User talk:Stude62/archive0: Difference between revisions
m moved Wikipedia talk:Stude62/archive1 to User talk:Stude62/archive0: Should be in User space, not WP; 'archive1' page is already in place with newer archive, so moving this to 'archive0' instead. I'm sure Stude62 won't mind. |
Harryboyles (talk | contribs) m →== Dyslexia, etc.: removed duplicate word |
||
| Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
[[User:Ranamim|Ranamim]] 18:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
[[User:Ranamim|Ranamim]] 18:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
||
:::I think I'll stick |
:::I think I'll stick with rananimm, it seems to be the only consistent thing about you. Your writing was not to Wikipedia standards, period. I'm not the enemy, you did yourself in by behaving in a very dysfunctional manner. I will, however, give you that you do excel at what your best at, people with your type of personalities usually are. You and I have nothing else to say to one and other. Unless you and I have a direct edit conflict, stay out of this talk area, and I'll stay out of yours as I have done since the OWU article is now in an NPOV state. Future posts from you in this area will be deleted as vandalism. [[user: stude62]] [[user talk:stude62]] 20:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
||
==Re:== |
==Re:== |
||
Revision as of 14:22, 25 April 2006
Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia, Stude62!!
I hope you like this place and have fun editing.
We always like to meet new Wikipedians!
Here ar some more things to do, in case you're bored. But don't feel pressed by that.
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.
If you want get to know more people here, list yourself at Wikipedia:New user log, and go back there sometimes to see if you find people matching your intersts. Go to Wikipedia:Community Portal to learn more about wikipedia and ways to participate.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, or add a question to the village pump. You also can leave me a message at User talk:Lady Tenar, but it may take a few days bevore i see the message and can respond.
Here are some more tips:
- If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
- You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
Again, welcome!
ps: am i human or a greeting bot? find it out!
Fighting to keep salacious rumors away from the Harding legacy.
My apologies. By the way, you may conveniently sign your messages in Talk pages by typing four tildas: ~~~~ . It will produce your signature with timestamp, like mine: Mikkalai 20:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Re: Methodist Episcopalians
Happy to remove the VfD listing now. It is policy, however, that only a VfD nominator can remove a VfD listing early, and I objected to having had that done. That was why I ennumerated the article's faults in a somewhat exaggerated manner. My irritation was directed more at the insulting "clearly mistaken" characterization of the listing. When the article came in, the lack of encyclopedic format ("Raggedy Ann, a doll popular in the United States and Britian in the 20th century" before a more sequential history) meant that it took a very long time to tease out the central importance of the figure. That left me reading quickly, saying, "What is this?" and then hitting the typo of "wife" for "life." That prompted the VfD listing. (If you read new pages for any length of time, you get quick on the trigger.) I regret the ire, and I wholeheartedly welcome the article, as well as any editor who can contribute to any ecclesiastical history. (Feel free to see my user page for some of the ecclesiastical topics that I've written about.) Again, apologies for the thundering about, and please don't take it personally. Also, at the time you created the article, I had no way to contact you directly. Geogre 01:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Re: Call for Help
At first, thanks for responding to my greeting. It's nice to know my greetings are appreciated.
You asked me to help you about the above mentioned article. I started checking the facts as soon as i read that, but that took some time as i was too busy to check wikipedia for a few days. Sorry for that. Fortunately, the thing has resolved itself by now. I met Geogre bevore on the wikipedia, and i think he's a nice guy. I hope you will forgive him. BTW i was very impressed to see your user contribution, you've been really busy doing good work these days! I always like to help others here, but it would be very kind of you to sign your question next time you ask one, and to add a wikilink to the article the thing is all about. I had to look up your name in the history, and without the comment from Geogre on your usertalk page it would have been difficult to impossible to find out about what article you're talking. I'm only saying this to help you make yourself understood better next time, by no means as a pun. Just recently i had to be reminded how some things work here lol. I hope you don't let all this take the fun out of wikipedia for you. We're all humans. All the best, Lady Tenar 18:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Chadwick
Rather appropriate additions to Cassie Chadwick, I'd say - Skysmith 08:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comment by 132.236.38.114 - 16:10, 3 Jan 2005
The following comment was place on my user page, and I have moved it here and address it here:
Ohio Wesleyan University was never affiliated with the M.E. Church. It is loosely affiliated with the United Methodist Church. Only three out of 30something trustees are from the West and East Ohio Methodist Conferences. That's the "affiliation" of OWU with the Methodist Church. If you are on campus, you will not feel it.
