User talk:Vary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archive - Through July 31, 2006

Contents

[edit] Apologies

Sorry for being so naughty I won't do it again. Love Bill Clinton xxxxx

[edit] Trigonometry

I notice that your recent edit to Trigonometry removed a lot of information from the History section, and also removed the rather nice Table of Trigonometry image. I was wondering why you removed so much information ? In my experience, large scale mods like this are usually discussed on the article's talk page first. Also, marking such a large scale change as "minor" with the comment rm linkspam is rather misleading, don't you agree ? Gandalf61 09:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the longer I look at this, the more I think that the edit you made was maybe not the edit you intended to make - did you somehow overwrite the page with an old version by mistake ? Gandalf61 10:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elephants

My comments on elephants are, indeed, factual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nationalsocietyoffact (talk • contribs).

The above comments were from a Colbert vandal. --Yamla 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

Ok, I'll do it. The attacks are actually sometimes funny, but as it keeps going and going, it's becoming more annoying. I'm getting to the point where I'm afraid I might say somehting I shouldn't if it keeps up . . . · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, my posting at WP:AN/I started out as a two paragraph description with diffs, but has grown since because of the subsequent edits by the anons and my desire to get someone to notice my posting (I know, it's probably just discouraging admins from reading it the longer it gets, but it wasn't being dealt with in its short form, either). This is the third time I've been completely ignored in a request at AN/I, so I can't say that I'm entirely surprised. Do you have any ideas? I suppose we could start a user conduct Rfc might, though I wish we didn't have to do that considering that the personal attacks, incivility, and ignoring of consensus here are such obvious violations of policy. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hoorah for cooldowns! I imagine we'll hear it now on talk (hmm, as if we weren't already). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, did Scribner e-mail you? · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 00:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just sent you one. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 00:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Vary, FYI, Gail Carson, the Mayor's assistant, is going to take a look at the talk page. I mentioned the letterhead idea, or a mention on he city website...we'll see.--Scribner 15:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I normally wouldn't care about this sort of thing, but now s/he's threatening to contact the Bar Association about me. That's not cool at all, especially given how active Saks has been in the past regarding calling people in government. I'm taking my leave completely from the discussion at Memphis, I've asked for a permanent block on Reneec at PAIN. Sorry, I can't let this jeopardize my career. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I posted a quick, frightened request at WP:PAIN. It's just such a crazy thing to see that I'm all flustered. If you think it should go to AN/I, feel free to move it there. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That might be wise for now. Thank you. I'm sure i'll be more comfortable re-adding it later. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Vary. Forgive my paranoia, but even crazy allegations relating to a person's character can be enough to trigger an in-depth hearing when you're wanting to become a member of the bar. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this: Official songs of memphis. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction Vary, on Official Songs of memphis page. Typing is not my strength.Boodro 19:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding jersyko's comments and the implied threats by Reneec, I checked out the comments and did not see any personal threats. I did see that Rennec stated that he/she should check jersyko's verififcation of being a lawyer with the Bar. How is this any different than verifying that Mr. Saks has written songs that are Official aongs of memphis? It is pathetic that the discussion regarding verification of offical songs of memphis reached such a low level. It is sad that Mr. jerzyko has become paranoid (as stated above) by perceived allegations and threats by reneec but I did not see any threat. For jerzyko not to contribute to this article and for reneec to be blocked

