User talk:Samuel Erau

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

Welcome!

Hello, Samuel Erau, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job[edit]

You are here since June and were not welcomed yet? Thanks for improving WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant to add a "Wikify" tag[edit]

I meant to add a "Wikify" tag. It includes words like "enthusiastically", and does not cite sources. That's usually unencyclopedic. Sorry about thatHojimachongtalkcon 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Note regarding your edits to WP:IAR[edit]

(The following complaints about my attempts to remove some disturbing content are relatively moot, since 02:19, 18 May 2007, when the "profanity", as I termed it, was removed, with that removal being maintained over several later edits, by users much more powerful in Wikipedia than myself.) - Samuel Erau 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding you considering a link to m:Don't be a dick profanity, it is important to note that...

  • The page been around since January 2005 in it's earliest incarnation (making it well established, though my labelling it as "well established policy" was simply an error on my part). It is accepted by a large majority of users.
  • Wikipedia:Profanity (which you linked when reverting) is a guideline for articles; WP:IAR is an official policy, not an article. This is because Wikipedia:Profanity is a subsection of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which applies to articles.

Thanks. --Deskana (request backup) 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't tolerate personal attacks, as you left in your edit summary when removing the above post. I was civil with you, and responded to your reversions by assuming good faith, as is expected of all Wikipedians, and you responded with personal attacks. Wikipedia does not tolerate any form of personal attacks. If you continue, you may be blocked to stop you. --Deskana (request backup) 17:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Any person who has adequate skill in using an English dictionary can see that what I was removing is considered offensive according to community standards. Yet if a person lives in a trashy trailer park, slum, getto, prison, or the like, then "community standards" would be lower. So either your post to my talk page and WP:IAR was on the level of trashy trailer park standards, or it was based upon illiteracy for the lack of the aforementioned dictionary skill. My comment was not a personal attack, but was rather being descriptive of the text of the post, which itself was quite offensive. Look up the profane word, then look up the meaning of vulgar and obscene. As far as me being banned, I'd rather be banned from Wikipedia than be a willing member of a society of foolish profane babbling. So I intend to continue, from time to time, to remove unnecessary profanity from Wikipedia in proportion to my more creative contributions. There is not yet a robot or artificial intelligence computer program that has been made to deal with the subtle complexities of the moral judgement that we are currently debating about. Nor is there yet established a standard in the policy guidelines that can make this decision simple for you, as you stated above. It has to come from the heart. Have a heart, please! Please lay down your great sword that is sharpened in preparation to win in edit wars and let Wikipedia rise above graffiti. Or better yet, fight against it. I was somewhat surprized that more had not taken my position, and equally perplexed at why the essay had been tolerated. But, alas! I should have known better. I had already done some reading about how bad Wikipedia is. Samuel Erau 19:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems

Wikipedia - Uncyclopedia

Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study The Register

Growing pains for Wikipedia

Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief The Register

BBC NEWS Technology Wikipedia study 'fatally flawed'

School sues over Wikipedia posts The Register

Guardian Unlimited Technology Technology A thirst for knowledge

Crowdstorm faith-based shopping The Register

Main Page - Wikitruth

Wikipedia Blaster 'fix' points to malware The Register

Internet Archive Details The Great Failure of Wikipedia

Neurosis as a lifestyle remixing revisited The Register

Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence The Onion - America's Finest News Source

New Age judge blasts Apple The Register

People more drunk at weekends, researchers discover The Register

Wales and Sanger on Wikipedia The Register

Unnatural acts at Nature The Register

Wikipedia editing hobby goes nationwide The Register

$10m for a Wikipedia for grown-ups The Register

There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility' The Register

Why Wikipedia isn't like Linux The Register

Wikipedia magic, monkeys and typewriters The Register

Guerrilla Wikipedians rate rival's chances The Register

The New Yorker Fact

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for one hour for disruption and making personal attacks. Please read over WP:POINT and WP:NPA. I have made the block short because I can see you do have a history of good edits, but please in the future do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point or push your own personal beliefs. Thanks/wangi 22:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not online during that hour. Well, it seems like Wangi joined the crowd of supporting profanity, which I also referred to as trailer trash babble when it was posted my talk page above, not because of my trying so say it was from a trailer trash person, but because of it being on the community standards of trailer trash communication. But then, if they really had those standards of communication as their personal standards, then they would be virtually unable to distinguish my criticism of their remarks from personal attack. This is important information, and might be useful for creating another newspaper article that criticises Wikipedia. Samuel Erau 11:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"dick" isn't profanity Voretus 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(The above complaints about my attempts to remove some disturbing content are relatively moot, since 02:19, 18 May 2007, when the "profanity", as I termed it, was removed, with that removal being maintained over several later edits, by users much more powerful in Wikipedia than myself.) - Samuel Erau 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian Torah-submission[edit]

Good day! I noticed that you've made constructive edits to the Christian Torah-submission article. An editor has recently recommeded it for deletion. If you're interested, I'd like to encourage you to weigh in on the discussion and make any more edits that you think would be constructive. Thanks and keep up the good work. Namikiw 15:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Takis Tsoukalas[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Takis Tsoukalas. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takis Tsoukalas (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)