Over the last several days we've had a lot on interaction. Not only have I turned the article over to arbitration, but I have also contacted the OWU Presidents office regarding the article on the school. I expect that the Public Relations Department will get involved - hopefully this will result in a MAJOR overhaul of the entry and make it factual.
As for your comments on the Methodist Episcopal Church (which you have called bizarre in other forums), it not only shows that you don't know very much about church history and the schisms within the church, but it also indicates that there is a schism between what I know is fact and what you believe is fact.
To me, you have demonstrated that you are more interested in getting your own way then you are in writing fact driven article on the topic.
Also, please sign your comments when you make them. [[User:Stude62|"user: stude62"]] 15:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Stude62 - just to note: as far as I know, you can't vote on your own nominations in the VfD process. I removed your vote and added your signature to the nomination (which also needs to be there). I hope that was ok. — Asbestos | Talk 10:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Asbestos...I'm still feeling my way around everything[[User:Stude62|user: stude62 talk:stude62]] 00:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Clamshell wagons
Thanks for the added info on the clamshells in the station wagon article. I didn't know there was a manual version. I remember that tailgate as being about as big as a Mini, so it's not surprisng that the manual gate didn't catch on. RivGuySC 16:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip-o-the-hat. They were cumbersome, and I'm being kind. If the motion was strictly upward, that would be one thing, but the arch of the track made it a major pain. Oh, if they got stuck (manual or automatic) that was a nightmare as well. But if I could find one (automatic)in good condition I'd buy it in a second. user: stude62 talk:stude62 18:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Welcome, and an image permissions question.
Welcome to the Wikipedia; I've liked what I've seen!
One question, though: you have placed no license information on a few images, such as Image:Studewagonaire63.jpg. We require images to have source information and information as to the license under which they are available, so we can be sure we have the rights to use the image. —Morven 23:56, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment! I'm working on getting the license tags in order. While the processes seem to clear, I'm having a difficult time remembering all of the steps.
- For Image:Studebakerlark.jpg, you have claimed that the copyright holder released this image into public domain. Why do you believe this to be the case? Did you create the image? It is certainly not old enough to be copyright expired. Rmhermen 01:10, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I believe it to be a Studebaker image from Lark advertising. It would be a justifiable fair use claim, in my opinion, but releasing it as a promo image does not make it PD. —Morven 01:13, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, then I have made an error. The ad is from 1959. The company is out of the Car Making business, what do you suggest? user: stude62 talk:stude62 01:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would suggest making a Fair Use claim. I can also provide other Lark images since I have photographed several Studebaker shows in the Southern California area ... —Morven 01:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you Morven. I'm more than willing to accept help from someone. How do I make the fair use claim. I hate to sound stupid, but I am still feeling my way about and I really do appreciate any help of links. Again, thank you. user: stude62 talk:stude62 01:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags (fair use is {{Fairuse}}) and you need to add your reasoning about why it is fair use. Public domain because of copyright expiration is for works before 1935. Just because the original company went bankrupt doesn't mean that the rights were not bought by another company. Look at the many owners of Avanti after Studebacker went under. Rmhermen 01:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- AFAIR, public domain because of copyright expiration is possible up through the mid 1960s; works after that date were automatically copyright-extended to full term. —Morven 01:45, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Correct, the pictures are probably out-of-copyright but it is rather hard to track down an individual work. This page gives details on the exact U.S. issues. It is 1923 in the U.S. for automatic public domain and it seems less than 15% of works between 1923 and 1963 are still copyrighted. Rmhermen 02:25, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- It's a lot easier to see if a printed work is out of copyright than an image, unfortunately, since copyright renewals for images are generally "hidden" within the work in which they were first published, and even if the copyright is explicitly renewed for the image alone, one has to know its title. —Morven 05:56, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Correct, the pictures are probably out-of-copyright but it is rather hard to track down an individual work. This page gives details on the exact