User talk:Onorem/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Onorem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Nindo

Thak you for useing constructive criticism. Others have had contempt for less experienced Shinobi like me.

To appreciate life, that is my nindo. My ninja way. Thankyou for helping me find it.

--Gjeremy (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Report

You should go edit the Condensation page...some guy edited it and I don't know how to give him warnings.Šňěǎļřī ^Ťǎļķ 15:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Promise...

I am going to do nasty things to you. Eeeeeaaaaaaaggggghhhhh (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You really need a hobby. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is my hobby. Mick Fitz"Gillian"gibbons (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You really need a better hobby. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a new hobby. Your mum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.251.100 (talk)

Casserly article

Hi:

I just wanted to let you know that HM211980 deleted a sentence about Casserly that was supported by footnotes. I commented on this further in the discussion relating to the article.

Regards,

Carlos Escobar Carlosescobar (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

Either that is a recent change (in which case I'd like to see the discussion), or it is on a separate page from WP:BLANKING. It certainly was the case until recently, if it isn't now. — neuro^(talk) 22:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is simply on another page (of which, admittedly, I am failing to locate). Either way, there's no need to start anything up again on that page, issues seem settled at the moment. — neuro^(talk) 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Sorry, first alert, didn't realise it had to go to the bottom. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all a problem. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi Onorem,

I was just wondering about due to some of your edits, are you gay?

--114.77.199.50 (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Thanks for dropping by though. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Onorem, it looks like you are being targeted by the same wikipedia vandal who has been targeting my user page. For your information, I have reported it but it has not yet been resolved: 767-249ER J Bar (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. This guy is nothing new or original. I'm not worried about them at all. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Error

User Barba Nane is not Luigi28 and Luigi28 is not Pio!!!! Error is evident: but are you strange in English wiki???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.39.198.123 (talk • contribs)

Checkuser appears to disagree. Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what your question to me is supposed to say. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You were lucky Onorem. You should see the charming message the same ex-user left me on my talk page. Cheers ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that...and commented about it to the IP. I don't speak the language, and google translate isn't always the most accurate, but I certainly could pick out enough to see how inappropriate it was. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Link

This: changed the color of a box from "whatever you have your new-message-box-set-to" to "cyan." The "usermessage plainlinks noprint" part makes it functionally identical to "you have new messages." For most (again, not me), it's an orange box with blue text. For me, it's was a grey-green box with black text - a box that no one uses, and that only shows up when I have new messages. Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The version one earlier in the history looks nothing like my new message bar. It's the same colors, but a different scheme and completely different text. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They look identical to me. Oh, wait. plainlinks. Yeah, if that made a difference in all skins, it would make things look a little different, sure. Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Plainlinks might explain why the color scheme looks different, but it doesn't explain why you wouldn't notice that the text is also completely different. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Because no one uses grey-green boxes with black text for anything but new messages. I don't even read the text in a grey-green box with black text. I have new messages. If he wants his "hahaha funny" leave me new message box, he should feel free to return it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There, I've solved the plainlinks on my side, asuming that that new stupid box is the standard HAHA box. Hipocrite (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from TeamKriticalErrorGb

Hi TeamKriticalErrorGb here my team's being sponserd by you what issues do you want to clear up if its langauge then im happy to change some of it even though there is no strong langauge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamKriticalErrorGb (talk • contribs)

I'm not sponsoring anything...and Wikipedia is not a webhost for your gaming clan. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

What did i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarzero87 (talk • contribs)

From a constructive edit standpoint? Absolutely nothing apparently. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But why?

I requested it not to be mentioned from your any of pages about a month ago. I checked now and I realized that there was some left. Human error; I understand. I myself forget to put my sig sometimes. So anyways, I took the liberty of removing it myself because I already had your consent to "remove it from existence" from your pages. Angdl (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright...

Advance thanks for the my request. I dunno if the noindex tag would help since it's just a tag, but if you like, you could put it on those pages. It may...or may not help at all. Angdl (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's because...

