User talk:Belorn

Richard Stallman

I strongly agree with your removal of that "information" from the Richard Stallman article, but I don't think that WP:SPS actually applied here. I reckon that the issue was just a plain neutral point of view violation. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that WP:NPOV was an issue, but I thought it was simply easier to mark it down as RS issue instead of both a NPOV and RS issue. Having a whole section of criticism, in a article about a living person, being sourced only by blogs, is simply a bad edit and should be removed without any further procedure. I think when it comes to matter of polarizing issues, there is always plentiful of blogs giving strong opinions in every possible direction. It is thus important to not let those bleed over onto Wikipedia.Belorn (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely correct, WP:SPS does say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I was just being stupid

Facepalm.

Sorry if I came across as being a bit over judgmental as there was no flaw whatsoever in your reasoning. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, only glad that there is people watching over those articles :).Belorn (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical patent

I replied on the talk page. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZeuAPP

I dont think you should have added the advert, its not written as a bias opinion and i think its pretty neutral. Other then that, i personally don't like that you changed my writing but whatever, its Wikipedia, that should be expected. Atleast you improved it and so far, only you decided to do whats right then act bias towards me, my account, and my posts so thank you, i appreciate that.--Nevoexpo (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The advert was there because I did the changes I did just before getting some sleep, and I did not feel it was enough of a rewrite to change the tone of the article to neutral. I removed the advert tag now after a additional edit, because at this point what should be important is adding what independent third-party source has to say on the subjectBelorn (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power2794

I have given this user a final warning. Open a thread at WP:ANI if this continues.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement‎

Hi,

I think you mean unprotecting ;)? Sure, you're welcome! :)

Merry Christmas,

The Helpful One 18:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WRT54G

In regards to this edit, I have a WRT54G2, so I'll try to find out specifically what firmware they use, and get a source for it. If I can't, I'll leave a comment on the talk page. Cheers, Sudo Ghost 00:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found one, added it here, hope that was what you were looking for. Take care. - 00:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will update the WRT54G article also. Belorn (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement

I took your lead, and removed the offending statement implying copyright holders were trolls. It also added nothing to the article. I trust this is acceptable to you? MrZoolook (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

normally, you do not remove old comments like that, but rather archive it. The reason I undid your comment was to not encurrage more unconstructive comments that would reply to your comment. With old unconstructive comments you want archive them to make space for constructive comments, but not deleting them as to preserve the talk history. A possibility would had been to archive your comment along with the old ones, but it strongly suggested in the policy to not archive new comments. I will do a archiving now, just need to figure out how to do it... and Done.Belorn (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, blatantly non-constructive viewpoints are discouraged long before they are considered 'old enough to archive'. MrZoolook (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, had I been watching the article back then, the comment would be long gone :). Belorn (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And after having slept on it, and put a totally rubbish day behind me, I apologise for being so moody regarding the edits. Not making excuses but it was a pretty bad day for me, and getting an e-mail saying it had been reverted SECONDS after going to bed on my HTC kinda was the straw that broke the camel's back. I had to turn my computer back on to read the e-mail even :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZoolook (talk • contribs) 00:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. In the end, it got me to move all that crappy old comments into the archive. Belorn (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freenet

Thanks for your help