U.S. issues. It is 1923 in the U.S. for automatic public domain and it seems less than 15% of works between 1923 and 1963 are still copyrighted. Rmhermen 02:25, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- AFAIR, public domain because of copyright expiration is possible up through the mid 1960s; works after that date were automatically copyright-extended to full term. —Morven 01:45, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I added an example fair use rationale there. Basically, for fair use, read the Wikipedia article on it and try to justify fair use based on that. In general, promotional images are fairly easy because the original intent was to be widely used and the images were given away to news services, etc. Make sure you agree with what's written there! —Morven 01:43, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags (fair use is {{Fairuse}}) and you need to add your reasoning about why it is fair use. Public domain because of copyright expiration is for works before 1935. Just because the original company went bankrupt doesn't mean that the rights were not bought by another company. Look at the many owners of Avanti after Studebacker went under. Rmhermen 01:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you Morven. I'm more than willing to accept help from someone. How do I make the fair use claim. I hate to sound stupid, but I am still feeling my way about and I really do appreciate any help of links. Again, thank you. user: stude62 talk:stude62 01:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would suggest making a Fair Use claim. I can also provide other Lark images since I have photographed several Studebaker shows in the Southern California area ... —Morven 01:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, then I have made an error. The ad is from 1959. The company is out of the Car Making business, what do you suggest? user: stude62 talk:stude62 01:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I believe it to be a Studebaker image from Lark advertising. It would be a justifiable fair use claim, in my opinion, but releasing it as a promo image does not make it PD. —Morven 01:13, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- For Image:Studebakerlark.jpg, you have claimed that the copyright holder released this image into public domain. Why do you believe this to be the case? Did you create the image? It is certainly not old enough to be copyright expired. Rmhermen 01:10, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Morven, thank you! I now see what I need to do! I guess the problem that I get into is that many of wiki guidelines are so involved, they almost need an "Executive Summary". Best Wishes, user: stude62 talk:stude62
Rmhermen, thank you too! I do appreciate guidence such as you have given me. I have learned from this error, but if I commit it again, PLEASE let me know so I can take car of it. Best Wishes, user: stude62 talk:stude62
(copied over from other page)
- Asbestos - Is there anyway that I can send you an email?
Did you happen to check my User page? Also, even had I not posted it, you can email anyone at Wikipedia by clicking on the "E-Mail this User" link on the toolbar to the left of any User Page (on my skin, at least).
Oh, and Welcome!, by the way (since I see noone has yet posted you a welcome message). — Asbestos | Talk 01:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- PS: So you're signature is now ok, then? I didn't even notice that I was posting in the wrong page. I don't see your email yet, but should do so tomorrow (bed time now in Soctland). — Asbestos | Talk 02:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Just sent it through Wikipedia. Have a good night, user: stude62 user talk:stude62
- Sorry, haven't received anything. I just checked the link myself, though, so it should work. Emailing to the address listed on my user page should definately work, though. — Asbestos | Talk 13:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Just sent it through again through the Wiki link. This is an internet link that I really think that you will find as interesting as it is enlightening. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 16:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, haven't received anything. I just checked the link myself, though, so it should work. Emailing to the address listed on my user page should definately work, though. — Asbestos | Talk 13:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Just sent it through Wikipedia. Have a good night, user: stude62 user talk:stude62
Re: VfD / Ohio Wesleyan Buildings
Articles usually stay up on VfD for around about five days. Information on the VfD policy can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Don't worry about multiple votes — this type of voting is known as "sockpuppet voting" and is watched against. Annonymous IP votes are normally discarded and evidence of multiple user accounts usually invalidates votes as well. Exactly which otes to keep, as well as what course of action is taken after to vote, is up to the admin who counts the votes. — Asbestos | Talk 16:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Pniklov Answering for Asbestos
Yes, he has seen my website. Unlike you, I don't need to hide anything about my academic life, publications, interests, etc because I am proud of where I am and who I am. It takes more than just self-confidence to get there, though.
