User talk:2over0

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

comment

Hello, 2over0. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Edit warring

Thanks for the note about edit warring and related matters at the darts article. I must point out, however, that in any edit war there are at least two parties involved, but in this case I note just one party has been warned. WizOfOz (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just another thought. The tournament that is the subject of the article kicks off on 2 June so I expect a lot of darts editors will want access to it around that date. Maybe take it off protection just before then? I won't revert anything on it if you do. WizOfOz (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You make a good argument, and I have unprotected the article for now. The two open RfCs should resolve the immediate issue one way or another (keeping in mind that global consensus trumps local). May your favorite team win. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Re My edit summary

I laughed when I saw it too. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 04:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks for the reminder; I would have looked at the policy page if it had mattered, but since I knew that the person should be blocked, I didn't feel like checking. I'll remember that for the future. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Technocracy merge

Hey, I noticed you were in the deletion discussion for some Mage stuff (including the Technocracy), so I wondered if you'd be interested in a merge discussion about the Technocracy. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said

I must say, you phrased this very nicely. Consider this a text-only barnstar for diplomacy.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :). A little birdie (hi, MastCell!) recently told me that we as a community should do more to act like a community and support productive contributors, so double thanks for that. I am by no means ready to write off the other editors in that discussion (heck, I have agreed with two of EN's article edits in as many days), but that discussion is generating a somewhat ridiculous volume of verbiage. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:John Foxe report

Hi 2over0. It looks like somebody (other than you) must have unclosed the 3RR report. In the meanwhile, I've added a comment there. Feel free to restore your original close, however you had it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Some IP undid your close. I put it back the way it was, and left a comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Before I saw his thread with Tedder, I was about 50:50 on protecting the article for a month or blocking up to three or four people who seem more interested in scoring points off each other than in fairly representing the sources. Do you think it would help to get the relevant parties in a huddle and ask that none of them edit the article until they all agree? Joseph Smith, Jr. is a pretty well-watched article - maybe other people would edit more if it were not always being reverted by the same few editors. Although John Foxe's recent comments to AN3 and his talkpage do not fill me with confidence. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe is not a vandal, he has access to some good information, but he is starting to look like a POV warrior. Admins can sometimes get away with telling people to open an RfC before continuing to revert. Another possibility is to try for an editing restriction, but ANI is not very willing to grant those. Since JF's latest opponent was just indef blocked, there are at least some admins whose patience has been exhausted. I suggest we are past the point where protection would help, unless you want to place long-term full protection and ask for editprotect to be used for any changes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may interject, I'd like to first apologize if my response to your actions on the noticeboard were over the top and a little too short tempered. However, from my view the great disparity in the treatment and actions against Routerone and John Foxe is an injustice and unfairness and I don't understand why it remains. I was wondering if you would reconsider the "moot" closing given that (1) John Foxe hasn't anywhere (at least I don't see it) in this thread agreed to stop reverting disputed material and that (2) in his subsequent responses on the noticeboard ([1],[2]) he doesn't even come close admitting wrongdoing, taking responsibility for his mistakes, nor agreeing to change his behavior. Rather in those comments he seems to justify his edit warring and 3RR-breaking with arguments that completely disregard AGF (ie, LDS editors in general are incapable of producing practical articles for the encyclopedia) and NOTTHEM. I don't see in those responses any indication that he intends to stop edit warring in the future. If those responses where given as reasons in a request for unblock, it would be immediately shot down.

If you don't reconsider, would you then consider lifting or reducing the duration (say to one week or one month) of the block on User:Routerone? I wouldn't say that Routerone wasn't edit warring, no more than John Foxe was, and both seemed to stop the behavior following Tedder's warnings. If you won't consider even that, then can I ask why not? Why is this, John Foxe being warned and Routerone being indefinitely blocked, the correct, if not fair, outcome? --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I should probably add this wonderfully blatant example of John Foxe's total disregard for AGF/NPA. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Pure Technologies Ltd.

I believe you deleted my Page for "Pure Technologies Ltd." -- Just wondering why, and is there a guideline for getting companies published on Wiki ? I notice that companies such as GE and Siemens have their own pages, we are publicly traded just as they are. Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neitzen (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The text I copied to your page from the article talkpage explains it pretty well. In essence, the article was substantively the same as material previously published under a non-compatible license. This may not have been copyright infringement in the usual sense if you helped write the original material or the copyright holder supports reuse by this website, but it is still a violation of the terms of Wikipedia's license. All Wikipedia articles are licensed as WP:CC-BY-SA, a Creative Commons license that allows for redistribution by any third party for pretty much any purpose, including commercial use, without recompense or prior consultation. Please see also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you control the material at that site, the simplest way to release it under a compatible license is simply to put a notice of copyright on the relevant pages. Please be aware, though, that any such release will apply to use and reuse by anyone and everyone, not just Wikipedia; moreover, the article here will be edited and will in time come to no longer reflect the original text.

