User talk:Kingoomieiii

Wikipedia ads	file info – #24

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful arguments?

Hi!

I know you mean well, but I don't think these kinds of edits bring the debate forward. They're just bound to make others more enraged. Fichte once held a speech, during which his enraged audience started pelting him with stones. He picked up one of them and calmly said Ein Stein, Ihr Herren, ist kein Argument. ("A stone, gentlemen, is not an argument.") Gabbe (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it was in poor taste. Though I'm at a loss as to how to argue with a group of people that have NO INTENTION of moving forward, and are doing everything in their power to move the argument back to a point where they were ahead. --King Öomie 13:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No idear

[1] I've always wondered that myself. –xeno^talk 16:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Up for some Vandal Battle?

There's a Tsunami of vandalism at the Tosh.0 article going on right now that will likely last for the next day or two because of comments made on the show (Super funny show by the way if you haven't seen it yet). Thought you might be interested in watching it unfold. Nefariousski (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. I was thinking it might be smart to lock that page whenever the show mentions wikipedia, like the Colbert Report. --King Öomie 18:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nat Gertler Edit War

All of the diffs should be working know I believe... would you mind letting me know if I did something wrong. I am having trouble determining if he's technically reverted more than 4 times in one 24hr period though. It sure looks to my untrained eye that he's been edit warring though. Jstanierm (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tillman...

...is not worth my time. It is he who is doing the insulting, not of me, but of the wikipedia readership, by insisting on this "myth" stuff - and only for the Bible, not the Quran or anything else. He absolutely will not budge from that POV. My solution to that is to not watch those articles anymore and to let others deal with that guy. But I'm going to point his POV-pushing out when I happen to run across it. Because he's flat out, dead wrong, and he knows it. And I know he knows it, because his response boils down to, "I don't care." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to leave this message on your talk page

Your strong warning is uncalled for. Two changes don't call for this mis-use of a warning. And by the way, the term "myth" has NOT been dealt with. It was "dealt" with last Fall, that myth should remain out, and yet it made it back. Now you think it's dealt with?? (how convenient for you!) Why didn't you think it was dealt with last Fall when "myth" was rejected? 75.144.70.141 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)