due to perceived allegations against jezyko is even sadder. Where is the arbitration?--Boodro 01:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments regarding jersyko and reneec on my talk page were most appreciated. It appears that a User page is also a part of Wikipedia and can be edited. For this reason, it is my opinion that any statements made on these pages are open for discussion and verification as well.--Boodro 03:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Vary, your points are well taken regarding personal attacks regarding User pages.--Boodro 03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Nice strategy: blame the victim and gang up on him. I'll have you know that being cornered isn't fun. Cut it out. Hasbro 03:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It has only appeared that those opponents of mine have their minds clouded by either stereotype or a possible agenda. I will not cater to the demands of ignorant editors and do as they ask, if they choose to ignore the issues before them and are readily accessible. It is a waste of my time to teach other editors what American curriculums should be having for elementary-level students and fails to. It is sad that these issues are not tackled by the educational systems and that one might have to resort to "original research" in order to find things that the common schmuck has no idea about because his life is filled with television and pop culture. I am an academic and will not suffer those who refuse to see for themselves the issues before them and opt a crabwalk strategy to handle content disputes. I do not edit Wikipedia with encyclopedias on my lap. These things have become common knowledge to me as an accumulation of knowledge by surfing around and thumbing through books. That is the usual form of assimilating facts and transmitting them elsewhere. If you don't want to understand where I am coming from in this issue, then chances are nothing will sate your feigned interest as displayed to me. Your collective ganging up on me is to reinforce communal ignorance in favour of deeming me the oddball outsider. Perhaps I will stay the elephant in the room, just because I refuse to do it your way. Hell, I know you can't object to better language in the text and that's all I would essentially push for. How come you let specific language be barred, when readers would get the general point? You've argued against common known facts about the Calverts, Ireland and Maryland with no citations to support said arguments. All I did was retransmit to you what is found on cited websites already on the Wiki. You lot are sticks in the mud either because of boredom or territorial testosterone. Either way, I tire from psychoanalysing your motives behind even denying common facts about the subject, In any case, the issue is that you lack Transcendentalist training. My only error was perhaps not seeing how my interpretation of the data would affect those with no similar fundamental transcendentalist understanding behind the matter of the Irish Catholic qualities discussed. Hasbro 03:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My concession: The Calverts' Avalon in Newfoundland was an Arthurian name and thus, I recognise the British nature of Maryland. How unfortunate that it took this long of you guys not having suffificient arguments against my position, that I ended up disproving your strawman of my position. Incidentally, I never stated that there was no dominantly British element to the colonial enterprise. I merely stated the Irish nature--whichever existed--thereof. There are too many who simply do not know the background story. Fairfax, Virginia was founded by a lord of Scottish origins, just as Alexander Spotswood and Alexander Hamilton as well as James Monroe were Scottish. Where is it commonly taken into account, as opposed to going on and on about the Anglo-Saxon qualities of the British Empire? I never stated that Lords Baltimore were integrated into the Irish population, nor is it true that they were considered loyal English by a lot of Protestants. They lived in limbo because of the choices they made and their circumstances were not completely inordinary. Things like this had happened before. What is the objection to characterising the Calverts as Anglo-Irish lords? Read the Anglo-Irish article and see for yourself, except the article fails to mention Catholic lords of English origin. That is because the Calverts were the only ones to have ever existed in the history of Ireland. The special case should be mentioned, simply because it is not widely known. What may be minor details do not mean invalid details. Hasbro 21:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You still fail to understand the POV dispute. Hasbro 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I already called it as mootness when discussing on the talk page. I think you think you know more than me and this condescending approach will not work. I disagree and nothing you say or do will change that. Hasbro 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My fundamental disagreement is that there is a POV dispute on the subject matter and how it ought to be "officially" interpreted or displayed for readers in the editing. I have already witnessed that using different adjectives and rewriting the article to be more palatable has worked, which has convinced me that it is a POV problem and not essentially about citation. There is nothing you can write to me that will change my mind, because I have the personal experience of it being otherwise. Your argument is a naive red herring. Hasbro 18:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

POV disputes are also official Wikipedia policy. It appears that you are more concerned with my conduct than how the content should be presented through editing. Perhaps you should step back and forget about it. You still don't understand. I hardly think you are well versed enough in British and/or American history to judge. After all, you avoid discussion of the specific matters in the data and only talk about policy. That tells me you are not paying attention to the article and what it's about. Hasbro 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Obsessed, are we? Now you're stalking my edits where nobody else has made any fuss. It looks like this is personal and you're making ad hominem pursuit of the issue. All that was added had been referenced from other articles that have no content disputes, cited and everything. What is the difference between linking to those articles to present more background on the article, than just taking some data from the other articles and putting it there?

