User talk:Tallard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox

Sorry, I don't recall ever seeing the animation you refer to (even if I did, I wouldn't know where to find it). It's easy to get simple image editing software (like Adobe Photoshop or Corel Paint Shop). I doubt this is what you wanted exactly, but I gave it a shot and made this userbox. Just copy the code and paste it along with all your other userboxes.

This user lives in Southeast Florida.

Code:
<div style="float:{{{float|left}}}; border:{{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}}px solid {{{border-color|blue}}}; margin:1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:{{{info-background|white}}};" | style="width:45px; height:45px; background:{{{logo-background|white}}}; text-align:center; font-size:{{{logo-size|{{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}}}}pt; color:{{{logo-color|{{{id-fc|black}}}}}};" | '''{{{logo| [[Image:Hurricane Kate (2003)- Good pic.jpg|40px]]}}}''' | style="font-size:{{{info-size|{{{info-s|8}}}}}}pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:{{{info-color|{{{info-fc|blue}}}}}};" | {{{info|<center>This user lives in<br/> '''[[South Florida metropolitan area|<span style="color: #0000FF;">Southeast</span>]]''' '''[[Florida|<span style="color: #0000FF;">Florida</span>]]'''.}}} |}</div>

--Porsche997SBS 02:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

km² and {{fr icon}}

I'm not quite sure what you mean about km²; could you be a little more specific, please?

Currently there is no difference between {{fr}} and {{fr icon}}, but I'm trying to separate the two templates, so they can behave more like {{de}} and {{de icon}} — {{de}} is a message about the article being based on content from the German Wikipedia and {{de icon}} is the {{languageicon}} call, like {{fr}} and {{fr icon}} currently are; see Template talk:Fr icon#Language icon template refactoring for more details. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Yukon

There is no automatically updated page which shows statistics about vandalism, but there is Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. Also, in case of vandalism, you can warn the vandal with the templates listed at WP:WARN. If the vandal persists, you can file a report at WP:AIV. Hopefully, we'll have the FlaggedRevs extension on Wikipedia sometime in future, which will deter vandals. utcursch | talk 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Provinces visited userbox

Hi, thanks for asking! Yes, userboxes are made for public use and anyone can copy them. To use it, add {{User:Reywas92/Userboxes/Provinces Visited|#}} to your userpage wherever you want it. I see that you have already added other Canada boxes, but this one uses a pipe symbol to include custom information. Sorry I'm a little late; I've been on vacation in Arizona. Question: How do you come from Quebec, Yukon, and Newfoundland & Labrador? Happy editing! Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yukon Template

All you need is paint an IfanView. I'll go ahead and do it myself if you are still interested. Kc4 00:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Thanks for catching the vandal on my userpage. I just don't understand them. I wonder if maybe... I am in the middle of a little argument on the lactose intolerance page, where the other user is getting... POed, is it possible they are related? or is vandalism typically a random act?--Tallard 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. No, I don't think the vandalism to your userpage was related to your other Wikipedia activities. The user who did it was warned by me for creating a defamatory article (the usual schoolboy idiocy - insulting their classmates, that sort of thing). I tagged the article they created for deletion and placed a warning on their talk page. In retaliation, the same user blanked my user and talk pages, and apparently yours as well just because your previous message was the only one currently left on my talk page (I archive old posts fairly regularly). Obviously this vandal just wanted to cause more trouble and clicked the only other link in sight. Anyway, the guy is now permanently blocked from editing. I wouldn't take it personally - my user page has been vandalized many times in "retaliation" for handing out warnings. Just don't rise to their bait, and ignore them (WP:DENY them recognition). ~Matticus ^T_C 21:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse

Hello, Tallard. I like your changes to the lead of the Sexual intercourse article, but the reason I had "in its biological sense" and recently added that part back in is due to a 2007 debate I had on the Sexual intercourse talk page called Lesbians have sex too, even if they dont have a penis. As I explained to that editor, the primary definition should go first, but this editor felt that I was not giving a broad definition of the term. Therefore, I eventually expanded the lead to have more scope. I still do not feel that sexual intercourse is every sexual act we can think of, but I added "in its biological sense" as to not give a definitive definition at its beginning. Do you object to this? Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked your rewrite only a tiny bit, as explained in my edit summary, but I am really liking the new lead. There's no "kind of" liking it at all on my part. I like our combined edits to make it better. The lead is more professional sounding/looking. It's been really a pleasure working with you, Tallard. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, Tallard: Do you feel that fingering/fisting should be moved down to the mutual masturbation part (and put in parentheses there), considering that even the Fingering article says that it is the most common form of mutual masturbation? I mean, where it is now in the lead it gives the impression that it is separate from mutual masturbation. I felt that I would come and ask you about that before tweaking it. I don't mean to be a bother. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of the solution, though, (even if we leave fingering/fisting where it is) is to add the word "usually" at the part "Mutual masturbation and non-penetrative sexual contacts are referred to as outercourse." I'm thinking that part should go like this: "Mutual masturbation and non-penetrative sexual contacts are usually referred to as outercourse" as to not have some people think that those acts are never referred to as intercourse; it also keeps the previous paragraph from seeming as much like a contradiction (since it says that intercourse includes fingering/fisting in recent years).

