User talk:MSTCrow/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

General Talk Page Rules:

  1. This is not the place to push ideological grudges, unless I think you're amusing.
  2. Any talk is limited to scholarly and intellectual debate, not ideological and intellectual corruption. Again, unless I think you're amusing.
  3. This page isn't for bashing me for ideological reasons.
  4. NO TROLLING!


Hi and welcome to Wikipedia!

I saw that you commented on the incorrect naming of and in the 128-bit era article. I agree with you here. I can't think of a better name for the era off the top of my head, though, so I think the best thing to do would be to bring the issue up on WikiProject Computer and Video Games, the WikiProject where we try to coordinate work on video game-related articles. We can use your help, so please consider joining us if you have the time.

Note that you can sign your comments with ~~~~, which expands to your name and the time of posting. If you need help with something, a good place to look is the Community portal. Also feel free to drop any questions you might have in reply to this or on my my talk page. Enjoy your stay! Fredrik 16:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Back to you on PCI Express. Maury 12:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

NPOV

Hey MSTCrow, the magazines that you site are pollitical magazines, and as such either advertize their leanings or are specifically designed to have a specific slant that is generally accepted, even by their own publishers. Time is not a pollitical magazine, and does not advertize itself to be a pollitical magazine. To state that it has any leanings, left or right, is therefore completely subjective. A communist might consider Time to be conservative, a republican might consider it liberal. Wikipedia cannot take a stand on wether TIME is left or right of center. If you feel that stating time is left of center is essential to the article, State it as "Some people feel that time is a left of center newsmagazine" or something to that affect. We cannot state the pollitical leanings of an admittedly general newsmagazine. Theon 17:47, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

ECT

You write in clinical depression:

ECT was used as a tool of repression in the former USSR, and the use of ECT is outlawed in many countries.

I agree with you on the first part -- ECT, along with the rest of psychiatry, was used repressively in the USSR -- but can you name some countries where ECT is outlawed, with cites, please, to support the other part of the sentence? -- The Anome 11:05, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Party (Romania)

You remark that it's not seen as a credible party. I think that's true, but it's hardly neutral. Do you think you could reword that -- maybe in terms of their small percentage of the vote? -- to something a little more objective? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page

Has been removed per my policy. Unsigned posts are considered counterproductive and are removed. --FCYTravis 05:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you please help me?

I need some help with Landless Workers' Movement article. I requesting help because I supose you are an English native speaker and you can tell me if the text is biased or not, from you point of view.

Could you please help me? - 2

Thank you very much. Some considerations (excuses for my English):

  • The MST occupies land that was acquired through legitimate means. MST argue that they occupie "not productive" lands and that this kind of land must be expropriate. However sometimes MST occupies lands that are productive and that are used by their owners. Some owners lost their properties to the MST and they cannot complain to anybody. The police cannot fight against the MST sometimes, and the goverment (left) rules for the MST.

The MST is a revolutionary Marxist/Communist inspired group. They use the Land Reformation as a excuse for their radical agenda. Like other left radical groups or muslim radical groups, they try to be nice for media and they show that they are just "good" guys fighting against the "bad" guys (everyone who is not Communist or anti-USA or for-Chavez or for-Castro). The population was nice to the movement (including me) at the begining. However, in recent days the movement has lost some popular support because of their radical agenda. The MST does a lot of marketing and propaganda. The MST receive founds from international NGOs (from Europe and USA). Some radical left publications like IndyMedia and Granma defend the movement (and some of these people have access to Wikipedia articles).

I think that what I am asking is fair. I am just a guy and I can't dispute alone, and show other point of views (which are fair in my humble opinion) with a big network which is nice to the MST.