Since I'm moving him to a new wikipedia, I would want the new wikipedia entry to be on top of the searches instead of being second or third to wikipedia pages (since wikipedia is more "credible" than other wikis, I'm guessing, it's put on top first, though the entry there may not be as relevant). Not that I don't like wikipedia. It helped me in many assignments. I just wouldn't want any loose ends. He has entries on other wikis too, but It doesn't matter much because Google doesn't index those wikis anyways and they're less "credible" than wikipilipinas. Yeah, I'm hoping, in a week or so, Google would no longer index it. If not, could you just erase it yourself? His name is of any importance to you anyways. I'm bettin' you're even sick of seeing that name from all the debates in the past. Angdl (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already the first result. It's very unlikely that my user page or talk archives would overtake it in a search. If my pages do end up on top of the searches, I'll reconsider how much I'm willing to delete. Right now, I'd like to keep my histories as intact as possible. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Doug Hanks article

I posted something on the discussion page in regard to your PROD. If you get a chance, perhaps read and discuss (there). Thanks 74.69.39.11 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I reverted the edit because of bs meaning bull shi-. Abce2 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Abce2

Message from 65.11.220.220

onorem- kingpin 13 must be removed of power. He is a wiki memebr ,who has been given the power to remove articles and delete accounts. He abuses this power. He delets and taunts significant articles, while wikipedia in general has far to many specific articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.220.220 (talk)

I have no opinion on the specifics, but placing your complaint in random articles isn't the way to go about it. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Kyle XY

Was > it's over. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Inferno Lord of Penguins 2.2

heh, works for me. Thanks Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking like it's a disruptive sock account anyway. Inferno, Lord of the Losers had already been blocked. Inferno,Lord of Penguins 2, Inferno,Lord of Penguins 3 and Inferno Lord of Penguins 2.2 are now listed at UAA. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...

Yes, it's funny that it did that, I expected it to leave a level 1, Huggle sometimes doesn't pick up how many warnings the user has been given. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your help in reminding me of the wilipedia rules. I re-read the page you advised, and will keep things in context.

On another note: I would like you, as a moderator, to consider banning passages regarding the ROC.Passages regarding The Islands of Taiwan itself are perfectly alright in my opinion,but the ROC is not offically internationally recognised as a state: ie Countries who have a presence there have not declared themselves as offical embassies. Hence, it does not exist as an indepedent state.so it makes sense that there should be no articles on it.

Here is another reason the term ROC should not be used

98% of the people currently inhabiting Taiwan are of Han Chinese lineage, and their Grandparents left the mainland in the late 1940's. They fled the mainland and set up a self proclaimed state "ROC" that is not formally accepted as country.

I have also noticed a lot of people from the Provience of Taiwan abuse, taunt, harass and even threaten mainland user's.Maybe they should be disiplined more?

I hope you think on this post, and I am sure you will have the courtesy to answer me here,whatever your personal or wikis formal opinion

thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.60.102 (talk)

I'm not a moderator, and I'm not interested in joining the Taiwan/ROC/whatever edit war. Please use the talk pages for these articles in the future. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my lack of familiarity with the issues here makes this irrelevant, but regarding reasons for articles on Wikipedia, I thought I'd point you to guidelines on notability. Although the ROC may not be officially recognized by countries, official recognition by other states isn't required in order to have an article on WP. Additionally, the reason why you received so many warnings is due to the fact that you were editing a user page that isn't yours. I'm not sure where the guidelines are on that, but typically discussion pages (see the discussion page at the top of every page next to the article tab) are open for editing, as well as article pages themselves. Editing another person's user page might be comparable to walking into someone's house and re-arranging the furniture. Hope this helps! Gnowor^Talk2Me_{did wha?} 01:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot. Couple other sites you might find useful are the guidelines on citing sources as information on Wikipedia should be verifiable. Gnowor^Talk2Me_{did wha?} 01:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

It probably wasn't best to start off with "huffy and butthurt," though it's an accurate characterization of his response to two good faith edits. From reading the discussion he treated it like it was 10 edits and then repeateded edit warring and disruptive on a massive scale. Clearly that was not the case. It's not to see an administrator be chastised for his violations of policy and not get away with it. I do also think it's odd that he immediately thought that "butthurt" was a sexual orientation thing, and not a colloquial term for getting bent out of shape. Thanks for your input on the whole thing! SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Diff question