And don't mind my tone and style. If you pay attention to these things on the internet, you'll go crazy or miss the content of what is said. Most of the time, I either say things the way I do deliberately for some reason or I regard them rather lightly (at the very least as an added value to my education experience in classes like "Bargaining Theory" that I took at SAIS).
Take care. Ranamim 00:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
_______________
You know rananimm, I'm trying to figure out why you used so many names and IP addresses, denying your shape shifting, and then admitting to it? Do you lead your non-online life like this?
As for Asbestos, I would rather you let him speak for himself. You'll see I altered your heading on this page so that its move reflective of what your post is all about.
As for paying attention to things on the internet, of course I always take them with a grain of salt, after all its where I met you.
As for your tone from way up high, we're all used to it.
As for you being a reliable source and resource for information, what you have said on Wikipedia and the way that you have treated others in the community is the reputation you've earned, so you enjoy it.
As for your "accomplishments" that you so enjoy talking about all I can say is "how nice for you."
It isn't that I don't like you rananimm, in fact I think you're a hoot. I just want to know what makes your mind work in the fascinating manner that it does. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 01:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Reference desk
Please use the reference desk to ask questions - not write articles with big <fill in the blank> messages. I found the information to fix Continental engine and Lycoming Engine with one Google search each and from pages on the first page of results. If you can't determine it yourself, you can always ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Rmhermen 19:26, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
- You can sign your signature with four tildes (~~~~) if you are logged in.
- Rmhermen - Thank you for the information. I was under the impression that placing the article in the ([[auto-stub]]) would have indicated that I couldn't find the information and that I was hoping that others could help out and help expand the article. I tried to make it clear on the discussion page for both entries that I had limited information. I did run the google search and I did find the article in question under Continental MOTORS - my bad, I was looking for engines. Again, thank you for your assistence. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 20:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Welcome
Thanks for popping by the Automobiles discussion page—I've seen a few of your edits and it's great to have another motorhead on board! Stombs 09:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the encouragment! I love getting information and putting it together, but I am horrible about spelling and grammar - part of the joy of having a learning disability. Again, though, thanks for the encouragement... user: stude62 user talk:stude62 14:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Stude62—no probs on the grammar and spelling as I work in newspapers and magazines and help others edit their work. :) Stombs 02:33, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
== Dyslexia, etc.
Haven't denied anything about posting under Rananim (for good reasons) and haven't said anything. Why do you say that? Just reread my messages again. Perhaps you missed that part due to another learning disability (if I remember correctly from your profile). As for my accomplishments, I don't think they are anything to brag about. They are what they are.
I find it very amusing to see that you are admitting to your dyslexia just right before I was about to make a "comment" about how dyslectic and "anemic" the OWU article became after your involvement. I don't see one-sentence or two-sentence paragraphs with typos all that often. And if I do, they rarely constitute a good model for writing, even in encyclopedias. I suppose that's some kind of innovative way of writing, which one day will get you a literatary award. For the record: I realize there are limitations that you have and I am not making fun of them. We are all imperfect in some ways. However, the way I deal with my own imperfections is by staying out of areas that involve heavy use of them. (and I certainly don't emphasize how great I am in them because there are lots of areas that I am not). It seems to me that you are doing the opposite. You even claimed that you "improved them". Perhaps you get some short-term pleasant feeling of getting what you want but objectively, the writing is not only horrible but also contains a lot of errors. I will correct them when I have the time. For the time being, you seem to revert edits from me...so I'll let other people find your grammar errors and correct them so that you don't accuse me of "protecting" the page or adding subjective information. In the real world, the market corrects involvements of such types by pricing them at their worth (writers included).
