Statsone

Outer Space

How is that nonsense? She actually said that. I thought people might want to know what space smells like. --71.112.146.27 16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Model Rocket

Are you kidding??? Most of the article lacks citation... PCE 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This was in regards to Model rocket and no further comments made. statsone 05:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The entry has since been deleted statsone 02:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

List of oldest companies

Thanks for catching my noob mistake [1] on List of oldest companies. The stupid proxy at work sometimes does that - just aborts in the middle of the upload on a large article, and FireFox says nothing about it. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 18:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem statsone 19:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a vandal

You reverted the talk page of 'Humanism' three days ago. Good job: I had been unaware of the partially revised page being saved. I assume it was a server problem while doing a 'preview', because 1) my settings warn me if I would save a page without an edit comment, and 2) only a part of the page was actually saved though it was always completely in my edit zone. As I had no intention to save anything, I was not logged-in. Nevertheless, you might take a more careful look into an unusual edit before crying 'vandalism' in an edit comment. I spotted your action a few hours afterwards, but thought it wisely to continue my work till the (preliminary) finish instead of trying to explain what had happenened. This talk page that I had been working at for about a week, is now properly saved. ;-) — SomeHuman 21 Aug2006 02:38 (UTC)

Just felt it was obvious vandalism so I corrected and posted. I didn't see any warnings on my end and the change was done many hours after a good revision. I try to be very careful before posting any vandal warnings and give the newbie the benefit of the doubt statsone 04:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Humanism revert

Hello - yesterday I removed 2 links from the Humanism article - one that was spammed (simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk), and another that was bolded in contrary to guidelines and doesn't appear to add anything useful to the article (it appears to be principles defined solely by that organization and are not applicable to humanism in general). You then reverted it with this edit: [2]. Would you mind letting me know why you did this? Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know the bold and link didn't seem to be a commercial site statsone 04:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok no worries - I'm going to remove the links again. Cheers --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Ballista

Bolt Thrower redirects to Ballista, with no link to the band page. That's why I put a message at the top reading "Bolt Thrower redirects here. For the death metal band, see Bolt Thrower (band)." It was a very direct and simple message, providing all the information you needed to understand my motives. Was it too hard to take 10 damn seconds to read it before reverting?? Fucking idiot. Since the intricacies of wikipedia seem to confuse you, I'll make Bolt Thrower redirect to the band page, with a link to Ballista. It seems more likely that someone would go to Bolt Thrower for the band page anyway.

By the way, you posted a "welcome to wikipedia" message instructing me to sign my talk page messages, then didn't sign yours. Nice. Really makes me respect the people here. 152.3.47.110 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil statsone 04:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand the civility policy, but... are you trying to deny the existence of profanity in the the world? You really feel the need to edit others' words so you don't have to see "dammit"? That's pretty weak. I think most people have stopped thinking "OMGBADWORD!!" by the time they get to editing-Wikipedia age. 152.3.47.110 15:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

This is a new tool for external links. You don't have to give anyone any credits. Wandalstouring 06:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Model Rocket Links

You reverted the addition of a link to the ThrustCurve.org database of model rocket motor info and simulation data. I'm not sure if you took a look at the site or not, but it is a valuable resource for hobbyists using commercially manufacturered rocket motors (and is not itself a commercial site).

It may be a valid link, but any links to a site you maintain should be avoided. You should have placed a request in the comments sections and then have, after a review, someone else place the link with appropriate comments. Also please sign your post with 4 ~ as this provides a time and date stamp. I have placed a welcome section in your talk page to help you out. statsone 04:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and sorry for making a newbie mistake. (I did add an item to the Discussion page.) John Coker 18:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wafa Sultan tags

Their are several discussions in the Talk page referring to the unbalanced nature of the article. Just about every heading in the Talk page is regarding biased content, not style or anything else.

As of now, the article reads like a promotion of Wafa Sultan. Their isn't a single reference in the article to opposing views or criticism. Critical views consist of a few weblinks tossed at the very bottom of the entry (External links). They haven't been incorporated into the article.--Kitrus 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On NPOV Dispute, it clearly states "Drive-by tagging is not permitted." In order to insert tags for NPOV disputes, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies..." Until the content is specifically stated, the tags should not be inserted. I have removed the tags as a result. statsone 06:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia rule allowing users to tamper with other user's Talk pages? I want to clear up old topics, that's why I removed them. If you have a better solution, feel free to tell me. In the meantime, please refrain from editing my userpage.--Kitrus 06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No there is no rule preventing user from editing the User pages of others. I did not tamper with your user page. It is also not allowed to delete the content of your user page when you remove warnings. An incident has been psoted on the Administrators Incident board to clarify the matter. statsone 06:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Erin Burnett

You wrote,

"To prevent a violation of the WP:3RR rule, I have asked for intervention by Admins."

