User talk:QPT

Userbox

Hello, I've fixed your userbox. The image needs to be included with fixed size and without thumb-frame. --Ikar.us (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 13:41, Saturday, August 10, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Mistake

I think you made a mistake with this edit. As far as I tell—and count—the cited sourced lists 43 distinct editors - DVdm (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry--may have counted wrong. Oops! Anyway, thanks for updating it from 42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origamite (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Don't forget to make the correction. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

We appear to have bumped heads. I redirected Software Evolution Process to the existing Software evolution at the same time (well, technically, just before) you userfied the article. So now we have a user space article consisting solely of a redirect to an article space article. How do we fix? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I vote we delete the userification. OK? Origamite (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a deletion process that would cover this. As it stands, the existing user page pointing to article space is probably harmless. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, now that you point it out. Nobody would ever visit it, probably.

Removing redlinks

Hi, I noticed you've been making lots of edits simply to remove redlinks (like this one). Although it may be true that links were not necessary in the cases where you removed them, your edit summaries indicated an inclination to categorically remove redlinks. I wanted to remind you that often, redlinks are actually helpful to Wikipedia. They encourage editors to make new articles by revealing the holes in Wikipedia's coverage. You can check out WP:RED for more information on the guideline, including when redlinks are not appropriate and can be removed. Thanks, and happy editing! ~ Boomur [☎] 15:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry; I believe the article should be created before the link in a list. I apologize for any confusion. Origamite^{Please talk here} 15:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's no problem, just try to adhere to the guideline in the future. ~ Boomur [☎] 15:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Summaries

One very small nitpick - when you revert obvious vandalism, don't quote the relevant parts in your summary (e.g., "ADMINS ARE IDIOTS" or something like that). Just revert and move on. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that one; the message was in binary and I wanted it to be obvious why. Origamite^{Please talk here} 20:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

My Edit

Hey, I have edited the page and you have asked me " What Chinese whisper" and cited that there seem to be a valid source. Well, the source itself cited a blog and basically copied and pasted all of its content from the blog ( talk about lazy journalism!). I am not sure, you are aware of the dynamic of the two mosques in Birmingham. This is the root of such allegations. If, there was any truth in what was said then there would have been a criminal investigation. So, do reconsider the post.

Umm shaymaa (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Umm shaymaaUmm shaymaa (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

All it says is that he was accused. This is true. Do you have a problem with that fact? Origamite^{Please talk here} 18:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Hi there Origamite. I just wanted to respond to your last ANI post here rather than at ANI, as I'd be drifting a bit off-topic and people may not like that. This is my first real involvement in ANI, and it has been educational. I think that what you're seeing there is really the dumping ground of Wikipedia, where editors come to dump their problems, real or imaginary (or real but created by them, as in the case I was responding to). 99% of the time, people seem to work out their problems one way or the other without resort to ANI or other "drama boards." But there are a hard core of troublemakers, some of which (and I'm not referring to anyone in particular) are I think literally mentally ill, and are "acting out" their issues on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a mental hospital and is not set up to deal with people with serious outside issues, and hopes that they just go away. It is worse if they are considered "content creators," for then they are given a pass no matter how much they damage the atmosphere for everyone else, as long as they are creating articles on obscure subjects nobody cares about. Perhaps worst of all are people who don't have mental issues but behave as if they do, out of a streak of sadism. Anyway, I hope you're otherwise enjoying Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I realize that that is the dumping ground; you and Wondering55 had a particularly bad one. I've seen many talk page resolutions, so rest assured that I know that it's the 1% of real problems at ANI (or problems blown out of proportion, or people who don't get where content disputes go). I know there are many good content creators, and only a few bad ones, but the bad ones seem to get 99% of the attention. I do enjoy Wikipedia, I just got a bit blown away by those who assume bad faith and think others are trying to single-handedly wreck the encyclopedia on ANI. Thank you for the discussion, Origamite^{Please talk here} 00:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the brownie. I notice we've both been on the project for about the same time but you haven't contributed too much. You must really have a life! Ha, some of us don't. It actually took some months before I finally found that there were a certain subset of articles that I felt I could contribute to. Until then I felt pretty useless here. Fortunately there are vast areas of tranquility, consisting of people writing about stuff that interests them. Take care, Coretheapple (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess...Actually, I felt a bit upset with myself after I put a semi-joke, semi-serious association in the wrong place (it was userified). I remembered the password in November to edit a group I belong to, where the tense was 2008ish, so I updated it while remaining without COI. It was just luck that I came across Special:Log/Newusers, and that's where I edit from mostly now. I revert any new editor vandalism, and I'm happy there. Origamite^{Please talk here} 00:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

SPI Question

I'm not sure what you mean by this question as I already noted the account was blocked as a sock?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry; didn't realize you had put that in until too late. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 22:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mitrabarun

The best way for you to deal with Mitrabarun is to ignore him. There's nothing about the situation that actually requires your attention, and I'm pretty hardened to being accused of all kinds of things.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've decided to end my involvement, but I will keep it watchlisted just to observe what happens. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 20:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I sort of felt the same way as Kww, when I took a look at the talk page as you requested. Since he's blocked, I don't think it matters too much what happens on that page. The problem is if he is unblocked, and unfortunately sometimes administrators are excessively compassionate in that regard. Coretheapple (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said; watchlist. If they want to unblock him, we can let them know. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 20:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cro-Magnon

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cro-Magnon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

POLEMIC

What is wrong? "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." This isn't "other editors"; this is my user page! Why can't I display negative information pertaining to "myself"?! Am I interpreting POLEMIC wrongly? It's more convenient listing it out than scouring for my block log... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)