User talk:Doopdoop
Welcome!
Hello, Doopdoop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they are appreciated. I hope you like it here, and decide to stay. Here a few pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Verifiability
- Manual of Style
- Neutral Point of View
- Civility
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:Questions, ask at the help desk, leave me a message on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up to answer your questions. Again, welcome! · AndonicO Talk
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Spreadsheet animation
I noticed you have moved the spreadsheet animation to the formula section of the article. This seems to me to be missing the point of the animation, which I believe attempts to encapsulate almost the entire essence of a spreadsheet in one extremely simple demonstration. I took my "Q" from the animated GIF in internal combustion engine which is excellent. If you can do better, please feel free. I used a free web based tool that only allowed me to use a maximum of 10 images to produce the GIF. If I had been allowed say 30 images, I could have just as easily demonstrated many of the other components of a spreadsheet. There have been various previous attempts at showing a generic spreadsheet but all so far have either been too specific to a particular product or have had other weaknesses. I had hoped my new GIF would be both simple and generic. Now, once again, there is no image at all to accompany the definition - too bad - please do better!Kdakin3420 (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that some users might not like blinking animations. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then why don't you remove the "blinking" lot of them including the excellent animation on internal combustion engines? !!!Kdakin3420 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
DoopDoop/Freedomwarrior/Kborer
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doopdoop&action=edit§ion=6 Editing User talk:Doopdoop (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You just tried to revert my edit 3 times. Its pretty clear that you and Freedomwarrior are one and the same. You both seem to share an interest in right wing philosophy, and an interest in editing with POV articles on health care and Cuba! You clearly forgot to log out and log in again. I mentioned in December that in 2008 we can expect to see new WP editor accounts emerging to take up the job of adding bias to those health care articles. Well lo and behold, your account was created 31 Dec and you now edit alternately with your alter ego. This is a warning to you not to start edit warring like you at the end of last year and not to use "shell accounts" as you called them, to push your POV. And now Kborer has picked up again. Its amazing how all three of you have suddenly emerged again from a long edit break to start work pushing POV into the health care articles. At least be honest and just use the one account.--Tom (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Make sure you don't get mixed up in all the contra arguments you are having with yourself at Universal health care! Maybe you need more time in the Caribbean to recuperate!--Tom (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What can I say that you haven't already probably inferred, Tom is paranoid. He keeps on accusing me of creating shell accounts and the like, because I suggested that it'd be stupid to handle disputes through a democratic process. Now, if I was really using sock-puppets, why on earth would I object to a straw poll that I could easily win by creating sockpuppets? It really makes no sense, does it? But you see, Tom doesn't do that whole reason thing.
Tom has gone so far as to present a formal accusation against Kborer and me. Despite an administrator telling him that he was dead wrong, he nonetheless insists on accusing Kborer of being my sockpuppet. Give him time and he'll even make a formal accusation against us, lol
It's the classic argument by intimidation. Fortunately, Tom isn't all that intimidating...
Anyway, welcome to the back and forth that I've been enduring for months now. It's always good to have other editors who are willing to give reason a try. Cheers, Freedomwarrior (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think the legal response would be "not proven" not "wrong". WP recognizes that an IP check is not a proven way to demonstrate sock-puppetry and that behaviour of editors is often the way to prove this. I think I am building up a good record of a pattern of behaviour here. Especially the pattern of frantic and sudden changes that happened around Christmas. Although you can make it hard to undo edits I think there are enough editors now with enough determination to prevent overt or covert POV coming into these articles. Hopefully you are not about to engage in another bout of that. We have to try to present the subject matter fairly and without bias and representing all major shades of opinion and the facts that underlie those opinions. If we can edit in this way, we can all have an enjoyable edit experience. Otherwise it's just tedious back and forth and I don't suppose you enjoy that any more than I do. Its better to work out these issues on the talk page first. This constant denial that the term is principally used in the U.S. is already starting to become tedious. If you have evidence to the contraty please present it. --Tom (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Sreadsheet - "Fake reference"
I cannot see why you describe the reference to the ICI Works Records System (a fully interactive CICS transaction processing system) as "fake". I have no idea about the other quoted "Time sharing" systems (which were probably teletype based at that time), but the ICI System was certainly an IBM 3270 display terminal based, WYSIWYG spreadsheet, comparable to todays spreadsheets but combined with a database. Kdakin3420 (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)