::Ok, I won't. [[Special:Contributions/86.179.224.42|86.179.224.42]] ([[User talk:86.179.224.42|talk]]) 12:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::Ok, I won't. [[Special:Contributions/86.179.224.42|86.179.224.42]] ([[User talk:86.179.224.42|talk]]) 12:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Thank you. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 17:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Thank you. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 17:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
== Entertainment ref desk answer ==
Nice job on answering the OP's question with 12 Rounds! It warms my heart when WP comes through like that. [[Special:Contributions/198.161.238.18|198.161.238.18]] ([[User talk:198.161.238.18|talk]]) 20:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Please leave new comments at the bottom of the page, unless there is already a section related to your message. Remember to sign your comments by adding --~~~~ at the end. I will probably reply both here and on your talk page, but sometimes I'm lazy...so keep an eye on this page if my reply is important or urgent.
♠
I prefer to keep my talk page history as intact as possible.
Unless there is a BLP violation or personal attack on someone other than myself, please do not remove comments left here by other users.
All the sources I've seen this morning say he was fired. I don't see a reason to describe it otherwise unless new sources come up that call it something else. --Onorem♠Dil15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, the bay9 report has fired only in the header in the article they are a bit more reserved... Florida football coach Jim Leavitt will not coach the Bulls next season. The school has cut ties and they cite the details only to an un named on line source. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I read the school cutting ties and the school firing him as saying the exact same thing in 2 different ways.
Google news results page is dominated by 'fired' but does also include some softer versions about being let go or being told that he is out. Early reports could be wrong, but there's dozens of reliable sources that say he was fired. I don't see a reason not to say it, and the sentence you prefer seems awkward to me. --Onorem♠Dil16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Fired implied that he was guilty of assault and that the school terminated his contract, that is a big step, we don't need to say he was fired, cut ties is plenty. Fired also means that he has gone immediately and yet I read only that he would not be the coach next season, personally I see no reason not to be a bit reserved, anyway I have taken it off my watchlist, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Fired implies nothing except that the school decided that they no longer required his services. It is being reported that he was fired. Where's the controversy? --Onorem♠Dil16:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
problem with another user
Dear Onerom,
I seem to be having the most profound difficulties with another user, a Paul Wicks. He seems to have taken the rather odd notion that I am not Richard Kanaan. Obviously he is has produced no evidence for this. You can see his posting on my talk page. I am increasingly annoyed by a minor edit I have made on conversion disorder, I sat on the DSM review panel and know a great deal about this subject. If wikipedia is to benefit from expert help I wonder if you could help resolve this matter.
Yours,
Richard
blocking
But you can't block people. We all just log on elsewhere. Anyway I only did it to get a reaction from Paul Wicks. We are laughing our bottoms off- why does he respond everytime? so bloody funny. (PA removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.84.58 (talk)
But Dear onerem- I use a dynamic ISP so you can't block me. If you do you'll take out half the UK. Also my ISP are joining with talk talk- so when you block me next time you'll take out most of the UK. If you don't find the Richard Kanaan situation funny then you are clearly as nuts as Paul Wicks. Anyway- going to flick my router to reboot and get on with some editing- Now?? no of course not, I'll bide my time. Then I'll laugh my face off at Wicks again- its like badger bating but environmentally friendly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.84.58 (talk)
Yes. You are the first disruptive user in the history of Wikipedia that can get a new IP. We've finally been beaten. --Onorem♠Dil20:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
yes you have, You can't block anyone who uses a dynamic ISP. Last time it was tried against me with a range block- half the UK went off line- lmao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.104.195 (talk)
so your just an averge joe reporting pepole just to rank up in the eyes of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockof5 (talk • contribs)
"Ranking up" has nothing to do with it. I'm just trying to help. I'm sorry that your YouTube isn't notable. I have no idea why you believe that admin's who have their own YouTube get to post them here. Do you have any examples of pages that you don't believe are notable and that are only being kept because they belong to an admin here? --Onorem♠Dil23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding SPCHS IP-based vandalism, particularly the most recent 'incident'
I'd personally like to apologize for the stupidity of my fellow students.
We're idiots.
However, I'd just like to say that the (most?) recent edit, made by myself, was not intended as vandalism.
I removed a reference on the Yahoo! page, under the Recent History section, to a (nonexistent) image, 'Naruto.jpg', which was completely unrelated.
...Yeah.