The article you posted was unduly promotional, reading more like advertising copy than an encyclopedia article. There is some helpful advice at Wikipedia:Your first article that can help with the stylistic peculiarities of writing for an encyclopedia. Primarily, articles here need to focus on summarizing how topics have been treated in independent reliable sources, such as newspapers, trade publications, and books from respected publishing houses. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 14:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Article: International Space Station

Thank you 2over0 for your excellent editing of my addition to the ISS page. It was a big help, and sorely needed (my grammar is lackluster). Also, your re-wording is much better than my original. THANK YOU ! I hope you will return !Penyulap _talk 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban question

Hi 2/0, have you missed my topic ban questions yet :-) No worries, this is not about a new article. I'd like to ask you, if I may respond to this post at my talk page, and if I may not respond to this post, may I respond the other post in the thread below this one? Whatever you decide is fine with me. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that chatting about somewhat related issues in your personal past would be a problem. Waxing too polemic or using that thread to advocate for or allude to specific or general article edits might be, though. All I can do is shake my head sadly at Man's inhumanity to man (we really need a less sexist but still poetic way of expressing that sentiment). I am not sure about which other thread you are inquiring; the PotD thread and the two DYK threads currently on your talkpage seem completely unrelated to any topic ban issues.

On the bright side, Nazi talking dogs is fascinating, and I am glad that it seems on track to go to DYK. It reminds me of how disappointed I am that http://www.damninteresting.com/ never came back from hiatus. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to respond to the messages, and thank you for commenting on my article! I was asking only about this specific thread at my talk page. I was not sure that after the editor mentioned Israel and IDF I could touch it at all. "Sex life of banana" reminded me the article I wrote some time ago. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Talk:Tired light.
Message added 16:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 16:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the edits to Sphilbrick/Guide_to_copyright_investigations . I'm very pleased you think the copyright case studies will be helpful. Don't hesitate to edit, or add a case study. I'm not the expert in this area, and want to get some examples form experts, but thought I would get the ball rolling. Unfortunately, I'm on a business trip for the next ten days, so won't make much progress, but as is often said, there's no deadline.--SPhilbrickT 13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Solopiel continued edit warring

Solopiel, has ignored your warning on his talk page, and has made the same non-consensus edit on Iraq War as the previous dozen plus times. (Hohum ^@) 00:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to have the time to do due diligence to this dispute in a reasonable timeframe - sorry. If you make a new post at WP:AN3 linking the old report and my warning, that should provide sufficient information for a new administrator to review the situation. Again, thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I am sorry that I am not going to be able to review the situation soon enough to provide a relevant answer. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong pages

Gaaa!!!!

lol

The pages that I actually wanted deleted were the subpages of User:Ohms Law Bot/Cleanup. I didn't actually want any subpages of User:Ohms law deleted... If you could restore the subpages of User:Ohms law, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for trying to help though! :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear me oh my oh no, I seem to have had a reading comprehension fail - rereading your initial question to AN, I pretty clearly misinterpreted your request. Thank you so much for having a sense of humor about it. Now then, now that that is sorted out like it never happened - would you like everything that starts with User:Ohms Law Bot/Cleanup/ deleted? I suppose that would be due penance for snafuing the other. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, go for it! I know that there's a lot of pages there. There's really no rush, either. Take your time, get some help of you'd like, whatever. I just don't need them any longer, really. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. In that case, I will treat it as my 'stop screwing around and learn the API' project'. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Trevor Marshall

Hi, 2over0. I noticed that you restored the "alternative medicine" tag to my bio. I wondered what form of alternative medicine you might think is relevant to my work? As far as I can see, our publications and presentations are as mainstream as you can get these days. Our latest publication was in a Nature Publishing Group Journal, so I wondered what the standard is these days for getting hit with that 'alternative' stigma? The issue of weight given to the Crislip cite I just addressed in my post on the talk page, it is a blog, and surely cannot be weighed as equally important to the opinions of the peer-reviewers of our many papers, can it?