I won't mess with the fingering/fisting part until you weigh in, but I will go ahead and add "usually" to the part I mentioned above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm telling you again that I replied on my talk page. Surely, you'd check, LOL. But I am telling you I replied again.

As said before, good working with you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wording Part 2

How is "Sexual intercourse for most animals other than humans" more appropriate wording, biologically-speaking, than "Sexual intercourse for most non-human animals"?

Plenty of scientists and researchers use the wording "non-human animals." Why? Well, of course, because the other animals are not human. Yes, humans are animals, but we are clearly above the level of non-human ones.

You yourself even said that English is your second language. At least...that's the impression you gave when you said, "I am bilingual and binational in Canada, which makes my cultural sensitivities and awareness a little over the top. Add arrogant Frenchmen into the mix and it makes editing French pages extremely litigious and the same vein as certain brit/american/auz litigations on language use."

Also, are you going to revert everything I do to the Sexual intercourse article that you don't like, without even talking it over with me first and even when it is valid? Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD Removal -- Not I

Hi Tallard. You took me to task on my talk page for removing your request for deletion of the List of animals with hymens article. It was not I. If you check the article's [history page] you will see that my edit of 6 January was as described in the edit summary: Reverted addition of dubious unsourced content ("Slugs"). The page appears to have been vandalized twice between your edit and mine, first removing the various tags, then adding "Slugs". Furthermore, at that point I had never commented on the appropriateness of the article for inclusion in Wikipedia, but had simply tried to keep it clear of vandalism. (BTW, I'll put your talk page on my watchlist, so you are welcome to respond here.) -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

I was reverting vandalism only on ongoing issues which other users were in agreement with me on. User User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has reverted me in the past many more times than three on this very topic. He floods the article non-NPOV religiously biased content his object seems to be to block any scientific approach to this anatomical structure. He also eliminates content way too fast contradictory to Wikipedia guidelines about removing stuff that is complete nonsense versus leaving a flag present for a reasonable amount of time in order that users may properly reference them. So how is it possible for a vandal to call a 3RR on reverts to his own vandalism???--Tallard (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop falsifying the chronology and messing up the threading on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relativist fallacy

It's rather rude and impolite, and does not comply with suggested Wikipedia best policies for threaded discussions... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

STOP FALSIFYING CHRONOLOGY!!!

My comment was posted on "15:51, 14 March 2011" and yours only on "18:28, 14 March 2011". There are some circumstances where it's more or less permissible to insert your own reply between a comment and an earlier earlier reply to that comment (mainly when yours is a much more direct reply in terms of subject-matter than the other one) -- but none of those circumstances happen to apply in this particular case, which means that your actions are in fact STRONGLY RUDE AND IMPOLITE and in violation of suggested Wikipedia best policies for threaded discussions AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- however, you were the one who added the particular indentation prefixes to your own remark, and no one subsequently changed those indentation prefixes on you. If you feel that the indentation prefixes which YOU added to YOUR OWN comments do not adequately reflect the threading flow, then the quick and simple remedy easily available to you is to change those self-added prefixes until they do, in your opinion, adequately reflect the threading flow -- not to manipulate things by needlessly and unnecessarily moving other people's comments around in violation of customary etiquette and protocol... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- First you added incorrect indentation prefixes to your own remarks (or indentation prefixes which you seemingly regard as incorrect), and then you "solved" this phony "problem" (which you yourself had just created) by shoving around other people's remarks in violation of accepted Wikipedia etiquette and best practices, and then you got obnoxious about leaving your kludge in place. This whole incident was created and kept alive by you from beginning to end, and I'm not going to accept the blame for it... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your latest round of rude behavior and false accusations

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring you accused me of a 3RR violation, but you couldn't provide four unique diffs (as required to support such an allegation) because they simply don't exist. Since you must have been very well aware of this situation when you pushed the "Save page" button, your behavior in this matter falls perilously close to out-and-out malicious defamatory lying. It's minorly amazing to what convoluted lengths you'll go to avoid admitting you made an error in indentation prefix characters, or simply fixing this original error. AnonMoos (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)