurε 18:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've responded to your message in the Discussion section at the Godwin's Law entry.
I hope you find my comments responsive to your expressed concern.
--Mike
Mr. Godwin, do you think that getting upset makes your argument for you? Instead it clearly shows that you have an emotional investment in this article about you. It is inappropriate for you to contribute and likely to be biased in your direction (as in this case). If an encyclopedia publisher were to make a story on you or your law, would they ask you to write it? Even if you had written other unrelated articles? No. They would ask an uninvolved third party to interview you and research the issues. Please do not make edits based on your emotional involvement. - Tεxτurε 18:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Texture, I have in fact been asked in the past to write about Godwin's Law. I have even been cited as an authority on the subject. If you imagine that my reputational equity hinges on Godwin's Law, however, then I want to suggest, gently, that you are not familiar with my work.
The position you take here is at odds with the facts. If the issue were one of challenging anyone else's claims to Godwin's Law, then surely I would object to the inclusion of Richard Sexton's claim. I don't, however. Richard's claim is documentable. The Rich Rosen claim is undocumented.
By the way, I note that I could just as easily have edited the entry anonymously, thus depriving you of your ad hominem attacks on me. I violated my longstanding practice and began to identify myself on Wikipedia partly to track my contributions and partly to be available as a source for the entries, including the Godwin's Law entry, that relate to my work.
Remember, despite your prejudices, that the mere fact that I object to a change in the Wikipedia entry on Godwin's Law doesn't mean that the change is therefore more likely to be true. The world is not quite so postmodern as all that.
Since you yourself were involved in reversing two edits of User:Napoleon12 (and his sockpuppets) who has been ruthlessly reverting any and all changes on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 to his POV version, I urge you, as an administrator to block him.
You are listed as an Administrator on Wikipedia:List of administrators and so I urge you to take action against this individual and his various sockpuppets (129.100.100.92, 129.100.224.146, 129.100.224.148, 129.100.100.98 and 129.100.100.102). They all eminate from London, Ontario. I do not know where else to turn for assistance. There is a group concensus against his POV edits on the article.
This individual has been reported to the WP:AN/3RR page and vandalism in progress page, but to no avail. I was told that his edits do not qualify as "vandalism" on wikipedia. However, he has made over 15 reverts in a period of less than 24 hours. I think that this is more a case of vandalism than someone who will clearly not listen to reason. I have requested the individual, very early in his session of constant reverts, to discuss any issue he has with the material presented in the article in the Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 page, which he refuses to do. His main intention is to present a distorted version of the story, and not engage other wikipedians in dialog on the contents of the article.
The individual has also violated wikipedia's image use policy by adding images to the article that are blatantly copied without consent from a military website.
I am tired of this edit war. Myself and others like User:Idleguy and User:Variable have spent considerable time researching and adding information to this article, on which unbiased sources are few and far between to begin with.
I therefore request you to block this user. If you have any suggestions on how we can deal with such individuals in the future, please let us know. Thanks
Since I have involved myself in the revert of politically motivated content, I don't feel comfortable acting as an administrator in this matter. Even if I did, this is not a clearly defined circumstance for a block. The user is obviously motivated to project his POV but that cannot be considered as bald vandalism and so, cannot be dealt with as such. Instead, I suggest that you review the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment as possibly the correct conflict dispute mechanism. If the situation cannot be contained you can request a page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection until the situation can be resolved. In whatever path you feel is appropriate please drop me a note so that I can post in support of your request. - Tεxτurε 16:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While cleaning out the recreated article Ameriphobia you seem to have erased Talk:Ameriphobia as well, which had been created with some arguments for undeletion. This has made a certain new user very angry. silsor 18:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
On the Speedy Delete page, User: Master theif Garrett said: "If you do not think this article is deserving of a speedy delete please state your reasoning here. " I did. No answer. And the page was deleted anyway, apparently by you.
The article was a recreation of a recently deleted article after a VfD vote indicating delete. - Tεxτurε 21:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I realized after looking at the talk that an outsider might have difficulty following the issue, so I'm going to take a moment to elaborate on the issue, just in case. As you know, since you deleted it ([4], see March 2), a list of Wikipedia:Columbia Encyclopedia article titles was created in March 2004 and shortly thereafter deleted over concerns related to its copyright status. Now it is 2005, and other people have been created a similar list Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics based on articles appearing in the 2004 Encyclopedia Brittanica. My concern on that talk page goes to how can the latter be acceptable if the former was considered a copyright violation. Some editors have mentioned but not referenced unspecified subsequent discussions or opinions that both lists ought to have been okay. Since you were involved in the deletion of the original Columbia list, I was hoping you might be able to comment on that determination and whether the same problem seems likely to apply to the 2004 Brittanica list. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dragons flight 17:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I might have offended you with regards to the WP:VFU debate on Islamophilia. With the nature of the support provided to undelete the article, I did not look past that fact that your signature is mostly red before I reverted the labeling of the new users vote. With any luck, I will not make the same mistake again. --Allen3talk 19:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I did not want to promote any religion, especially not scientology, which I view really critical. But I got the impression, that the given article about scientology was written by scientologists but in a way as if it would be unbiased. So I changed something, in exaggerating I tried to make the reader aware of the fact, that this probably was written by someone, who's main purpose is to recruit new members. This is no excuse, I know, but I will try not to do it in that way again.
Sorry, if I (newbie) did wikipedia wrong. For me it is also important to see, that there is some kind of watch over wikipedia - and you do a great job!