First, the rule has not been violated. Second, I've made a clear case for why that quote is NOT a controversy. Third, I have also made the case that the quote has NO relevance to the article. The idea that a dozen Internet blogs and handful of leftwing riot websites equal a controversy is absurd. (posted by ICarriere)

I asked for intervention to prevent a violation. Just reverting would cause you to revert again. statsone 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The so-called controversy/sarcastic comment will be reverted until it becomes a bona-fied controversy. Wikipedia is not the place to air your personal grievences about a public figure. As to being civil, I have been cival with you. On the other hand, your constant vandalism of the page is not civil. (posted by ICarriere)

The controversy is valid and should appear on the page. statsone 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From now on, please refrain your edits to the Wikipedia Sandbox. - ICarriere 19:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Be civil please. statsone 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Admins have made their determination regarding this subject. So please respect that ruling and refrain from making additional reverts/edits to the page. - ICarriere 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Where? The decision is still pending.statsone 23:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The decision was made by Theresa Knott, who is an Admin. You can find her comments posted on the 'discussion' page of the Erin Burnett article:

I again ask that you to respect this decision. If you continue to vandalize the page, I will report you for abuse. - ICarriere 00:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What decision? She asked for more information and it was provided. She was given examples of discussion and of incivility. She hasn't responded to the information yet. statsone 00:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No one asked you for more information. That is most likely why she has not responded. You sir, have a serious problem in your thinking/reasoning ability. You are an absolute detriment to the Wikipedia community. (posted by ICarriere)

You quoted below "if it exists then you can post a link to people discussing in the papers etc?" statsone 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Admin, Theresa Knott wrote, I am an admin. I'm not sure what you want me to do here. The person who is removing the part you added appears to be making a valid point above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC) You replied and she wrote, I'll look at your talk page but w.r.t. controversy, if it exists then you can post a link to people discussing in the papers etc? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I don't see the incivilty on your talk page. Being firm is not the same as being incivil. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC) (posted by ICarriere)

Discussion has been moved to the Talk:Erin Burnett page. statsone 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the welcome! --MKnight9989 12:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mother Teresa edit

Hi. Why was my edit considered inappropriate? I changed "...he felt ill and died" to "he fell ill and died." Sure, he must have felt ill before he died, but the point is he became (fell) ill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.162.119.138 (talk) 05:22, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

(After looking at it again) Ok, I can see why it should be the way it was. But was that really cause for a warning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.162.119.138 (talk) 05:35, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Most hit and run vandals make a small change and you don't see them again. You seemed to fit the bill ans so I posted a friendly warning. If your edit was innocent, then happy to hae you along. --statsone 03:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NAFTA

The article references a number of sources. Thus, Refimprove is more appropriate here than Unreferenced. Why do you undo an edit without any explanation at all? 24.131.181.7 04:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't notice the change you made, but the tags weren't needed. I was responding to the tags placed by User:Wikidudeman back in early August [3] . After the tagging, nothing was done. Drive by tagging is not allowed.

As for not providing an explanation, I did [4]

Also, new comments go at the bottom of the list.

Welcome aboard. --statsone 04:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

We're both from Canada, I'm in BC, what about you?

Why try to delete the userpage of one of your fellow Canadians? Eh?

--RucasHost 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Either blank or delete. Contratry to WP:SOAP --Statsone 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop violating Pillars

You and Truthscrubber are violating the spirit of Wikipedia but deleting valid edits. Please stop now.Kirin4 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is you that does not listen and continues with POV. --Statsone 13:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Airfix

Please look at my response on the Airfix discussion page. Steven Pietrobon 00:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for updating the charges against the Toronto suspects, it's much appreciated to have other people working on the articles as well. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Statsone 13:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted some of your edits because of the addition of this sentence:

"As a result of preferred direct indictment by the Crown Attorney on 2007-09-27,".

Why? Because you published the information on 2007-09-24.

Please provide an explanation of why you are claiming a preferred indictment was made on 2007-09-27 when Sept 27, 2007 is a date that hasn't even occurred yet.

Thanks.

207.195.45.62 03:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the wrong date down and went to fix it. You can check the link and confirm the story. I will revert as it is correct. --Statsone 04:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the date in te article (just the reference) but changed that too. --Statsone 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Try to understand me

No, no, I don't want to engage in Canvassing. I just want to know about the views of the Wikipedia community. I just wanted to inform some Wikipedian about the AfD. Recently List of Christians was deleted. So, they might be interested in this AfD. That's it.

I don't want anybody to compromise the consensus building process. And, if you want to support the article, you can. I just want to know what other people have to say. All the best. RS1900 04:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Christain was deleted because it was uncyclopedic. And, I also believe that List of nontheists is also uncyclopedic. That's it. However, thank for your suggestions. Here, people can misunderstand you. I am relatively new on Wikipedia. I will be more careful in the future. And, I am against canvassing. All the best. RS1900 04:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

canvassing

Someone has send messages about AfD to other users and they have voted to support the article and list I nominated for deletion. Is that canvassing? I can I do about it? RS1900 02:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on Canvassing, there is no real suggestion. If you know someone has Canvassed follow the second and ask they clean their mess up. If not, post a note on the discussion page of the AfD. That is my opinion, and I could be wrong. You may want to ask an admin or just post on the talk page for the AfD. --Statsone 05:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Olbermann Article

I am not really sure what edit you think is POV. Throwing up a template on my talk page with no explanation doesn't help. If you are referring to edits I made yesterday. There were two and I consider both of them to be compromises on reverts that were done earlier. Let me know what specifically you have problems with. --Rtrev 14:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit [5] as it was simply to insert the phrase and opinion segment was seemed to be only POV. The show is more than news but it seemed to be an Undue phrase and I reverted it. The same paragraph also states the show contains commentary by Olbermann and the edit was duplicating the same point. --Statsone 02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:welcome

Thankyou for the welcome.Very much appriciated.Thanx again.Bashir3 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure to help out. --Statsone 03:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)