Requests: PLease don't change my message titles and what I write because I don't do the same with what you write. In fact, it is to my advantage that I leave them the way you write them so people can see them as indicators of your "improvements" wherever and whatever they might be. Also, please address me with the nick that I sign my messages since I have never requested or allowed you to address me with other names. In the internet world, there are always good reasons to use nicks and not real names...I noticed you share this opinion on your own profile.
Ranamim 18:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I think I'll stick with rananimm, it seems to be the only consistent thing about you. Your writing was not to Wikipedia standards, period. I'm not the enemy, you did yourself in by behaving in a very dysfunctional manner. I will, however, give you that you do excel at what your best at, people with your type of personalities usually are. You and I have nothing else to say to one and other. Unless you and I have a direct edit conflict, stay out of this talk area, and I'll stay out of yours as I have done since the OWU article is now in an NPOV state. Future posts from you in this area will be deleted as vandalism. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 20:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re:
This is so badly written, I can hardly understand what you are trying to say. Please don't threaten me. It is not cool. Both by my standards but more importantly by Wiki's standards as well . Unless you have a reading disability as well, you can find the policy for additions to Talk pages in Wiki's pages.
Best of luck in the field of pseudojournalism.
Ranamim 02:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm about to shift this to the archives. Are you still working on this or actioning it? I haven't seen a comment in a while! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking over this, and looking this over. I think for now it looks as if its stable, and I think the number of people who have given the constructive contributions have really helped to improve the NPOV aspect of this. Since there is a documented effort by one person to tailor the article to suit his own ego, if he starts on the article again, can resubmit this to peer review if efforts are made to return the article to its former aggrandized state, yes? user: stude62 user talk:stude62 02:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment from Hotspur, relocated to talk page.
Hello.
I am the guy who wrote the Starlight Coupe article. It was all original and not available elsewhere. Why replace it with something from somewhere else.
I own a Starlight Coupe. Am a punlished author. Am an authority on Studebakers and I think had interesting things to say about the Starlight Coupe.
Why just reference other material?
- Hotspur, you had wonderful things to say about the Starlight, and they were interesting. My concern was that they weren't as well said as they could be in order to keep the article as focused on the writing focused on the car itself and keep the article within Neutral Point of View (NPOV) standards. So I took what you contributed, corrected two minor factual errors and then added in material gleaned from another printed resource to give fact checkers something to tie the article back to. Have you visited Wikipedia:How to write a great article yet? Also, I've moved the above referenced section to my talk page, which is the best place for comments and questions. Finally, did you know that you can sign your name on Wikipedia by typing four tildas (ex: ~~~~); as a courtesy please sign your name whenever you leave a comment or posting on a discussion page. Again, I like your contributions - the world needs more Studebaker fans! Best regards, user: stude62 user talk:stude62 21:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You didn't edit the article you completely replaced it. I recognise most of what you put in because I've read the article it was based on though not recently. No, that's it. There was no article on the Starlight Coupe - I made one and was summarily punted. This was about my tenth article. This for me destroys all the enjoyment. I expect this act to be my last with Wikipedia.--Hotspur 22:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hotspur- This really concerns me, because all I did was check facts and contribute what I know from being a Studebaker fan since I was wee high. If you're implying that I plagerized something, then I would like to know what the extact name of the "article" is that feel that I lifted material from, so I can review it and get it corrected.
