User talk:NorsemanII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, NorsemanII, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  D. J. Bracey (talk) California state flag.png 22:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome :)[edit]

Happy editing! VoiceOfReason 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Sorry, but I've just tagged said redirect to be speedily deleted. There was a discussion at Redirects for deletion a while ago about this article, and the consensus was to delete it. If an article is reposted after consensus has supported its deletion, it can be deleted very quickly by CSD G4. In general, cross-namespace redirects (from the mainspace to the Wikipedia space) are considered a bad idea (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references). Anyway, I hope this doesn't discourage you - we want you to stick around! Happy editing, --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not vandalism[edit]

NorsemanII that was not vandalism, those were real people affiliated with the Genovese crime family. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.22.10.68 (talkcontribs) 20:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

This was on my user page, I moved it here and added your signature. Regarding your edit, which can be located here [1], you added 12 links to uncyclopedia in an article that had nothing to do with it. How do you innocently add links to uncyclopedia in an encyclopedic entry that has nothing to do with uncyclopedia? -NorsemanII 06:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Battlefield 2142[edit]

I removed the tweaking guide link - it adds nothing to an encyclopedia article (which is the purpose of any of the links). Moreover it's is OR and thus should not be linked as per WP:EL. --Charlesknight 12:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion guy is out of control![edit]

You added sorely needed intelligence to the deletion battle. I hate the rationale of deleting lists because a category exists. This is even worse, he is deleting it because a category "could" exist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your imput, Norse! --Hemlock Martinis 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I nominated the lists because I do not think they are the best choice for Wikipedia. My Wikiproject (Militaryhistory) is working on new better lists. If you do not agree with my decisions, feel free to object on the AfD discussions. Wikipedia is a consensus democracy. --Ineffable3000 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Endospore staining[edit]

Hi, I suggest that the article you created, Endospore staining be added to Microbiology as it would be a great addition to the article, but does not need a new page of its own. DreamFieldArts 2:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to add endospore staining directly to the microbiology page. There's a number of different stains used in microbiology, and even endospore staining can be used to describe at least two different staining methods. There are no other staining techniques mentioned on the microbiology page (like the gram stain, negative stains, flagellar stains, the acid-fast stain, etc.), so it seems weird to mention endospore staining while ignoring every other stain. It might be better to start a page for stains used in microbiology and histology and then link to that page from the microbiology page. What do you think? -NorsemanII (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I do see where you are coming from. Now I am not a Major in Biology just a Aerospace Engineer, but I have looked to see if other articles are out their are describing what you said. I found that the other stains you listed have their own page too. I have removed your tag, enjoy you day. DreamFieldArts 2:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Victimless crimes[edit]

Category:Victimless crimes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Night of the Big Wind talk 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Speleogenesis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • es1405/es1405page01.cfm Exploring Earth: Animation of cave formation in limestone deposits]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Exposing/evidencing some lies that 2 Wikipedians known (and 1 even disciplined for...) POV-pushing have told to you, about me.[edit]

Hi, just to clear the record, so that you don't feel bad for reverting it to re-instate my edits (as the following 3 posts are copied to the Canada Park:Talk board but I'm not sure if you want to dip your feet into that long argument again ;-) ...but as you said that you don't follow the regional politics, the following should dispel the fact that Zero & Huldra took advantage of you lack of knowledge [whether they did so purposely or not] in accusing that my edits had "unsourced" POV...or even any POV, or that I am alone in trying to stop their small political cabal's WP:Coatracking attempts on Canada Park (such as the addition of SeanHolyland's last edits, but I'll wait to give him time to put those into a more appropriate article as he just might not have read the Canada Park Talk-page, before contacting a Senior Editor for some initial advisory opinion). Where I say "you" these are directed at Huldra and Zero...not at you:

TO HULDRA: 1. You're calling the following “unsourced,” so TRY READING THE JPOST ARTICLE before embarrassing yourself with false accusations again: “[Palestinian rep's agreed] during all stages of the Peace Process, [that Latrun] would become incorporated into Israel, until June 2013" (unsourced)“ (emph added). But as the REFERENCED SOURCE who is well-regarded for fact-checking (jpost) says: “All peace plans have always put Latrun inside Israel, the official said” and if you'd like to contest that part of it, or any other parts of what I wrote into the lede (although I'm fine with Norseman's curtailed version), then you need to GET A CONTRADICTORY SOURCE. You're only impugning your own credibility by making such False Accusations against me: Are you too illiterate to read that jpost article and/or unaware that the way WP works is that you need to GET A SOURCE for why you have removed my WP:RS-sourced info, if you think jpost's editors, despite having a reputation for fact-checking, published that erroneously somehow?! ...As I already needed to state to Zero 2 days ago (after which he replied but didn't contest the following claim): “...So I never asserted "what I think" (as you just falsely-accused) the status of the salient is, I provided a source (known for fact-checking/etc)...” I also needed to call-out to him his own admission that he doesn't know much about legalities of Latrun's annexation and needed to again tonight when he referenced Pressman, despite that Pressman actually supports me instead of Zero. :-)

2. Another false accusation: "I don´t really see this as an edit-war: it is one IP who wants to force his (her?) view on the article" but if you read this Talk page & the article's History/diff's, the majority noted that the article has become a constant source of politicisation (WP:Coatrack) and my edits largely (but not fully) addressed those complaints, as others have needed to sporadically in the past, if you look at the diff's (but after those others stopped occasional WP:Coatrack attempts, people from your little POV-pushing cabal came back again). It is a small cabal of political-activist editors versus the mainstream opinion on this Talk page that your little buddies are abusing Wikipedia.

Lastly, I don't know even know who Chief Truck is...and I could just as easily say, “Funny, Sean.Holyland showed up outta nowhere,” but I'm not going to stoop to your level of making TACIT False Accusations; indeed I wouldn't really even care if you'd contacted Sean, so long as he added content that wasn't violating both:

  • WP:Coatrack policy but also
  • the clear majority who've said that this Archaeology Park article should not be politicised (Coatracked) into a political bitchfest...other than perhaps 1 line with a wikified link to bring people to the Yalo or other articles). I can understand that everyone makes occasional mistakes, but that's quite the CAMPAIGN of lies. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Zero claims: “never accepted this action”[citation needed] and “always insisted in negotiations” FALSE: Zero not only has no source[citation needed] to backup this claim about the “negotiations” (including Jeremy Pressman, as I'll show in the "annexation only" section below) but also the jpost ref that's already in the article directly contradicts you, Zero ...from jpost's editorial board which is 'known for fact-checking' etc per WP:RS guidelines; you and especially Huldra really SHOULD HAVE read that jpost article fully, BEFORE editing the sentence related to it. :-) ) And here you are accusing [falsely] that MY info is “generally wrong”...based on what? Based on your UNCITED/UNREFERENCED PERSONAL OPINION [WP:OR]... in contrast to the way that I CITED the jpost article: proof that it is you spreading disinfo.

the 2nd one to Zero (FUNNY!!):

Even your own source says “The Palestinian figure included Israeli annexation of...parts of the Latrun salient,” indicating that Arafat's “figure” [amount of land to be taken] concurred with Israel keeping it. Thanks, you just shot yourself in the foot...nay, nay...in the head. ;-) When you claim Arafat's rep rejected annexation [by Israel] ("insisted in negotiations") based on this [the Pressman document], how can anyone trust you: It's not just [not in citation given], this part of the doc you cited even refutes you, and lends more support to what jpost and I said to start with! ...N.B.: What they did disagree on is whether the No Man's Land (search for that term in Pressman's paper) is to be counted in the percentage (IIRC, it's 3%) of the West Bank that Arafat agreed Israel may take for security purposes, that is not the same as disagreeing whether or not the NML is already (whether de-facto or de-jur) annexed. Your vague citation made it difficult to see whether Pressman supports you or not, but I guess that if I was in your position (not a leg to stand on), I'd also refrain from citing the exact page-number or exact quote. ;-) As I already observed: you were exhibiting utter cluelessness on legal agreements RE: Latrun when you wrote about it to Pluto, and now you're so blinded by your bias that you're using a source who even HIMSELF contradicted the particular point that you're trying to make. I'd be crying if I wasn't laughing right now. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Cunaxa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mithridates. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)