I noticed on the Admin notice board ([1]) that you saw something that indicated that Tim/Skywriter was Alastair Haines' publisher. But the diff that you appear to have seen this at ([2]) seems not to say that. I was wondering if the wrong diff had been given, and what exactly you saw that indicated this. Thanks. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It'd be synthesis if it was article space, but it was a combination of diffs that show the relationship.
Coren's block notice on User talk:Alastair Haines indicated that "we have received further legal threats from a person making a credible claim to be your publisher and to be acting in your interest" and referenced OTRS ticket #2009040310049955.

Coren's block notice on User talk:SkyWriter indicated that they were being blocked for making legal threats and referenced the same OTRS ticket.

I suppose there might be another explanation, but SkyWriter being, or at least acting like they were, his publisher seems to be the most logical. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting the anons action. Apparently he holds a grudge over something from March 2008 [sic], when he posted the same type of discussion on 5 talk pages (something like "England/Scotland/Wales/N Ireland is not a country in spite of UK constitution as it does not fit my dictionaries definition of that" "Amsterdam is not the capitol of the Netherlands in spite of the Dutch constitution as it does not fit my dictionaries definition of that". As I noticed the same discussion (in which the anon did not recognise any of the evidence against his POV) evolving on all these pages I posted a note on all cross-referencing the different threads. I may even have openly doubted good faith at that time; how strange in the light of what happened.

Anyway, thanks again. Arnoutf (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Onorem. You have new messages at Antivenin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Indeed, I accidentally saved while editing. Mashkin (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WSLK

A question first....Why did you tag the reference from Radio-Locator.com (which is used on virtually every radio station page as "dubious"?

I understand why you removed the mention of Roanoke. I did that as a "make nice" mention of the information the owner had added with the mention it couldn't be confirmed. That is fine, I figured that would get removed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 04:31

I tagged the reference based on a comment from the editor you've been warring with...and the text on the referenced page that says "This image is intended solely for entertainment purposes. Radio-Locator makes no claims as to the accuracy of this information, nor towards its suitability for any intended purpose." --Onorem ♠Dil 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. If you can find a better, more accurate map, please feel free to add it to the page as a reference. That is the best we (being the radio community) has and generally they are pretty on the ball with their "perdictions" of coverage areas. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 04:35

Talkback from TomCat4680

Hello, Onorem. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

WQA

The issue is more about presenting dishonesty on KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs)'s end. They accused me of beign non-constructive so I am bringing up their own non-constructive edits (which are more than plenty). They claim to have "never been uncivil" – I am proving them wrong. Overall, the issue is Keltie's immorality as an editor. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Onorem. You have new messages at Staffwaterboy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 00:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Onorem. You have new messages at Staffwaterboy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 04:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

IP's, etc.

That IP-on-U character is keeping everyone busy, it seems. Meanwhile, out of the blue of western sky, comes this guy [3] who assumes I'm watching his talk page, and "warning" me to stop. That's one for the books. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah, that's a bit of an odd "warning" for him to leave for you. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he wants me to take this to ANI so he can open a new drama fest. I'm not taking that bait. Even though, since he just came off a lengthy topic ban, it probably would not end well for him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiLove

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I would like to issue this since it seems our discussion became heated.Please feel free to contact me anytime.

Take care,

-- Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage

Whoops, I didn't see that Chris had removed that pic. Sorry about the confusion, there were a lot of edits to his talkpage and I couldn't quite find which one it was removed from before. - Nite Owl II 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all a problem. I was assuming that you hadn't noticed that he was the first to remove it. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Prank

In one article (White Brazilian), user Opinoso inserts this text ([4]):

In the southern states of Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul, Germans were 20% of their population in the 1930s.^[1] According to the German Consulate in Porto Alegre, there are 3 million people of German descent living in these two states,^[2] and 5 million in the entire Brazil,^[3] though another source claims 10% of Brazilians have at least one German ancestor, then the number would be as high as 18 million.^[4]

So, he apparently thinks that the above has encyclopedic value, isn't it?

