Contents

User talk:Biot

Please do not "fix" spelling where there are differences between British and American English spelling - "colouration" is the CORRECT spelling in History of the English penny. Refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. -- Arwel 16:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm doing this as part of User:Humanbot; the project suggests the corrections, I just run the software. We're discussing this, and have stopped these british/american spelling edits for now. Biot 16:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi! I just looked in on Fishfinder which I expanded May 30th and you subsequently copyedited. I'm not sure your revisions to formal titles are good in that set of changes. (I don't think you did anything else from 'diff'). You see, I worked a while to get rid of the TOC box -- the text beside image presentation was much nicer I thought. Is the guideline so hard and fast that you had to change that? More to the point, perhaps, is can the TOC be suppressed? I know it kicks in after a fourth heading is added to an arty? Just wasting time — and wondering. :)

[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 07:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

__NOTOC__ gets rid of the TOC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, that's a better way to get rid of the TOC. My problem with that page wasn't the lack of a TOC, but rather the "manual" section titles you did. It looked to me like you just didn't know the wiki syntax, so I corrected that. Feel free to add in NOTOC on this article if you like that better. Biot 09:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hiya, Biot, I noticed you use the godmode-light script. As you use an emulation of the rollback feature I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on a proposal I have which would grant the rollback feature to those who request it, similar to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, except with a lower threshold. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback; your comments are welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback. Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your dab fix here is incorrect and the original link was intentional. The reference is not to canon law but to a set of prayers during the Mass. This sense of the word does not have its own page, just a bulleted definition on the disambiguation page as follows: "The central Eucharistic prayer of the Roman Catholic Mass, containing the narrative of Jesus's institution of the Eucharist." I'm therefore reverting your change. If you want to create a page for the Canon of the Mass and change the link to point to it then go for it, but otherwise please leave it alone since the alternatives are not relevant. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure which meaning of "canon" was intended here, not too surprised I got it wrong. However, you should be aware that this was done as part of the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project. The idea is to remove any direct links to disambiguation pages, and change them to more appropriate pages instead. I would suggest either not linking "canon" at all, or just making it a "red" link to Canon of the Mass, which will no doubt be created at some point. I'll leave it up to you to do. Please do remove the link to the disambiguation page though, Canon is nearly done on that project page, would hate to see it held up by this. — Biot 23:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how in your right mind can you say "Removed irrelevant link to openbgpd again. Please people, let's keep on topic. This article is not the place to spread the openbgpd or BSD gospel" when dealing with an article about ospf. The addition clearly noted that OpenBGPD is a suite with a daemon for OSPF, thus was entirely relevant in the External Links section, right along with Quagga and Zebra. Do you have something against the BSD license? Do you simply like Zebra? Like seriously here guy, I cannot wrap my mind around your behaviour. Janizary 05:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I've removed all external links to implementations. Those were irrelevant and incomplete anyway. Just stop the revert war now, please.

I'd hardly call that the proper solution - it only makes sense to link implementations, just like it is done in the articles for ssh, bgp and ftp. So I'm going to revert that edit to add those links back in. Janizary 15:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Alright, I've removed your link yet again. Here's the problem:

1. It reads like an ad for openbsd, which is completely irrelevant to the subject of this article, OSPF.
2. openbgpd doesn't have an OSPF implementation in it. Follow the link, it says it right there, at the top of the page, in red. Or download it, and take a look for yourself. No OSPF, no connection to OSPF, nada.

You are engaging in revert warring, over something which is irrelevant to the article, in order to further the goals of a project that is also irrelevant to the article. I'm going to say it again: this article is really not the place to do this. Biot 20:53, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

It reads as much like an advertisement for OpenBSD as the ssh article does, which also links to an OpenBSD developed programme. It reads as much like an advertisement for OpenBSD as the firewall article does for Cisco, you just seem to have a stick up your ass about listing specific stuff. I'm not affliated with the project, but some people like having information available. You may have noticed that the Ultima Online article lists various server and client implementations, heck, it lists some information about them as well. Damn, better go remove that irrelevant license information, cause someone may want to know. That the OSPF daemon has not been included in the last release does not mean you cannot download the source for it, CVS is a magical thing. Janizary 00:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I'm having some trouble on the Punk'd article. An unregistered user named BigBang19 keeps re-inserting material into the article that is irrelevant, poorly worded, etc. I've tried posting a message on that article's Talk Page, but he has not responded. Because he had no User Page, my message to him was the first one on it. If you could check out the bottommost section on the Talk Page and chime in with your two cents on his revisions, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream 05:49, 12 April 2006 (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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]