I added some information below:


MST links to Hugo Chávez and anti-Americanism


Others

Some newspapers

MST Photos

Tell me what you think about it. Thank you very much again.--Carlosar 29 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)


Philip Loeb

Your stated reasoning for a POV warning has been answered by me and another user. As such, I am removing it - again. If you wish to reinsert it, pleasee do, but first clearly and specifically enunciate exactly what is POV abou it. Thanks. Ted Wilkes 6 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Re: Hogeye/Danneskjold Sockpuppet

I did not use the sockpuppet template because (1) AFAIK it isn't necessitated by policy, (2) Danneskjold (talk • contribs) had only made a handful of edits, (3) his identity was obvious from these edits, and (4) I clearly stated my actions and the reasons for them on the talk pages of all articles he edited, thereby informing all concerned parties.

Hogeye (talk • contribs)'s block entails that he cannot edit for 30 days, and neither should any of his sockpuppets. However, I believe there was recently a modification to the block code to allow blocked users to edit their User: space pages, so as long as he isn't editing it disruptively (like adding links to shock sites), I won't begrudge him of this. It is also my understanding that a temporarily blocked user should not have a blocked notice imposed on his/her userpage; such notices are reserved for hard-banned (i.e., indefinitely blocked) users (for an example, see User:JoeM). In the case of Hogeye, all pertinent info can easily be found in the history of his talk page (he recently blanked it). Have I answered your questions satisfactorily? -- Hadal 02:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Revision Help

Greetings! I am trying to translate the article Brazilian vote-for-cash scandal from Portuguese to English. The article is very detailed and it was complimented on some journalists was complimented on some journalists [1]. I would like to have some help from an English speaker so he can revise some parts of the text. I will appreciate any help or comments. If you can participate I will be very gratefull. If you can help me, please go to User:Carlosar/draft and do some editions. Thank you very much! --Carlosar 12:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Nazi (sic) Porn

Yes, but there's no evidence of its notability. — Instantnood 13:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

opposed to recycling?

opposed in principal? Or just out of personal practicality? A jab against pro-recylers? All kinds of recycling? How about recycling of electronics? --sansvoix 08:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

How can you be opposed to recyling?--JK the unwise 11:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tax protester

You'll have to show me the edit in question, also you might want to check out WP:VAND. Vandalism is a very misused word around here nowadays. karmafist 10:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Your views on Bureaucrats

I notice your oppose vote on Quadell's bureaucrat nomination. If you are opposed the the role of bureaucrats you can post a message on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship or Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats, but simply opposing all bureaucrat nominations is not the way to go about it and will possably be looked upon badly by other users. I can assure you that the position of bureaucrat is only given to the most trusted users. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. Raven4x4x 11:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, it is a good idea to post a message in Talk, but at the same time, I have a responsibility to myself to vote against nominations for what I believe is an inherently abusive position.
MSTCrow 11:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
What reason do you have to believe the position of bureaucrat is "inherently abusive position"? Do you feel that bureaucrats have been abusing their position at all? As Cecropia asked you, " how would you handle people being assigned technical rights except by designating trusted users who we believe would do the job without abusing it?". Do you believe every user should have this priviledge?
Who is the "we" that decides which users are capable of doing the job without abusing it? I wonder how long before abusive users slip through, and quickly begin to vet other abusive users for such a position.
MSTCrow 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your question, the 'we' are us; the Wikipedia community. Anyone can vote. It is true that 'abusive users' can also vote, but if you look at the archives for RFA and RFB you will see that they are in the minority. Sure, a vandal or troll could nominate themself for admin or bureaucrat, and get all their troll buddies to vote for them, but this will not succeed, as votes from such vandals or trolls are disregarded. Given the extremely high standards that a bureaucrat nominee goes through, and the fact that you can't become a bureaucrat without being an admin first, I would say that the chance of a bad user becoming a bureaucrat is almost zero.
You didn't answer my question as to why you feel the position of bureaucrat is 'inherently abusive.' Your comments give me the feeling that you think we should have no more bureaucrats. Is this correct? Raven4x4x 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, not only do I think we should have no more additional bureaucrats, I don't believe we should have any bureaucrats, period.
MSTCrow 01:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well then who will be entrusted to promote users to admin status? Raven4x4x 03:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Everday Wikipedia user's who choose to vote for them.
MSTCrow 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
That is precisely what happens. The bureaucrat's role is to count the votes and to do the actual change, but not by his/her own opinion, but by tabulating the votes. This is not an automated process --rogerd 05:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
(resetting tabs) That is true, the job of the bureaucrat is to enact the will of the community, not to make the decision themselves. If we allowed any user to change the admin status of any other user, then the result would probably be chaos. To me it seems far better to entrust the promotion of admins to known, experienced users who we know will not go against the will of the community. Raven4x4x 05:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, fellow Anarchocapitalist who supports conservative ideas!

