User talk:Crazynas/July2011

Bot activity

I was going over the list of bots and noticed that CrazynasBot (talk · contribs) has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz ^talk 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Objectivism Salutations, Crazynas. I notice you were once a participant in the inactive WikiProject Objectivism and I am excited to inform you that I have resuscitated the project. I was not active in the original project, so your experience and ideas would be most valuable. If you're interested in taking part, please consider changing your inactive status in the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. Yours in enlightened self-interest, Skomorokh 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged Article

Hello! As a member of Wiki Project Objectivism would you please see my post on the excessive coverage of fictional technology, etc. in Atlas Shrugged and my proposal to replace it with more coverage of the meaning of the events in that novel. Thanks. —Blanchette (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism

I am clearing the participant list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism due to inactivity. Please add yourself again if you want to participate. --Karbinski (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2000 out of 800000 is "a large number"??

Dude, the article claims that a 'large number' of mixed-race persons resulted from relationships between white men and black women. Well according to the 1921 census it was about 2000 out of 800000. Is that a large number?? Not in anyone's language. i am right and the article is wrong. 124.176.59.31 (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, a foolish revert from you. You ask me to cite a reasonable source, the source is the very wikipedia article itself! Earlier in the same article the census of 1921 is quoted' I have simply repeated the figures. I give up. If you want an encyclopedia full of half-truths and misinformation, go ahead. Once again, I am right and you are wrong, but I accept your need for wrongness. Lgh (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The combination of an inserted, apparently to me set of random numbers (unsourced), alongside the (apparently) mis-matched adjectives: "so some white men"; "a small number of mixed-race"[[1]], implied to me that this was possibly some anonymous user trying to get some random (wrong) information into the 'pedia. I'm not worried about the editors that say... ie "White people in Zimbabwe are POOP" those kind of edits are 'clearly' nonconstructive and will be reverted. What I am worried about are the editors that change, say, your precious (cited) census numbers, just a little bit, to get there own version of the story in (we call that vandalism). I apologize for not assuming good faith and for triggering a false positive on this editors (neural-network) vandalism detector. When I looked at (your IPs) edit diff, I almost didn't revert it, but in the context, at the time it seemed appropriate. My bad. To close, I accept your need for rightness and I will work hard to get "half truths" and "misinformation" into the 'pedia since apparently that what RC patrol is all about. Crazynas ^t 10:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DoRD Crazynas ^t 19:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Message for Crazynas

How was my recent edit unconstructive for Law & order svu season 10? My recent edit's entire synopsis for the episode, Babes. As far as I know, one episode in season 10 has the full synopsis. Can you please accept my recent edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.126.58 (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)