- As for the editing, I did remove your lengthy preamble to the article because it got in the way of the information on the Starlight. As a body paragraph, it would be fine - re-edit it back in under a background section, but it took long to get to the heart of the article. If you look at any automobile listing that I work on, my format is the same in each one, per wikipedia guidelines to state what it is (Starliner), what it did (unique body style) and how it got there (produced by the Studebaker Corporation from 1947 to 1952).
- As for the the two errors, they were 1) Studebaker used the Starliner to denote the 1953-54 Hardtop Loewy coupe, not "Starlight", which was used on the pillered model, and 2) the Starlight name was last used in 1958, not 1954, and even I had to go back for a check on that. I also added in the best description of the structure of the roof that I could. I also listed the immediate reference book that I had with me when I made the edit - I don't always have my 12+ Studebaker technical books with me at all times. I should also point out that I just got the most recent copy of Collectible Automobile, but haven't read the article on the bullit nose 50-51 Stude's as of yet; everything I know about them I learn on my Uncle Bob's car.
- Again, my intent is not to offend, but help get it right. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 00:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Offer
I'd like to congratulate you for discussing things with Rananim. I was hoping you two would engage in discussion and I'm happy to see you are doing that. Remember to be civil at all times (regardless of the response). It'll be easier to get your point across. Don't hesitate to contact me if the discussion stalls. In that case I'll see if I can help you reach an agreement.
P.S. You may want to take a look at your signature and fix it. It is missing some caps and has some extra spaces. :) Mgm|(talk) 22:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Mgm- Unfortunatly, there is no process. I do wish that you could help, but given where this has gone in 24 hours, I don't think that Rananim/Ranamim would particpate. By the way, you do know that User: Ranamim and User: Rananim are the same person, don't you?user: stude62user talk:stude62 22:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Re: Possible request for help
I'm happy to keep an eye on the situation, although I'm not sure how much help I can be of. For the time being, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stude62 is incomplete and has not been listed on WP:RFC. My only advise is to keep your cool, no matter what. SamH|Talk 00:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Sam. If I react as he wants me too, then he wins. As for help, you've seen my auto project contributions, kind words are always moral boosters. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 00:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ranamim addressing Stude62's Response to Article Protection for OWU
Frankly, I don't know what it is about. user: stude62 just posted:
"No revert war, but over the past several weeks we have worked hard to get the article to a NPOV state, and now its been edited to rananimm's liking, not facts. Again, I'm just trying to ensure that entry is factual and correct for everyone, not just one persons feelings. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 00:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)"
I will be more than happy if he states JUST ONE THING that shows how my edits are to my liking and not factual. All I did was added Ohio Wesleyan's majors. It seems user: stude62 does not like Wesleyan for some reason which he does not wish to disclose and therefore lies. I can't think of anything else. I am not in a fight with anyone. All I want to do is improve Wikipedia and this guy is not letting me do it because he constantly posts lies here and there. I'd be more than happy if you jump in and help.
Just for the record, Stude62, I don't want you to react in any way. Just stop lying and let me edit free of your harassments. That's all.
User:ranamim 03:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- rananimm, you've made at least 17 edits to the OWU article in a twenty-four hour period; half of them have nothing to do with academics; this alone contradicts the statements you made that the only edits you made were to OWU majors. The article also shows a number of edits made by another user who seems to editing the artcile in the exact same manner and wording that you have done in the past - that this user is involved in the field of inte that you yourself were in, AND has commented on topics that represent almost your exact same interests (World Bank, SAIS, Ohio Wesleyan, etc.) is strange, don't you think? You've also stalked me in my attempts to have conversations with other Wikipedia users - even in conversations were you are not named. Are you even aware or in control of your own activity? Are you not aware that you actions are and have been permantly documented on Wikipedia through the edit history mechanisms? Are you also not aware that you behaviors toward me now are exactly like the ones mentioned by another Wikipedian in their RfC ([[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ranamim]]) on your ID from last November? user: stude62 user talk:stude62 15:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)