Thanks! and sorry again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.20.53.245 (talk)
I did notice that one of the edits was productive, and have removed the image again. Thanks. 3 other edits made since were blatant vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil16:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Onorem. I haven't listed the dispute on WP:30 because there are more than two parties involved. Would please transplant the entire section on the relevant noticeboard as per my request here. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
And again[1], not sure what his deal is... I don't think I've ever discussed anything with him and I only periodically comment on the article of his obsession. Morphh(talk)19:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't be rude now. It is true. I know this hard for a cult member like yourself to accept. Anyway...
As I seem to have rattled your cage I shall just keep on reverting- very little you can do as I think I've said before- I am on a dynamic ISP and rangeblocks just bring down half the UK's access to wikipedia editing. I also have multiple accounts that I continue to use either editing constructively or destructively. Resetting my isp now.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.109.31 (talk)
Thread moved from my Talk page following my policy stated in at top of my page which states. "Please be prepared to identify yourself to me, if asked, and do not bring conflict.".
Why was my extension inappropriate? If you're going to hide discussion because it's off-topic, why not include your own off-topic statement which started the bickering? Your, as Comet Tuttle put it, grammar nagging has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question, and I'm failing to understand why it should be treated differently. --Onorem♠Dil00:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. If I have understood you, you support Comet Tuttle's claim[2] that I should be "scolded" (his words) for a post of mine because it is "grammar nagging" (his words) to ask an editor, here Nil Einne, about text they posted. You claim that doing that is off-topic. You claim my doing that to be the beginning of bickering which means "a quarrel about petty points"[3]. If you will confirm that I do understand you properly then I may give you a substantive answer. In passing, what do you think of Comet Tuttle's proposal that one should edit errors in another's post without asking? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to say that you need to be 'scolded' right now, but I do think your post was unnecessary. In many cases, I think that those being corrected feel like they're being called out in public with the intent being to make them look stupid. Why not just leave a polite note on the user's talk page that mentions you noticed a few errors they might like to correct?
As to Comet Tuttle's proposal, I don't think that fixing obvious typos and grammar problems is a good idea. If they're obvious, they don't need fixing because people will understand what was meant. I don't see that fixing them would be a net positive.
I don't mind the conversation being moved, but what policy are you referring to in your note at the top of this section? --Onorem♠Dil02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to comment on the 'beginning of bickering' portion. It's my opinion that your original comment provided the petty points for the quarrel that followed. Without that point to start from, there is no bickering. --Onorem♠Dil02:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I take your point that a note to a user's talk page can be to consider their possible feelings about which we can only speculate. I do expect a native English speaking long-term editor of English Wikipedia such as Nil Einne (with thousands of contributions over 2 years, including critical ones) can be approached robustly. Regardless of their reasons, editors are often reluctant to make any change to their own posts. Since the prime concern should be the accuracy of our collective response to the OP (Original Poster), and of what will be archived a few days later, I find it right to ask for occasional clarification immediately the need appears, and to do so at the source. All Wikipedia users are invited to volunteer responses at Ref. Desks and that openness would be meaningless if there were always just one perfect response that any single user could give. That is obviously not the case and therefore in reply to OPs we have typically several voluntary responses that complement and interact with each other.
I rebut as follows your opinion that I provided points that are petty[4]. If, repeat if, the answers are Yes then in all 3 cases mentioned there has been confusion about English homophones that literally cause a post to say something different from what the poster Nil Einne intended. Comet Tuttle with whom you do not entirely agree certainly found grounds for quarreling thereafter.
Thank you for this opportunity to explain myself. I reject your step to encompass inside the box "bickering" my post [5] that justly sought clarification. That's all. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism to Bo Jackson will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Hi,
I'm not really agreeing with one of your previous edits: edit in question. I checked and found that Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism notes that "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own" as part of its definition of "Discussion page vandalism". I've read your reasoning "This is not a forum for general discussion about the topic." However, I'm not agreeing with it for this reason: The issue I have with this is that the material removed helped to identify the nature of the program. This seems to need to be resolved so that the NPOV tag may be resolved. Therefore, such material does seem relevant to the actual article.
Due to the findings I just mentioned, I am in favor of restoring the comments that were left by other users and which you deleted. However, as you did provide a valid reason, I decided to discuss this here rather than get into an edit war on that page. I will check this page for a reply before making any subsequent change.
The talk page is not for people to post their opinions about the topic. We don't need to know that some random person installed it 3 years ago and claims it slowed down his computer or that another random person thinks that "stop" is suspicious for some reason. These comments do nothing to resolve the NPOV tag. The sorta-cure steps for uninstallation have absolutely nothing to do with article improvement. I would disagree completely with restoring the comments I've removed. They aren't appropriate talk page discussion. Reliable sources fix things. Opinions do not. --Onorem♠Dil13:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