You are pedantically splitting hairs; you can't see the forest for the trees. Have you gone to high school? They teach concepts such as association. Try to learn it! Hasbro 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Wikistalking isn't comfortable. You've failed to understand the inherent content issue and what actually set the other editors off. They were upset with the way I presented the editing, the perception that was put in the article. I made NPOV violations, which have nothing to do with citations. John Kenney explained to me that the Irish and Catholic natures of the issue were unrelated, so I thought about the concept of "false friends". The association I made was wrong, just as your perception that a citation is related to a POV dispute. Please, just back off with your accusations. You're the one after me, so if there is anything related to personal attacks...it's you. Get a hold of yourself. You're acting hysterical. I alread told one of the others I had attacked that I was sorry and we haven't spoken since. You are the only one engaging in personal attacks. Cease and desist from your mischaracterisation of my actions and a barrage of legalistic attacks. You're overbearing and harrassing. Hasbro 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have you note that with the first complaint I made on this talk page, you casually dismissed and continued. Here's a clue: it's the first sentence written at the top of this "Personal Attacks" section. If you give me any more abuse, I will file a complaint. Hasbro 19:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's none of your damned business anyways! Hasbro 19:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th Kingdom character articles

Below a message I sent to various users who contributed to the debate. If you could lend me a hand with this job as soon as some votes turn around, I'd very much appreciate it. Both Vary and I seem to think that if the articles are radically shortened and put in a list of 10th Kingdom characters (per WP:FICT for lesser important characters), there'd be no need for deletion. I'd even be willing to do the grunt work. Would you please return to the deletion debate and consider changing your vote to a shorten, merge and redirect into a list? - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rm trolling

Thanks, that was my next edit, but you got there first. LOL. Antandrus (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

'salright, 'preciate it. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kross

Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 06:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bear

Your reverted to a version saying bears a Pink :D--Konstable 11:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, never mind then.--Konstable 11:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

You sir are a fartknocker! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.99.245 (talk • contribs) 19:09, September 8, 2006.

[edit] Wikipedia:No angry mastodons

May I ask you to revisit the redirects for deletions page and reconsider your opinion? I am the essay's creator and principal contributor and I support the deletion: a consensus of editors at Wikipedia talk:No angry mastodons prefers WP:MASTODONS and WP:MASTODON, both of which convey more of the spirit of the page. Thank you for contributing to the discussion. Durova 23:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrannosaurus revert

Good catch on reverting the vandalism, but please don't mark reverts as minor. Thx. Mdotley 17:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know that. Mdotley 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln Christian College

19:06, 8 September 2006 Vary (talk • contribs) deleted Lincoln Christian College (Hoax - a school for pirates and ninjas)

[edit] Saint Patrick

You commented on the article a while back that there was no reason why it shouldn't be a GA. I agree. I'll be working on a rewrite at User:Angusmclellan/Saint Patrick, which should be well under way over this weekend. If you have any comments, please let me know ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MAYBE

Maybe you could inform others to not spread libel as a corollary of WP:POINT, because people like you who let them get away with it is even more infuriating than them doing it under criticism and insults. But, go on and tell people (the concerned ones) how they ought to be doing things. Don't be righteous, just revel in double standards. Hasbro 13:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Report

User:206.235.249.52 has committed yet another act of vandalism after you and several other users warned him. His most recent act of vandalism involved the article on Floride Calhoun, which I have since reverted. --TommyBoy 03:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the userpage revert

Cheers, Pete.Hurd 20:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michellejbuckley

