Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--CyberjunkieTALK 9 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)
As far as I can tell neither of them had references. If it's of any interest I'm actually trying to write a bot that will do this in an automated manner. Using MultiMap and the article name to get the data. I was simple doing a couple by hand to make sure I knew what was going on.--Son of Paddy's Ego22:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, assume good faith when editing, rather than accusing me of something. I have added US war crimes to the list, and reverted people who have deleted them -- I removed the Laconia incident because it does not qualify as a massacre, and because it was added as one. I thought my edit summary was clear, and I apologize if it was not, but your attacks were unjustified. As for the incident itself, in it, as is the case of many ship sinkings, there is no reason to expect that this was a knowing massacre of civilians or POWs, which is what the massacres page requires as a condition. The Laconia article itself makes it clear that there was no reason to suspect the Americans did not know anything about the POWs, and good reason to believe the order did not violate the rules of war in any case. Take a look at the rest of the massacres on the page -- do you really think it fits? Anyhow, I was not the only one to revert, and feel free to bring this up in the appropriate Talk page. Also, Matthew White is a well-regarded clearinghouse for information on massacres, your deletion was not justified. Goodoldpolonius221:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that I am "unfit to edit Wikipedia" and calling me a liar is not the best way to progress the discussion. Please refrain from personal attacks, and bring discussion to the Talk page. --Goodoldpolonius222:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that you false acusations of 3RR breaking are far more personal. Minimal ability with numbers, should be a requirement to edit an encyclopedia.--Son of Paddy's Ego22:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I was off by a couple of hours, you just avoided violating 3RR. Regardless, I certainly don't think I deserve the invective you are sending my way, calling me a liar, calling my edits rubbish, and so on. Can we end this now? --Goodoldpolonius222:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A miss is as good as a mile. I don't think I deserve to be accused of breaking 3RR, when I had not. I also don't think my edits, even amount to being bold. Yes we can end it now. I was more anoyed by you comments on the edits rather than the edit themselves.--Son of Paddy's Ego23:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then we don't have to fight about this anymore. Since obviously we still obviously disagree, can we let other editors weigh in on our substantive issues (Laconia Incident and the Historical Atlas), since we probably won't be convinced by each other's arguments? --Goodoldpolonius223:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is you that is the vandal. I am allowed to revert just as much as you. While you knowledge of the mechanics of the category system is more then adequate you seem to have some use with it application.--Son of Paddy's Ego22:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are not allowed to revert articles to POV status, if you have an issue then I suggest you deal with it on the article's talkpage. Sherurcij13:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find it is you that is POV. As indicated by you desire to label the unconvicted criminals and the uncharged as terrorist. I feel that pushing a rightwing statist agenda and claiming to be left is rather dishonest. Is English your first language?--Son of Paddy's Ego14:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a qulification to do anything other than check the grammar and spelling in the articles then really. Not even as much use as a Librarian. Is English your first language?--Son of Paddy's Ego15:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove listings from the three-revert rule subpage of the administrator's noticeboard (WP:AN/3RR). If the report is inaccurate or inappropriate, an admin will review the situation and not impose a block. You are welcome to add comments to the report, but I would ask that you not remove any remarks. The report itself will be archived at some time in the future.
I would also add a bit of advice—if you find that you're coming close to the 3RR on a regular basis, it would behoove you to review your editing practices. Take it down a notch; seek outside comment on articles using a request for comment, and try to be unfailingly polite on Talk pages.
Remember, the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to revert: regularly making 'only' three reverts per twenty-four hour period can also be seen as disruptive, and may result in blocks for actions that violate the spirit rather than the letter of the rule. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it's another bit of your mud slinging which doesn't desirve a reply. You disgust me. Have you stopped beating your wife? I suggest that some admin should block this user now for his vanadlism and offensive behaviour.
For clarification: it's the bits in bold that I dislike. These qualify, in my opinion, as personal attacks. I'll be reviewing the situation leading up to this report of 3RR in a moment, and taking the appropriate action, however I wanted to warn you in advance that behaviour like this does you no favours, and could land you with a block next time. Rob ChurchTalk | FAHD14:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that, and the other user may not have been either. To an outside party, the comment looked somewhat odd. However, I am a firm believer in Wikipedia:Assume good faith so I shall take you at your word. Incidentally, I would like to point out that I wasn't intentionally getting on a "high horse" of any kind; I was merely pointing it out, trying to keep the community sane. Rob ChurchTalk | FAHD14:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like dishonest Dave has got another small victory. Damn he's good only several months late. Seconds of delya added to my work.
Irate Irate___ Which bit is the personal abuse?
Irate___ When Thersa block me for trying to set up an RFC against her. Yes I was behaving realy badly.
Irate___ SNow spinner for instance has blocked me several times just for the hell of it, I have told him I will not talk to him, I'm being no more antisocial than if Id left the msg there and ignored it, like what happens to my msgs.
jwales I do not agree at all that he blocked you just for the hell of it.
jwales Remember, everything is recorded. It's easy to look it up.
jwales In each case you deserved it.
jwales Your filing of frivolous RfC's is one of your worst traits.
Irate____ He blocked me as soon as I edited after my ban. I know everything is recorded, that's why I'm not lying. The RFC's seem to be the most basic form of getting somone impartial involved how else should I have proceded?
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberjunkie TALK 9 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)