It seems we have an interesting thing in common. We're some of the few people who identify themselves as hardcore libertarians and, at the same time, supporters of conservative parties/ideas. I found a couple of your userboxes I liked and so I added them to my userpage and I took the liberty (pardon the pun) of adding the Anarchocapitalist userbox to yours. No offense intended and none received if you want to remove it. Just wanted to introduce myself to a like-minded individual.  :-) Lawyer2b 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

"It's fair use, and we are free to make what we want of our personal userbox as we see fit, corporate "guidelines" be damned. Keep Wiki Free!" I like...I like... Just so you know, there's {{User fair use}} and {{User copyright}} for you. Also: have you considered {{User ubx}} or {{user blank-N|ubx|This user communicates '''only''' via '''[[:category:user ubx|userboxes]]'''.}}--HereToHelp (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the information you are trying to convey.
MSTCrow 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Improper use of {{protected}}

Stop adding the protected template to pages that are not protected, and especially not to others' user pages. You will not be warned again. —Cryptic (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Cryptic, you're violating Wiki policy, and you and Sherool are being dealt with.
MSTCrow 20:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your commment on RfC

Hi, I noticed that you made a comment on RfC concerning my recent deletions of religion and belief-related userboxes. If you have a dispute with me, the way to resolve it int he first instance is to come to my talk page and discuss it. Who knows, I might agree with you! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you went wild with the deletes, and pissed alot of people off. Deleting like crazy for an arbitrary reason without even mentioning it in talk is wrong. I think RFC at this point is warranted.
MSTCrow 11:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway

Um... I, and not Tony Sidaway, was the one who deleted the RFC. Please... if you really must go through with this, format the thing like the other RFCs are made, with a statement of the dispute, evidence of disputed behaviour and evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute.

Also, consider whether or not an RFC against Tony will produce any positive results or if it will just end up with a flame war. I am also disturbed by Tony's deletion of userboxes but still... is an RFC now the right way to go? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As someone whose often held up as wanting to eat Tony's liver, take this in the spirit it is intended: It's not going to work, especially when you start it like that. Slow down, breath deep. There is no rush. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, get someone who knows how to do it and make it work. I'm doing my best.
MSTCrow 11:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I promise, there is no under-rug-sweeping going on, ok? Opening an RfC is a bloody minefield, and really isn't for the uninitiated. It's a complex combination of rules mongering, beauty contest, fillibuster, and knife juggling. Just slow down a little, to every thing there is a season. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, I have now set up the format at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3, but I will leave it to you to fill it out. Remember, you must also get another person to certify the basis for the dispute, that is another person who has tried and failed to solve the same problem. If not, the page will be deleted after 48 hours. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've re set up the RFC, but I haven't linked it from the RFC page yet. Fill it out as you see fit, let some people who have been around for a while look over it to polish it a bit, then we'll link it from the main page. Then if it isn't double certified in twenty-four hours, it will get removed.
A lot of people have been going off half-cocked around here, including lots of people who should have know better. Morlocks (like me) creating RFCs and RfArbs left right and center, moving pages, making wild accusations. Admins (like Tony) deleteing, restoring, making wild accusations. We want less of that and more thoughtful editing from everyone. We are all going to be here for years, decades probably. There is no rush.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I want to thank you for helping me stop Quadell's power grab. That son of a bitch belongs in jail, not as a bureaucrat! Crimes against nature should always immediately disqualify all nominees for Bureaucratiship.

