User talk:Tcrow777/June 2007

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tcrow777. 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.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, 76.183.213.20, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Orangemarlin 06:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

June, 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Orangemarlin. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Orangemarlin 08:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make threats as you did here. In addition, you should review Wikipedia rules on civility, personal attacks and a neutral point of view. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to leave me a message. Orangemarlin 08:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This edit can be construed as lacking NPOV. Orangemarlin 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please try to check yourself. Orangemarlin is not engaging in hate speech as near as I can determine and has no "antiChristian" leanings as near as I can tell.--Filll 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hate speech

I think Orangemarlin has hate speech on his User page and his Talk page. 76.183.213.20 21:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

…and has violated NPOV 76.183.213.20 01:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts are nothing without evidence - care to provide some? Have you taken this up with the editor-in-question? Did they respond in a constructive manner or otherwise? Do you have a diff to demonstrate this? Remember - opinion is nothing without evidence. Regards, (aeropagitica) 02:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why I go with good faith with editors like you is beyond me? First, there is no NPOV on a user page. You haven't done anything I requested, which was to read WP:NPOV. If you run across anything that states an NPOV exists for a user page me and a huge number of editors are probably going to die of shock. But probably more importantly, you lack a full understanding of what NPOV is. I have a POV about everything, since I'm a rational and intelligent human being. However, when I write an article, I use multiple sources to either confirm my personal POV, or to balance my POV with others. Again, intelligence and rational thinking allow me to do that. As for hate speech? Since there is none, that is an accusation you better prove, because the consequences to you for making a false accusation are fairly serious. You might want to apologize now, and then we can move on. Orangemarlin 15:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

June, 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Orangemarlin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Orangemarlin 00:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that an editor can revert or remove any post on their own talk page for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Do not revert an editor who removes your comments from their talk page. That they have removed it is proof they have seen it. Re-adding it could be considered harassment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

thanks for the welcome Lazallen 10:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature

How can I customize my signature to be like your's. Tcrow777 08:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tcrow777 and welcome to Wikipedia! I don't want to seem selfish or anything, but my signature is my own. You, though, can design your own signature in HTML using the tag (that's what I use to make the boxes in my sig). Try looking at the code and begin developing from there. Please do not use my exact signature, though. A signature should express your individuality! Express yourself, my friend! Have fun, and happy wikiing! DangerousNerd talk 17:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, let me know if I can be of any help to you here! DangerousNerd talk 17:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not use your exact signature, but as an example of what is going wrong with me trying to customize my signature: [[User:Tcrow777| Tcrow777 [[User_talk:Tcrow777| talk]]]] 20:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! In your prefs, be sure to click the "Raw Sig" option. That should fix it right up for you! DangerousNerd talk 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Do you know where I can find some html color codes? Tcrow777 22:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but my way might be a little overkill. I use the GIMP to do my color mixing. It's free, cross platform and has a great color picking program (at least in my opinion). Looking forward to seeing your new sig! DangerousNerd talk 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think? Tcrow777 talk 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, Tcrow777! Let me know if I can be of any more help! DangerousNerd talk 23:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You have done enough, thank you! Tcrow777 talk 05:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep going on this road and you will be a Wikipedia administrator in no time! Tcrow777 talk 06:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You want to participate in Gnome Week? Tcrow777 talk 06:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, but I am getting very busy during this time and will be unavailable for this project. Have fun, though! DangerousNerd talk 17:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen my custom templates. Tcrow777 talk 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User box

Copy that on the template. If you haven't already, replace it on the userbox page. ColdFusion650 12:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ColdFusion650 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I view every article as possible featured content, setting my sights high and all that. I can't find any featured articles on Linux distributions. I've been patterning it after Ubuntu, which is a former featured article. ColdFusion650 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Gnome Week

I do plan to. And don't feel bad about only doing 1-2 articles - that's 1-2 more than what would have gotten done if you didn't contribute. That's one or two articles somebody might hit tomorrow on Random Article and not be completely disillusioned with Wikipedia. Seriously, every little bit helps. Crystallina 05:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That'd be fine, if you want to go ahead and make it. Could even do one earlier if there's a suitable date. Crystallina 01:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello. I refactored your signature on the Village Pump due to the fact that it is supremely annoying and it interferes with the way that people read the discussion. My edit was certainly not vandalism. I encourage you to change your signature to something simpler. Sean William @ 23:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Sean William. I'll say this in the nicest way possible: Your bright orange signature makes my eyes hurt. And I'm not the only one. I think the reason Sean William didn't raise concerns about Dangerous Nerd's signature is that DN's sig is a soft, pleasant blue. Please don't take any of this as a personal insult or criticism. szyslak 05:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind orange per se. But that big orange box is a little too much for me, and most others looking through the now closed Village Pump discussion would agree. If you want orange in your sig, I'd suggest orange text. It's less intrusive and doesn't cause headaches. Plus, it doesn't take up three lines in the edit box. Here's my own sig in orange: szyslak 07:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How small is "small"? The box is about the same height and width as the text within it. It's "big" in the sense that it's larger than a simple text signature. My username isn't much shorter than yours. But look at our sigs side by side. Doesn't yours look significantly larger than mine?. Ultimately, though, its size is not the issue at hand. Here are the reasons why your sig is a problem:

The harsh orange color, taking up a block of space, hurts the eyes. Do you see how the example I gave above is easier on the eyes? Even if it doesn't hurt your eyes, it hurts mine and those of many others.
The code required for the signature takes up three whole lines of text. That makes it very difficult to participate in talk page discussions with you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Changing your sig would make it much easier to collaborate with you.

Sean William pointed out that you've been ruleslawyering on this issue. Your arguing the point of the box being "big" is ruleslawyering. Do you not see that? Ruleslawyering is not considered cool around here. Please, I implore you to seriously consider changing your sig. It doesn't have to be plain text, but please come up with something less annoying. szyslak 21:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll rephrase that: I opened an edit window on your user talk page, and it takes up four lines! That's way too much. szyslak 21:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a slight improvement. While the box is smaller, and the code takes up fewer lines, some people will still find it obnoxious. If you must use an orange , why don't you choose a softer, less saturated orange, such as a pastel shade? szyslak 01:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)