User talk:74.234.39.218

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NOT ALL ANONS ARE VANDALS[edit]

As the entries below demonstrate, I have twice been assumed to be a vandal and had my edits reverted within seconds, without so much as a moment's consideration. Yet in both cases, I was totally vindicated. Please think about that before you slam me with another warning, buddy.


This IP bloke is slightly right- don't block him yet[edit]

About the HP SPaM article. I wouldn't quite say it's a hoax, no doubt HP have a SPaM group, but the only mentions of such a group on line is it being mentioned in two people's resume summaries. It is not notable and should be redirected to HP or to any page we have about SPaM. Not only that, the references don't mention the group, in at least 2 cases. special, random, Merkinsmum 11:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He is understandably angry as he is trying to draw attention to a page which has subtle serious problems, and no-one is looking at the sources or searching for its non-existent google news entries. special, random, Merkinsmum 11:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Rather than deconstruct what happened yesterday, I've archived the whole discussion. Anybody willing to start from scratch? --barneca (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

HP SPaM[edit]

The article now has several new references. A glance at the current references shows that this is not a hoax; HP SPaM appears to be real. Whether it is notable or not is another question, one I don't know the answer to at the moment. If you want to challenge its notability, AfD is the way to go. If I understand right, IP's can't create a new AfD page, so if you want to create one, place what you want in it below and I'll make it for you. --barneca (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

hey "74.234." I would suggest not going to AfD but to try and ask for the info to be merged into the Hewlett Packard article. Though I agree some of the refs are "misleading." :) Some of them don't even mention the SPaM, as you have pointed out. Merging would create a redirect, for instance looking for HP SPaM (not that anyone ever would) would simply redirect people to the main HP article. This is also much less aggro for you/me/whoever does it, than an AfD. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi:)[edit]

I was wondering if you had thought of creating an account? I ask just because then it would be possible for you to receive email from other users if you wished it, and stuff like that, as well as not getting as much of people making assumptions about you. Which hopefully has stopped somewhat now, anyway.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 19:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008[edit]

sorry, wrong button... J.delanoygabsadds 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, except that if you look at my contribs, you would find very few instances of that happening. I do make mistakes, but I would estimate that I may get one mistake in 250 edits, which is roughly 1% corrections, so out of my 15000 edits, 150 are correcting my mistakes. J.delanoygabsadds 01:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through your contributions. If you were possessed of a bit more humility you would acknowledge that, to one visiting your page for the first time ever, and visiting under the circumstances I did, it looked a bit malodorous. A statement admitting mild embarrassment might have been impressive and earned you another fan. But you apparently have enough adulation going on already. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I was not asking you to go through my contribs. You effectively accused me of "statpadding" my edit count, so I defended myself and exhibited evidence to support my claim [that I am not "statpadding"]. When I accidentally warned you, I reverted myself (which means I knew I was wrong), removed the warning from your page, and apologized. Since I do not frequently make erroneous reversions, I see no reason to be "mildly embarrassed" and I am not looking for "another fan" nor am I seeking "adulation". I made a mistake, so I fixed the problem and apologized. I fail to see what further action I should take. J.delanoygabsadds 01:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, I know what happened. I'm not a total idiot. I'm just saying that it was an ironic juxtaposition; me finding four edits from you inside of two minutes that didn't change anything anywhere. And looking at your page, where people are fawning all over your impressive edit count, it just looked a bit off-key. Like I said, you could have recognized the situation for the mild irony that it presented and made a humourously self-deferential comment. Instead I get a sermon. It's all in the attitude, buddy, and you're just a bit too defensive for my taste. Go on and chill now; you need to take yourself less seriously, in my most humble opinion. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are right. I am sorry for being so defensive. I often do that even in the real world, so it is not surprising I would do it here. You were correct that I need to take myself less seriously. I do not agree that people are "fawning" over my impressive edit count, (btw, it is not impressive. What is impressive is a human user who has nearly 175000 edits. I can't remember his name) but I do understand where you were coming from, and I apologize for making this into a problem when it was intended to be ironically funny. J.delanoygabsadds 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
We cool. I'm out. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Edwards[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Jonathan Edwards. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Each of these edit summaries are uncivil and don't assume good faith. (The consensus discussion I mentioned can be found Talk:Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)#Requested_move here.) Flex (talk/contribs) 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I DID assume good faith, until I went to the talk page and saw that there was nothing there. I problem is not what I didn't assume, it's what YOU DID assume, namely, that I'm a fucking mind reader. Jesus fucking Christ, Flex, I feel sorry for whoever is sleeping with you (that was a fucking joke, dipshit, not a personal attack. Don't get your panties all bunched up. Shit.) 74.234.39.218 (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and I took care of that shit so no one else will have to go through what I did. Do you always make total strangers do your laundry? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility in edit summaries[edit]

Please try and be civil in your edits summaries. Comments such as these [1] [2] [3] [4] don't exactly endear yourself to your fellow editors or promote good faith. Please refrain from making personal attacks. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must admit that you have a good point. It's just that I feel that most people do not pay enough attention to grammar these days; more of them seem to care about spelling, which to me is far less important. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I know just how you feel sometimes. Because of the way edits overlap, some articles wind up looking like a train wreck, and it can be frustrating. Thanks for understanding my comments, and good luck! Redrocket (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You are one funny guy. I'd like to party with you, bucko, if my two-headed llama didn't keep me home at nights.74.234.39.218 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)