Ineloquent

WARNINGS

Hello there! Welcome to Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Also: you can play and experiment all you want in the Sandbox.

As new users like yourself likely know nothing about Wikipedia, feel free to ask me questions at any time. Welcome, and Happy editing! --DanielCD 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit on Infantilism

Regarding your edit on Infantilism, you deleted large portions without bothering to research what parts are varifide by outside sources and neglected to read the talk page. On the talk page, there is a request for a time out and discussion about the subject and moderation by an admin. In the future, can you please refer to the talk page before taking on such large edits? Thank you. --OrbitOne 06:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, slow down there Kimosabe'. There's plenty of time to make changes for the better; don't try to set the whole 'pedia on fire at once. Hoover Dam wasn't built in a day! Every diaper... er... edit will have its day. --DanielCD 20:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

lol! Okay, I admit it might be best to use the talk page. Hopefully we can get this worked out. Ineloquent 02:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

that's definitely the best award I've ever received!! Ineloquent 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rmed the link. Access at at your leisure in the edit history. Also: Might not wanna post that one on your userpage. --DanielCD 19:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Take care not to remove other peoples' comments. I think you walked on Flo at the project page. I reverted it and readded your comment. --DanielCD 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Um.. oops. I didn't mean to overwrite his comment. Thanks for fixing that. Ineloquent 23:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Her comment. Again, no problem. Normally wouldn't have mentioned it. I'm kind of jumpy today. And DanielCD is trying to smooth things over. FloNight ^talk 04:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

LS

Hi, Paroxsym/Ineloquent. About the LS debate going on, not that you asked my opinion, but I do think the article violates WP:V. As far as Zebruh, I do think he's in good faith, but he does frequently use a wink-wink, nudge-nudge tone that some might find off-putting. Anyway, Glad you're on the P. project. Joey Q. McCartney 00:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wink-wink, nudge-nudge? LOL ... I honestly didn't mean to come across that way. I think I'll read my comments again. I'm not sure why you said that, Joey. No harm. Just an interesting comment :-) Zebruh 16:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor

He's not merely blocked, he's banned. Banned users may not edit Wikipedia, period. I don't have much time for IAR in general, but a ban is not something you can ignore. It makes no difference if someone chooses to edit their talk page, since they are still banned. Part of the reason for this is that allowing a banned user to continue to edit their talk page allows them to continue the fights the ban is designed to prevent. This is amply demonstrated in Dschor's case, where, post-ban he has made edits such as [1] on the very topic that got him banned in the first place. -Splash^talk 17:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove other people's comments

You have been warned about this previously, and it is a blockable offense. — Feb. 23, '06 [08:42] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I don't think I've beened warned for intentionally removing others' comments, actually. A few days ago I accidentally overwrote FloNight's comment when I was trying to add my own and apologized for it.

And I have no idea what new deletion you're talking about. Either:

1. The pointless debate not relevant to my editing or Wikipedia I removed yesterday from my talk page. If you mean this, please don't bother replying. Or:
2. My removal of two comments at Talk:LS Studio. I did that for obvious legal reasons (see probable cause). If a police officer decided to follow-up on the patently acknowledged crimes there it would be bad for both Wikipedia and the poster. Ineloquent 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

DanielCD asked Ineloquent to be more careful. I don't think that was a warning. Ineloquent apologized and I have no problem with it. I follow the LS Studio article. The issue of removing text from that page is confusing. You aren't permamently removing it, just making it less visable. Text can be removed from talk pages and articles permamently. It needs to be discussed, sometimes with Jimbo. I think I've stated the usual way it works. Many of these actions do not have firm policy or guidelines. Many people think you should not remove other people's comments from your talk page. Others disagree. It's always safer to leave it or ask the other person. FloNight ^talk 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think I've beened warned for intentionally removing others' comments, actually.

That's the danger of deleting old user talk pages:

Why did you delete these comments from the talk page? [2] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)[3]

Since you are so forgetful of previous warnings I'm going to restore the uset talk:24ip page. -Will Beback 23:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not. If you want to restore the history move it to User talk:24ip/history. User talk:24ip must be a red link for security reasons. Stop meddling with it, if you want to use it for some reason, restore the history somewhere else. I had it deleted for a reason. Ineloquent 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear editor user:24ip/user:Paroxysm/User:Ineloquent, do not delete warnings and then claim you never received them. If there are specifically libelous remarks on any page please point them out to an admin, who can selectively remove only those remarks while retaining the rest of the history. -Will Beback 00:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear editor user:Willmcw/user:Will Beback, please do not make inane accusations on my talk page. I have never received a warning for intentionally removing a comment, as I stated. Thank you, Ineloquent 01:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to enforce the laws? How come you don't care about inserting what is called child pornography onto unsuspecting readers' hard drives, (Lolicon) yet you delete these intentional remarks by editors for fear of legal entanglements? That does not seem consistent. As for a warning, that is how I interpret SlimVirgin's comment, that followed another warning. -Will Beback 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Those lolicon images are not child pornography and are not illegal in the United States. They are not a direct admission of having comitted any crime and do not provide probable cause. Wikimedia isn't going to get handed a warrant for that.
2. LS is child pornography, is illegal everywhere, and hinting that one downloads it is enough for probable cause.

k

And I have never intentionally removed a comment from anywhere but my own talk page, except for at Talk:LS Studio now for legal reasons. Ineloquent 02:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone has broken the law then removing the evidence of that lawbreaking is itself an offense. Just as if someone admitted a murder on a talk page it isn't for us to hide the vidence. Trying to hide the activities of child pornographers is not the purpose of Wikipedia. You effort to explain your differing approachs seems legalistic. The users in question voluntarily added the information and they have not asked that it be removed. -Will Beback 06:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You dropped something

I don't see why you shouldn't take these with you, if you want them. If not, just delete them. Herostratus 11:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For remaining resolute in the face of extreme provocation without sacrificing your dignity or civility, I, DanielCD, award you the Barnstar of Resiliency

Surreal Barnstar
for the little userbox that revealed serious problems in Wikipedia's administration

WikiMedal for providing needed citations (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)