This time, Texture I am not guilty. I corrected what I have written before, which you incriminated. Then I put some important infos to the article, they are critical to scientology, of course, but important.
I hope, there is no hacker-attack on my computer, which does some weird stuff.
I'm not sure who you are since your IP may have changed and I left no messages at your current IP. I assume you are referring to the Scientology article. Some anonymous additions (such as the current one) remove vandalism and add good content. Others just add vandalism such as "Hubbard was so right!", "Join us and we will cure your insanity!" and "Freud was not prepared for us.". If you are adding the former, I applaud you. If you are adding the inappropriate first person statements, please stop. - Tεxτurε17:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent revert on the KFC article. The Snopes article on having to pay royalties to Kentucky was a spoof, as explained here. See also the Wikipedia Snopes article. --Tom Allen 05:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
FYI: fair cop on the vanity, and no hard feelings, but really, there was no attempt at advertisement of anything (book, site, or other article). Steve Summit20:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, and I didn't personally do as much of this "promotion" as I suspect you might think I did, but it's not worth arguing about; I prolly sound too defensive already. Steve Summit22:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it may be impossible not to sound defensive when defending something about yourself - even if you are correct to defend it. If I am ever famous (doubtful), I will never participate in articles or discussions about myself or my work. You simply cannot come across well. - Tεxτurε23:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There were two devices in the area: one in the station that they attempted to detonate (the above ground/BBC TV comments apply here); one in bushes in Little Wormwood Scrubs (apparently abandonned and discovered at the weekend). Hence five bombs not four. Your rephrase appears to mix up the two (IMHO). I still like my version better but am happy for you to try for a better rephrasing. The rest of the article should help clarify the situation - if it doesn't, please let me know! 195.157.197.10814:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. I just made another attempt. It was less the content and more the style that led me to confusion. I hope I made it better without changing your content. I'm trying to stay away from a conversation or commentary style of writing and more of a neutral encyclopedic. - Tεxτurε15:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaaaarrrrrrghhh! You've cut out half the information again. There are two issues to be dealt with here, which differentiate 21 July from 7 July:
The bombing at Hammersmith & City was above ground. Hence it would have caused a different sort of damage (much more visible and right next to BBC TV). Moreover the initial "failed" explosion could have been a dummy used to draw police in, with a subsequent detonation triggered with a mobile signal (more along the lines of an IRA bombing).
There is a fifth device, discovered later and slightly north of Shepherds Bush (in Little Wormwood Scrubs - an area of open grassland). It is not clear whether the device is linked to the 21 July bombings but speculation has been that is. If so, what was the target? BBC itself? The Eurostar? The Westway? The device has been reported as a nail bomb but subsequently reporting has dried up. If it was a nail bomb, it suggests that the other devices were also nail bombs (police have stated they are the same design). If that is the case, the 21 July bombs sound more designed to injure people than destroy trains and tunnels.
I won't rephrase your rephrase again but I still think your version cuts out facts and muddles the two West London devices. The rest of the article should help you understand the picture. If not, try here (summary of the initial bombing attempts) and here (the discovery, controlled explosion and analysis of the fifth bomb).
Please look here. I did not cut any content. I moved half to the bottom since it talked about a fifth bomb and the rest of the section was talking about the four bombs that were attempted. You have additional content so feel free to add it to the section. The only editorial requests I would make are to avoid intro clauses such as "Moreover, unlike the 7 July attacks" or "On the other hand". These stray from a neutral presentation of facts and becomes a commentary. Those are the only things I took away from what you wrote. Does that make sense? - Tεxτurε15:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah.... sorry about that. Had only seen your first rephrase, not the subsequent reinsertion when I started my mini-rant. The tone of the second paragraph was deliberately phrased to set it against the preceding paragraph which lists similarities between the events and which was the result of someone else's edits. As such, I think the section you moved down was appropriate where it was (to give a structure: 1, similarities; 2, differences; 3 paragraph weighing these up and assessing 'same group'/'copycat' theories). The section heading is afterall a direct indication that this is what will follow. Anyro.... not fussed enough to enter an edit war. If you like it better your way, so be it. If you fancy another stab at rephrasing, my vote is with moving the section you moved down back up. The additional material mentioned on this page is not in the article because I felt it was too much my own speculation. I'd be delighted to see you stick some of it in if you do rephrase again. Logging off shortly. Happy wikiing! 195.157.197.10816:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted a couple of links that were removed (non-porn i might add :), what's the linking rule? Love the wikipedia btw, now I know I share a bday with Vin Deisel, woowoo.
-Azerin
Links are often removed as porn or as mere advertisement for a site. I double checked recent removals and they were clearly not fansites but larger sites beyond the individual celebrity. Wikipedia is not a link directory. If links do not add to the article they may be removed.
You may be interested in the fact that I finally [after maybe 1 year now] took a little time and made the tables on my userpage fit together more nicely. — Ilγαηερ(Tαlκ)17:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you replaced some other people's votes on this VfD by the words "invalid vote". Please don't do that, it may sometimes be regarded as vandalism. If you have concerns about the validity of a vote, please append a comment giving your reasons and the person who closes it can make his mind up.
Hi -- We're actually on the same side in the vfd on Intellectual center, but how come you keep marking votes as "invalid vote?" The guidelines for vfd's allow anons to participate. Obviously the author of the article has cast several sock puppet votes, but as the guidelines suggest, I've noted the issues in replies to the votes.--Bcrowell14:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