Re: Revision Help

The user Tod help me at the earlier revision. However I can need help soon since there is a lot of text that should be translated. I updated the English article of Mensalão scandal until November 16. The Brazilian version is covering January 2006 (the other guys broke the pages in another subpages, since the article got huge). There are other updates too. I will try to put something in my draft space soon. Look at the section: "The following section needs revision".

That article is incredible. A lot of people of Wikipedia pt is very excited about it. Thank you very much. Be in contact. --Carlosar 21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision Help -2

I dont know if you have enough time or are too busy. Anyway, if you can would you please do a revision in the following article: n:Interview with Brazilian blogger Ricardo Serran Lobo?

Thank you very much anyway. --Carlosar 13:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Occurred to me that I should note that I worked on this article shortly after this message was posted, just didn't want it to look like I had ignored it.
MSTCrow 01:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The undeletion vote on Template:User No Marxism

Hi! I see you have been using this template on your user page. In case you haven't voted yet, make sure you don't miss the vote on the issue, whether to undo its deletion or not Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#User_No_Marxism. Constanz - Talk 14:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the note. This user:Gamaliel fellow is really after me big time now - Chip Berlet, the far left pundit whose article I edited, seems to be one of his sacred cows. The only thing I did was change the Chip Berlet article to be more factual. The old version had a slick wording that made it sound like he was some vaunted legal expert and scholar. In fact he's only a college dropout just like Michael Moore. So I changed the article to make it clear he is NOT a lawyer and all hell breaks lose. First a couple liberal editors show up and start trying to undo it all even though it is true. Then Chip Berlet himself - he posts as user:Cberlet shows up and starts trying to remove anything critical of him AND insulting me personally for adding it (Isn't people editing their own article forbidden on wikipedia!!)! Then one of the leftists deletes the entire paragraph I added, which contained nothing more than quotes of Berlet in his own words calling everybody who is not a liberal a fascist. I put it back and remarked that negative facts about Berlet were being censored, and Gamaliel reacts by threatening to ban me for it! I point out that he's letting all sorts of venom and insults slip from the liberals, and he ignores that and threatens to ban me again! The hypocrisy is palpable! How the hell did such a hot tempered left wing partisan ever get sys-op rights around here? -- Col. S

Where did Berlet edit his own article? According to the article history, the most recent edit he did was January 2nd, 2006, regarding a problem with Eyes and Eye's.
MSTCrow 05:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out my talk page, and the bizarre User:Gamaliel/todo list. Morton devonshire 10:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that Gamaliel has quite a lot of time and discplineon his hands... Does Col. S know he's on his enemies list?
MSTCrow 22:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A friend in need is a friend indeed

You should consider chiming-in on the challenge to said admin at AN complaint. Said person has now changed tactics, and is also accusing the Colonel of being a sockpuppet on the same page as the complaint. All is not lost, unless good men do nothing. Cheers. Morton devonshire 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a comment to the thread.
MSTCrow 01:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

ping

Please see my reply. --Gmaxwell 02:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC) And some more. --Gmaxwell 03:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC) And some more. --Gmaxwell 03:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Templates aren't a replacement for discussion

Templates aren't a replacement for discussion [2]. I'm still interested in discussing the changes to the page, but if you're just going to revert without comment you'll only find yourself reverted again. --Gmaxwell 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism in progress alert

Hello MSTCrow. Note that your vandalism in progress alert against Gmaxwell has been moved to the Administrator's noticeboard; if you would like to comment, please see "Gmaxwell vandalism". // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm here because I saw the the above post at the AN/I. I don't know all the details of what is going on here but i want to say, at this point that "If some of these userboxes are defaced or vandalized, be aware that the Wikipedia Nazis have decreed that any individual sentiments are to be rooted out and extinguished, stamped on, and burned. For these thugs, Wikipedia is everything, the Wikipedians are nothing." makes you look really bad. I strongly urge you to remove the warning.
I've made a comment on Gmaxwell's talk page that it is better to talk than try to force. Hopefully this can be settled without revert wars. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Room for Compromise?

