User talk:SlamDiego

Contents

Orc Hives
Some earlier messages may be found
· in the first orc hive,
· in the second orc hive,
· in the third orc hive,
· in the fourth orc hive,
· in the fifth orc hive,
· in the sixth orc hive,
· in the seventh orc hive,
· in the eighth orc hive,
· in the ninth orc hive,
· in the tenth orc hive,
· in the eleventh orc hive, or
· in the twelfth orc hive.

---

This editor has too many irons in the fire, and may be suddenly inactive on Wikipedia for indeterminate intervals.

Click the “+” tab or this sentence to start a new discussion.

re: Jay Fawcett

Thanks for noticing this, I'd forgotten about it. I'm wondering if it should be nominated for deletion and see what comes of that. I still don't think that an unsuccessful candidate for Congress from one district in Colorado who has no other biography is notable. What do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not highly skilled in creating an AfD. Do you want me to do this or are you willing to go forward? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll jump in with an opinion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!!

There must be a problem peculiar to the computer that I was using. I thought it was a problem with my own display, since I haven't seen it on anyone else's post, and I couldn't imagine that my computer was the only one to do this out of thousands that are linking to Wikipedia. Thanks for fixing the problem. I'll use undo if it happens again. It makes me look like a vandal, not a good idea if one is trying to argue in favor of keeping an article. If you happen to notice it with any other user, I'd be interested in learning about it. Again, sorry, thanks for apprising me to the problem and how to fix it. Mandsford (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was sure that it were an innocent mistake. —SlamDiego_←T 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for advice

Thanks SlamDiego for your advice posted on my talk page. I reverted this action you refered to (in Teddy bear). I am a new to Wikipedia and very happy to receive input from more experienced users. Nahraana 12:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Push vandalism?

Why in the world would you tag your edit reversal with a push vandalism against me? I clearly explained myself in the talk page and it was only the second such edit I'd ever made on that page, albeit a constructive one. If you don't mind me asking, why are you so set on this staying on the page? It's obviously irrelevant and a complete non sequitur with the rest of the page. Do you like know the rape victim or something? I'm just curious how one person can be so uninvolved yet so inordinately passionate about a subject. ~ Triberocker (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is defined on Wikipedia as

any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

You are willfully seeking to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by erasing a documented section which has already been successfully defended in mediation. You are doing this to protect the image of a fraternity, rather than just for the joy of trashing the Wikipedia, but it is still a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The fact that you're commenting to the talk page doesn't change that. —SlamDiego_←T 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"...why are you so set on this staying on the page? It's obviously irrelevant and a complete non sequitur with the rest of the page. Do you like know the rape victim or something? I'm just curious how one person can be so uninvolved yet so inordinately passionate about a subject. ~ Triberocker (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"

You only answered half my question. ~ Triberocker (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you want to complain about that somewhere. —SlamDiego_←T 00:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am correct in believing this is your talk page, no? Please just answer my honest questions. Thank you for your valuable time. ~ Triberocker (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think that your question is appropriate, and that I somehow owe you an answer, then perhaps you should contact an administrator to seek action against me. Suffice it to say that I think that you're behaving as a first-rate ass in even asking. —SlamDiego_←T 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You consider it being an asshole (and inappropriate) to want to know why you keep making this edit? Lighten up man. If you're that uptight about this whole thing, I don't even want an answer. Sheesh! **clicks unwatch: User talk:SlamDiego** ~ Triberocker (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm evidently not the sort to lighten-up about a gang-rape, and about persistent attempts to erase it from history. And I'm glad to see the back of someone who apparently is such a sort. —SlamDiego_←T 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of cold fusion

A discussion that you were involved in was closed with the wrong closing decision. Please revisit the above link to review the article in question and your opinion given there. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

False Accusations

I don't know what you're talking about; stop accusing people of stuff they didn't do. I see the anonymous edits, and they are not mine. Feel free to try to prove that they were. And for your information, I already have unwatched both the article and your talk page because I'm sick of dealing with people like you. ~ Triberocker (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Given this response, I have filed a request for a checkuser. —SlamDiego_←T 08:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And the checkuser concludes that you are probably responsible for the anonymous edits. —SlamDiego_←T 08:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Quantity Theory of Money

Hell, SlamDiego. I have no problem with a criticism section on the "Quantity Theory Of Money", it is a necessary addition, but the current section is poorly written, and in need of citations. I don't mean it as a personal insult to you. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.176.236 (talk • contribs)

Oh, no, I'm not insulted! I didn't write that awful section! I made a lot of contributions to that article, but mostly I just stared in horror at that section, and fled! —SlamDiego_←T 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortune Global 500

Hi, I'm not sure who to contact for this, but I thought you'd interested since you're a member of the Economics WikiProject. There is an article called Fortune Global 500. This article is a copy and paste of the list of the 500 largest companies in the world by revenues published by Fortune magazine every year. Fortune magazine lists these companies by countries and cities. They list Shell as being a company from the Netherlands and not a dual company from Britain and the Netherlands (contrary to Unilever). One British Wikipedian doesn't like that and has changed the article, writting that Shell is a dual British/Dutch company, contrary to the source from Fortune magazine. I tried to explain that the article being simply a copy and paste of the Fortune Global 500 list, we have to respect their editorial choices, otherwise it's not the Global Fortune 500 list anymore, it becomes something else. Unfortunately I feel like I'm preaching in the desert, so to speak. If we start changing things from the list based on what we think is right or wrong, then why not also change EADS which Fortune magazine lists as a Dutch company (because it is legally incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reasons), whereas in fact EADS is a Franco-German company with top management in Paris and Munich? As you can see, this could lead to endless changes to the article. I thought on Wikipedia we had to write information that matches with the sources we use. It would be nice to hear from you on this point. Keizuko (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)