- Wikipedia - random colors http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/170682
- Wikipedia - ajax archives https://userscripts.org/scripts/show/170129
- Wikipedia - semi advanced search everywhere https://userscripts.org/scripts/show/170540
- Wikipedia - clean up interface https://userscripts.org/scripts/show/170442
- Wikipedia - categories to the top http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/170626
- Wikipedia - link to logs for ip editors https://userscripts.org/scripts/show/162807
- Wikipedia - clean up categories http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/171166
- Wikipedia - Google search http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/170616
The code is public domain. The install counter on the website doesn't work. I regret not having any script reviews for you either. If you like what I've done please say something. If you want you can also convert the scripts to wiki scripts and post them on wikipedia. Bug reports and further Wikipedia script ideas are also welcome. thanks!
- 1 Talkback
- 2 Your POV-pushing on Talk:Cold fusion
- 3 Seeking clarification of your RfC response
- 4 regarding NASA - Cold fusion
- 5 Up in the air my articles for interception deletion
- 6 February 2012
- 7 The_Dragon_Family_(disambiguation)
- 8 The Dragon Family (disambiguation)
- 9 See WP:3RR
- 10 August 2012
- 11 Unregistered users can't participate in RfA
- 12 Hi
- 13 Talkback
- 14 May 2013
- 15 Comment
- 16 Don't delete the comments of others
- 17 I separated the topics
- 18 Talkback
- 19 restoration of copy-pasted article
- 20 Invitation
- 21 February 2014
Your POV-pushing on Talk:Cold fusion
Please do not collapse discussion threads by claiming WP:OR. That does not apply to discussion threads with which you disagree and is arguably vandalism or baiting. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Technically I'm no longer the one who collapsed your posting:
- The talk page is there to improve the article. I collapsed your soap boxing because it doesn't belong on the talk page. If you insist it does you wont hear any argument from me. It isn't that important. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Seeking clarification of your RfC response
Thanks for taking the time to respond to Talk:Fox News Channel#Request for Comment. Your comment prompted me to ask you a follow-up question there, and I'd be interested in your response. JamesMLane t c 10:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
regarding NASA - Cold fusion
There has been quite a bunch of discussion about this. You might want to read Talk:Cold_fusion#NASA_states:_.22it_works.22, Talk:Cold_fusion#POV_tag and Talk:Cold_fusion#Workshop_this_before_replacing_it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't get this edit. What is the point of removing "namely the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen"? The reader will be left hanging, asking himself what is that chemical reaction that we are talking about. And why remove the pointer to other part of the article? (actually, why is that sentence tagged as POV in the first place?)= --Enric Naval (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno who tagged it, I assumed it needed a source so I added one. My source wasn't specific about the type of chemical reaction.126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Up in the air my articles for interception deletion
Hello thanks for the support in List of plasma (physics) articles but someone put it up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion along with List of laser articles, and List of infrared articles that I just created, If you want It would be awesome for You to comment with your own cognitive outcome instinct and not your compassion instinct on what should happen to them friend to the end at world end The end no to be continued.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You are also welcome to do what the other editors have done and update your section with more up to date comments, see what other users have done in the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts on the topic:
- On any wikipedia page, and in particular on arbcom pages such WP:AE, you may not edit sections of other editors. That kind of disruptive editing is usually reported and dealt with at WP:AIV or WP:AN3. IRWolfie is free to expand his initial presentation, no matter what your personal feelings may be. Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- "You can update your comment to say that it was with respect to the initial filing and provide a diff. I don't see the issue with this. My initial filing was one line long, I saw no reason why I should keep it seperate. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)"
The problem with that is that it assumes I would even notice you updated the topic. There is no guarantee everyone who commented on then provided material will later check if the material their comment talks about is still the same.
The comments before that do not belong under the divs you provided but the reader can not see this. If this is how the mechanism is suppose to works the mechanism is wrong.
I'm sure you understand that my current comment does not talk about the case you filled. Neither do any of the other comments. If my comment should appear under that case I would first have to check out all the divs you provided, then I would write a reply.
That post has my signature but I certainly didn't say that about this case. My comment only applies to the previous one. Where you didn't even provide divs. The comments on that now look very much out of place.
I know you had no intention to but you've changed the meaning of my words. I consider that worth a bit of debate.
- "I noted on my edit when the last edit was made. I am also confused as to why you deleted my initial filing as well and not just my additions. Surely if your reasoning was to restore the original version you would not delete it as well (and twice)?  IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)"
I might have deleted 1 line to much. Not really important now.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from The Dragon Family (disambiguation) with . When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the . Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The Dragon Family (disambiguation)
Sorry about reverting your edit. I was unable to figure out what you were up to and thought you were removing it for nefarious reasons. If you leave an edit summary, it would really help both you and I! Good luck with your article on The Dragon Family. Jim1138 (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- BTW: you might want to get an account to hide your IP address. Good luck! Jim1138 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- MST?R (Chat Me!) 10:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Unregistered users can't participate in RfA
about edit button
Jason Quinn (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to List of conspiracy theories. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Don't delete the comments of others
If I see you deleting the comments of other editors with poor reasons again such as you did at the cold fusion article, I will take the issue to ANI or AE. If you don't like someones on topic post which is part of a discussion tell them so, but don't just delete it, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I separated the topics
In Talk:Cold_fusion#some_unnecessary_things, I moved the topic of duplications to its own section. From past experience, in most cases it's better to have a separate section for each topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
restoration of copy-pasted article
Enric is entirely entitled to start a new thread on the cold fusion talk page, explaining why he supports the (apparently longstanding) merge and redirect of Fleischmann-Pons experiment to Cold fusion. This is not altered by the fact that the topic was discussed sometime last year in the talk page archives (though I note that in the discussion that you linked the consensus established was firmly against your position). If you delete another editor's comments from the talk page again, you will be blocked from editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I will delete comments that are not useful. Feel free to restore them if you think it is important. You suggest there was a consensus. This is not factual. I cant be pov forking if there is no article. The accusation is nonsense. It should have been deleted. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Here are edits where 184.108.40.206 deleted material from other editors: , , , , and . He performed the last two deletions after the above warning was posted. Olorinish (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I have explained for my actions on your talk page.
I will reproduce the posting here complete with it's date stamp:
misrepresentation of my postings
- == Proposal for deletion == The deletion of this article has been proposed. Discussion is here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion#Howmany_users_have_been_banned_as_a_result_of_the_confusing_scope.3F]. [[User:Olorinish|Olorinish]] ([[User talk:Olorinish|talk]]) 16:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You are linking to a posting of mine on the cold fusion talk page.
This posting is titled:
- Howmany users have been banned as a result of the confusing scope?
You are misrepresenting my posting as if it was a deletion discussion.
So I have deleted it. It is not the scope of the topic.
It also isn't useful as the last talk page entry on that page already links to the talk page of the cold fusion article.
220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm inviting you to v:cold fusion at Wikiversity, where there may be multiple points of view and original research. Its ok if you're not interested in it. - Sidelight12 Talk 10:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I apperciate the suggestion. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you want anything imported to the other project, as consolation for something facing deletion for instance, just ask me. It doesn't seem fair for days of work to be expected without collaboration or ongoing input then have it proposed for deletion. I might suggest a username, but you've already chosen not to use one.- Sidelight12 Talk 03:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- I apperciate the suggestion. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for discussing article improvement. Not for user conduct. Please use an appropriate forum.
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Cold fusion are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Dont mistake me for a newbie. What contribution are you talking about? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.