Hi. I've made some updates to your user page, and just want to say upfront that I'm not here to "pile on." In fact, what I did was keep GMaxwell's format and add most of your user boxes back in. If there is a place to express your opinions, it is, indeed, on your user page. Just don't let them define you. You're more than a collection of boxes, and if you feel strongly about the sentiments they express, I'd encourage you to write about it on your User Page instead of leaving things up to a box.

Please note, I didn't place your subst'd boxes in the current page because it's a quite a bit of code to wade through, and if (as I suspect) many of them were deleted from Template space, I wouldn't feel right in adding them, myself. GMaxwell's actions were brusqe, but they were for the betterment of the encyclopedia. I hope you're able to resolve things with him, and I hope you take my actions in the helpful spirit in which they're intended. I will make no further edits to your user page. InkSplotch(talk) 17:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I find your proposed changes fairly agreeable. It was never my desire to use force against MSTCrow. I am honestly regretful of the nuisance of my request. It is my hope that we can find common ground as people who care deeply for this project and everyone who participates and find a solution which benefits everyone. Thank you for your thoughts. --Gmaxwell 17:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing you could do w.r.t. the substituted boxes is to simply state your opinions on your userpage. Something like "I don't use drugs myself but feel that making them illegal is daft" is better than putting two userboxes on the page because you can actually say more about your own beliefs than any userbox ever could. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of us are more visual than textual.
MSTCrow 21:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Like me for example! However userboxes are also textual. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Would you mind toning down the number of userboxes? There doesn't seem to be much of a point to most of them. --Cyde Weys 22:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I like them.
MSTCrow 01:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
After all, it is MST's page, ya know, and therefore none of your business. Give it a Wiki-rest and Wiki-focus your Wiki-energy on more Wiki-productive Wiki-pursuits. Morton devonshire 20:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No, thats part of the point. It's *not* MST's page. It's the project's page, provided to help MST communicate with other editors and readers about his work on the project. If MST wants a page there are lots of sites that offer that service. --Gmaxwell 21:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that MSTCrow has asked you to stop editing his user page, and that you continue. That's bad form, now matter how you might try to justify it. User pages are user pages, as in, about the user. You are not User:MSTCrow. Of course, you may think that you are actually User:MSTCrow, in which case we have another problem. Morton devonshire 01:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's far more about MSTCrow now than it ever was before. MSTCrow didn't want to discuss any changes, so they were made without his input. ... speaking of userpages, wow.. yours is laden with copyrighted images... which is clearly against our policies. Please go fix that. --Gmaxwell 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Gmaxwell, are you an agent of Encarta or Brittanica, seeking to harass Wikipedia editors to the point they quit, and so the project dies?
MSTCrow 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You got it. Thats my evil plan. --Gmaxwell 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You're a smug, disruptive asshole. I can't believe you're monitoring my talk and userpage so closely as to be replying 10 minutes after I do.
MSTCrow 06:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually my pager goes off whenver you edit the wiki, anything to get me that Brittanica check. not really, checkout the watchlist link at the top of your screen.--Gmaxwell 19:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
See, stop being a dick, gmaxwell.MSTCrow 01:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --InShaneee 00:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. If MSTCrow has made personal attacks deserving of a 24-hour block, link to them, please. [[User:The Epopt|➥th
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/s/t/User_talk%7EMSTCrow_Archive_1_d0f9.html"