I'm not sure if she's trying to make a user page or not, but I she keep removing the db-bio template on Michellejbuckley. Could you warn her User:Michellejbuckley on her talk page. (I would, but I don't want to overstep my bounds...) O.o -WarthogDemon 04:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope I handled that fine. I wasn't sure whether or not to "userfy" the page, so I opted to just keep the tag on rather than risk creating meaningless userpages.
It's perfectly acceptable to move a vanity bio to a userpage, per WP:USERFY#What_can_be_userfied. I do it regularly, when the subject's name is the same as the editor's username or when the article refers to the subject as "I". I find that vanity articles that are userfied aren't re-created as freqently as articles that are simply speedily deleted. While the editor probably didn't intend to make a userpage instead of a vanity article, saying 'you must have done this by mistake' gives the new editor a slightly nicer welcome than "I've deleted your bio, now don't do it again!"
Where did you get the idea that this was innapropriate? -- Vary | Talk 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Reality.
It's perfectly acceptable to move a vanity bio to a userpage. That would, well, wrong. Start with WP:NOT (the section about how Wikipedia is not a free webhost, then go to here, followed by here, and on to here and here, and a peek at this. For a bonus, go back and look at your move log and check the actual contributions of the pages you userfied. Notice a similar pattern?
Like I said, reality.
While the editor probably didn't intend to make a userpage instead of a vanity article, saying 'you must have done this by mistake' gives the new editor a slightly nicer welcome than "I've deleted your bio, now don't do it again!" Reality check: doesn't work. The vast majority of never do anything more, except very occasionally to try to readd themselves to mainspace.
If you want to mistake Wikipedia for MySpace, it doesn't mean the rest of us are required to. Nipping this preemptively is, as far as I'm concerned, far better than cleaning up months later. --Calton | Talk 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manukau Harbour

Hi. As far as I can see, the copyvio is ONE general sentence. I have rewritten that one, and put the rest back in. MadMaxDog 05:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defender of the Wiki

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I award Vary this barnstar for her patient and careful work in removing copyright violations from Wikipedia. Haukur 20:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box

Just a heads-up, the correct location of my Wdefcon is {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Hexagon1/}}. Cheers! +Hexagon1 (t) 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] François Boyer

I understand adding {{unsourced}}, but I'm not understanding anything else about your edit. Any hints? --Geniac 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Burkem

I'd welcome your thoughts on User_talk:Burkem#Undoing_the_damage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks re Jefferson article

Thanks for backing me up on the Thomas Jefferson article, and so quickly as well, both today and yesterday, against the editor pushing the Jefferson-as-christian PoV. Hu 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

and yet you are so wrong.63.152.9.217 02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morris R. Jeppson

Thanks for your support in terms of the article on Morris R. Jeppson. I don't know if your aware, but that is my grandfather. There has never been much information out there about him, so I wrote the article on Wikipedia to let people know a bit more then just the fact he participated in the mission. In a way, now I'm regretting writing the article since someone is taking pot shots at him. Anyway, if you'd keep an eye on it I would really apperciate it. Davidpdx 08:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Just to let you know, I'm going to revert the article back to the version before this person started tinkering with it. I think using the word "conversion" also makes it look like he stoled them. Davidpdx 08:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a response to Oregonic's last message on the talk page. I'm not sure how much I should revert the article given the fact I'm the origonal author. He's making an issue of the fact that this is my grandfather. Anyway, please let me know if there is anything you think I should do. Thanks! Davidpdx 10:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Sorry for being so naughty I won't do it again. Love Bill Clinton xxxxx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr rotten (talk • contribs) 16:14, December 1, 2006.

[edit] Revert to my edit to "George Washington"

Excuse me, but I saw the video for all it was: a historical documentary. I was merely restating the stuff and you know I don't appreciate you thinking of it as "vandalism". Parrotman 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: cocks lolol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parrotman (talk • contribs) 03:41, December 2, 2006. the edit in question.

[edit] Hey

It wasn't a pointless article, it was misjudged. Inform yourself better before you make such assumptions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adonaiii (talk • contribs) 20:28, December 2, 2006.

[edit] Amending things

Further to your last message, I'm happy to give it a go. One thing I can't figure out is how to credit sources. I follow what I've read about how to do it but all that ever comes up is just that [1] symbol and no credited source. Could you direct me somewhere where it will all become crystal clear please? RJNeb2 11:28 5 December 2006 (GMT)


[edit] The Shiny Diamonds

Hi Vary, I don't know why you would want to delete my band's wiki page. Did we do something rude to you? Do you think that we are not notable? I don't really understand. Please elaborate on your ridiculous decision. your friend, -Tim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timthemute (talk • contribs) 00:45, December 6, 2006.

[edit] Danke

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism of my userpage. Quite the momentous occasion; I'd never been called a cunt before. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/r/User_talk%7EVary_f3a1.html"