User talk:Oneiros

I really don't want to bother

I edit wiki and I alays intend to make it better when I do. I never edit from a pov of vandalism, and a lot of the time I'm just correcting the English of non-English speaking as a first language users. Not as easy as you'd think. I have noticed a certain amount of vandalism. When I introduced a line saying that there was a theory that both the US and Iran were responsible for Lockerbie, it was altered by a registered vandal called Bert Stosser within half an hour. I understand theree are campaigns to alter the Wikipedia and the Slimvirgin case is a true one. But I don't know how to make my very reasonable changes stick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.147.133 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Which edit was that? Btw: Please sign your posts.--Oneiros (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

List of PDF software

Can you explain your edits [1]? They look like simple edit-warring when you provide no evidence and none has been provided. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing software that is clearly notable (some have their own articles). If you think it isn't, discuss it on the talk page.--Oneiros (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you believe what you're writing or not, but you're incorrect and have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Please take some time to at least be certain of your comments when your editing has already been pointed out to look like simple edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nitro PDF exists, so I linked their reader to that article. Am I overlooking something else? --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources or other evidence that the information belongs. If you're having trouble finding it, start a discussion rather than edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: October 2010

Alter, ich lasse mir von jemandem, der – im Vergleich zu mir zumindest – ein Wikipedia-Noob ist, nicht im hochnäsig-besserwisserischen Ton sagen, dass ich für das Entfernen eines einzelnen falsch gesetzten Satzzeichens ein großartiges Edit Summary verfassen soll. Für so einen Pupskram schreibe ich so etwas nicht. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Diese Hochnäsigkeit habe ich befürchtet. Wenn Du keine Zeit hast, "typo" zu schreiben, dann kann Wikipedia auf Dich verzichten.--Oneiros (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Du kannst nicht bestimmen, auf wen WP verzichten kann und auf wen nicht. Du bist nicht der WP-Chef. Im Ggs. zu Dir maße ich mir außerdem nicht an, Deinen Nutzen für die WP zu kommentieren. Ich will einfach nur in Ruhe gelassen werden. Also poste in Zukunft keinen Unfug mehr auf meine Seite und ich lasse Dich ebenfalls in ruh. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I went ahead and nominated this article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate successions of the English crown. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Why?

What was that for? Slow down with the reverting please. Those tools make it too easy. 75.4.146.74 (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The {} are needed.--Oneiros (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No they're not since they're empty. They're optional in that case. The actual code used to make that image didn't have them on each one. I removed them because it screws up the syntax highlighting. 75.4.146.74 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, note the version you reverted to (which has been there for awhile) also leaves out some intentionally to show it's optional. 75.4.146.74 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)