In another article (German Brazilian), a different user inserts this text ([5]):

In the southern states of Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul, Germans were 20% of their population in the 1930s.^[5] According to the German Consulate in Porto Alegre, there are 3 million people of German descent living in these two states,^[6] and 5 million in the entire Brazil,^[7] though another source claims 10% of Brazilians have at least one German ancestor, then the number would be as high as 18 million.^[8]

Seems exactly the same text Opinoso inserted in White Brazilian, isn't it? Which means, if Opinoso thought this had encyclopedic value in White Brazilian, he would also agree with it in German Brazilian, don't you think so?

However, Opinoso reverted the edit, which was exactly equal to an edit he had made to other article, calling it "vandalism".

So, either Opinoso has inserted "vandalism", as he calls it, in White Brazilian, or he has suppressed as "vandalism", in German Brazilian, a text that he actually thinks is accurate.

Now tell me, what kind of thing is this?

To me, it is a prank. Ninguém (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already commented on it. He says 5, but acknowledges a source says up to 18, in one article. In the other article, he reverts someone who changed a figure to a number that the current reference didn't support. What's the prank? --Onorem ♠Dil 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case, why doesn't he fix it in the other article?

It is not a content dispute, it is a territorial dispute. The issue is not how many people of German descent there are in Brazil, but who can and who cannot edit the articles that this user WP:OWNS. Ninguém (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How is a perceived WP:OWNership issue a prank? What is it that needs to be fixed? I have no knowledge, or interest, in the topic...so I don't know or care what the correct number is. If 5 is common, and 18 is fringe, then I see no problem with their edits. Have you considered a request for comment on the issue? --Onorem ♠Dil 20:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Good Afternoon Onorem, please accept my apologies. I received an e-mail from this person requesting said changes. I apologise in advance if these were inappropriate for me to perform. Thanks, Mr. K. Wallace. ChilliSauce59 (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaving suggestions to vandalize on your user and talk page and then making edits on behalf of a blocked user probably isn't the best way to start off. Please try to contribute constructively. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. :-) CHILLI SAUCE TALK TO ME 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from JasonFontaine

Hello -

Why can't Wiipedia do a status. That is - those items found to be CORRECT - many are - have indicated with bold/red/green or some form of texting showing they are verified and no longer manipulated. Users can ADD content - and verification will continue. You guys do tremendous work and I'm sure you deal with endless assholes. I think if you did this - it would make things much better.

Peace 15:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonFontaine (talk • contribs)

Seems like flagged revisions may be along the lines of what you suggest. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on

Come on, I censored the profanities, and how is sucking toes at all profane? --Barefoot Lauren (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the boner is gone, and sucking toes we could care less about. Seriously it's not a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barefoot Lauren (talk • contribs)

They don't have to serve any purpose. It is a TEST page. And besides, isn't talking about Lauren's feet and sucking them enough of a purpose anyway. If you had a foot fetish and only knew her then you would understand. --Barefoot Lauren (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NWA REp's page

......Actually, simulating a user interface is "discouraged except for testing purposes" so yea, it's against guidelines:

Simulated MediaWiki interfaces

Shortcut

WP:SMI

The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface, and it should be avoided except when necessary for testing purposes.
and he's had it removed by various sysops and was even blocked for it. He knows better, but he keeps putting it back up. Yes, I know calling him an idiot is an attack, and wrong 100 percent. I won't attack again. — Kosh_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes}^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 17:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what the page says. I also know what consensus has been in every AN/I discussion I've seen on the topic and in the archives at WT:USERPAGE. I'm not going to revert your removal, but I won't be surprised if someone else does. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, he's had it replaced by various users, and a note was entered into the block log to indicate that the block was not met with community consensus. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Ranger

I notice that you support my removals of the information in that article. For your information, there is a discussion also took place [[6]]. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

HTML5

Why did you revert my edit here? Did you have a look what I deleted? Talk page comments! The page was vandalised, man! Debresser (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I'm so sorry. I did the same as you did a second before me. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)