User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc

Notice: threads on this page are automatically archived after 10 days of inactivity.

Wikipedia vandalism information
(abuse log)

Level 4

Low to moderate level of vandalism

[view • purge • update]

---

2.80 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 08:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Your post in Editor assistance

Mendaliv, I read your post, and no you didn't come off harsh. In fact, it looks like you and I both agree that MOS / MOSBIO doesn't actually state where the TOC should be, but rather that it should be a matter of common sense. Either at the top or below the lede are the two places that strike me as the most common sense place for such a thing. Regardint the //* I use for comments when I'm editing, I've been here about 2 1/2 years and you're actually the first person to say anything about it. (Understand, I'm not using that as an excuse, nor a rational that I'm right) I don't see that as being any problem on the article - AND - to put my money where my mouth is, I'll stop using //* in edit summaries from now on! About the line breaks, most of the time I'm happy to let the article wordwrap, but I admitt to using line breaks around subject headers, <ie>

<nowiki>

Greek Love

Hi Mendaliv! There is a message for you here: Talk: Greek love#Committee for keeping Greek Love. Thanks. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that trolling "message" which is from this user that !voted to delete the related article. If you need, you can view it in the edit history but it's nonconstructive and quite uncivil. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately someone else he trolled actually restored it so feel free to go there and comment. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest seems to have misunderstood WP:VOLUNTEER, as well as how AfD actually works. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments, much appreciated --Dominique (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cognex

Sorry for posting a reply when you had already dealt with this one. I did not realise I had edit-conflicted until after I posted. Do we need a flag on the questions? SpinningSpark 21:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no prob... sometimes a different wording of the same point can get it across better. As to flagging that particular one, if we were to flag it now I'd suggest marking it "answered". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant a Helper Is Already Working On This And You Would Be Wasting Your Time To Research It As It Will Probably Already Be Answered By The Time You Come Back Flag kind of flag. But I was not really being serious. SpinningSpark 08:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I understand; yeah it sucks hitting an EC when it's a simply-answered problem.

As to preemptive flagging/"staking your claim" to answer a question, I think it's worth at least considering it. My thought is that it might be helpful when it's a simple question, but I still see edit collisions happening with ppl who are unfamiliar with the flag. As to complex problems... I'd definitely say multiple answers are merited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page

Hello Mendaliv,

You pasted a copied response on my talk page stipulating that I had made edits to Wikipedia without providing a valid citation. Since this is an IP address, there is a chance that it was not I but someone else using this IP address. However, I would like to know the page and section in question, so I can determine if it was myself or not.

Thanks, Rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.198.87 (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rich. The edit in question is actually the only other edit made by your IP address, and it appears to be 11 months old. You can see it by clicking this link. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Vim-LaTeX

Hey! Why are external links removed from navigation templates? Maybe there's a rule which I haven't dug out in Wikipedia? I will create an article and add a Vim-LaTeX back to the template, if needed... Thanks for info in advance. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it comes off as linkspam under WP:NOT. If Vim-LaTeX isn't notable enough to have an article about it, or at least be mentioned in the context of a larger list article, it really shouldn't be in a navigation template. WP:NAV is an essay on nav templates, which suggests that nav templates should only link to existing articles (or redlinks if they're extremely likely to be created very soon).

If you do create an article, I'd wholly support adding a link to it to the nav template of course! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You have just vandalized a page

I will figure out how to appeal this tommorow. If you claim that a court ruling creating a precedent changing the legal deffinition of abuse itsel violates the WP:WEIGHT, condition in this case you have no business here. Futher this case involed Cognex senior mangement. You also dont seem to understand the intention of the primary source rule. It is not acceptable to have to deal with you in order to get documented truths posted on this site. This ruling is more important than Cognex itself.

Look I am trying really hard not to get angry but you can not make a coherant argument that justify why lemelson passes wp:weight but the harassment precident doesnt. Please send this to an proper abrbitor or this is just a pissing contest. I am trying really hard to be sensitve to possibility that you may be struggling with a head injury. I have effectively addressed WP:weight .

and piss me off! you are the one who is avoiding the truth in this. You have been obfuscating all along. you have not made one coherant argument not one. You have typed "primary source" when there was secondary sources cited and I still think that the "primary source" rule cannot be applied to this court ruling. The ruling is a fact and public record, but it doesnt matter becaue i cited cases that referenced this ruling proving its importance and meeting the guidline. You have written WP:Weight here and there but have no interest in the consistant application of this rule. insulting me with your clever little "desultory prevarication" only makes it clear that you driving someone else nuts and were told this about your editing. --Cogvoid (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)(talk)

As stated before and since, the issue is you haven't provided secondary sources to establish significance. In no instance has the case been shown to be significant except by your own unsubstantiated posturing.

As an added note, I resent your personal attacks in this matter. Wikipedia's vandalism policy clearly defines vandalism, and my edits are not in any way this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

what the hell are you talking about? unsubstantiated posturing?? just read the cases that cite this precedent. I have linked to them and they are all over the internet. why should anyone have to deal with this kind of arrogance. you having fun ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogvoid (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read every single link you've provided, and have seen no indication that the case is significant to Cognex' history. Setting trial precedent is not at all uncommon, and is not prima facie evidence of relevance by any standard. You've been asked repeatedly to provide some third party verification of this significance per WP:RS (which, considering your post to WT:RS, it would appear you've read). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of the work environment of a comapany is plain as day. In this rebutal comments and actions Cognex senior management(who are still there) made were what triggered the change in the legal defintion of abuse. In fact this has been a precident in causes involving abuse of any kind. Shit I have made the point repeatedly. This precedent is now used as an example by the university source I cited of how not to deal with a sexual harrasment case in the workplace. This case change law and the way Cognex and every other company in massatchusets has handle worplace disputes of this nature. The Cognex case caused this.The incedent that happaned there was the cause.Is the not clear ? This third party requirement is new to me, if you have raised it before please show me where. If this has not been raised yet I think it provides annother instance in the pattern of obfuscation and general ill will myself. I will meet this requirement. --Cogvoid

Ok I see the definition of "third party" source but I dont see where it sais that it is a requirement. Can you please explain why more proof is necessary. Anyway just check the university site there are links to pdf's that contain summaries of briefs. Are these not acceptable if they are not why? Describe clearly the form you want the information in. You have been shifting the requirements on me all day- what happened to the weight issue you claimed ? what happened to the claim that a case cited by a university to educate was "first party" information. This has all been addresses and you know it.

Now why dont you go through and apply this standard to every wiki entry, or shall I. This site would vanish. Why have I been singled out and harrassed by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogvoid (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

--Cogvoid

Horn of Africa

Hi Mendaliv ive recently posted a request for Admin assistence. the issue involved the defenition of the Horn of Africa. this argument has been going on for a long time, the first time i request help i was told to reach a consensus. i tried this but the other parties were an co -opretaive. so i made a second attempt for assitence. This time however i got no straight answer. An admin recently labelled my post as being resolved. He did this without addressing the actual issue which was about the defenition of the Horn. Ive invested alot of effort and time to go through the proper channels. all am looking for is to resolve an argument about this issue. which should not be very hard.

issue is resolved now. the admin involved has given a clear answer to my case.--Liban80 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)