User talk:Cheeser1/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

You are making nice contributions. Maybe you should consider making an account, so that we get to know each other better. :) Either way, here is the rather lenghy official welcome:


Welcome!

Hello, Cheeser1/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, 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!  Oleg Alexandrov 22:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Oleg, I appreciate the welcome. I realize now that it is not apparent, but this is an account. I don't really feel comfortable posting with my real name (it's just a thing I have with the internet), and I had for some time signed a few entries as 149.43.x.x because I use a few different computers each with an IP address of this form. So I decided to just use "149.43.x.x" as my username when I signed up for real. Maybe when I am older and get into grad school or something I'll start using my real name. Thanks again for the welcome! :) 149.43.x.x 08:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Welcome also to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Its talk page serves as a meeting point for mathematicians. There is also a list of participants to sign on. Enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov 05:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] this bike is a pipe bomb

Could you go revert the page b/c Tombride has reverted it again and if I do it I will be blocked for 3RR. Tombride just violated it themself, so I need to report that. The Ungovernable Force 05:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large set (same as Small set) and related topics (N-cube, 2-large, etc)

I see you working hard on small set. This article has three parts, each with its own "see also" and references. How about spitting it into three articles, and making small set a disambiguation page? Oleg Alexandrov 23:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, I've never done any work beyond creating and editing articles so I wouldn't know how to do this, but I don't see why not. Do you know how to do this sort of thing? If so, go ahead, I can make any necessary corrections/additions to the Ramsey theory definition and its description on the disambiguation page. 149.43.x.x 0:01 17 July 2005 (UTC)
It's hardly necessary right now. It is a reasonable candidate page to get expanded into a survey of some kind. Charles Matthews 07:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, in any event, I have no objections to any sort of splitting/reorganizing of this topic, and would be happy to contribute what I can. 149.43.x.x 22:04 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Punk

  • I really think this article needs to go up for another VFD. I tried nominating it but the discussion page just links to the discussion of the previous VFD. If you know how to nominate for a second VFD then it should be done.Tombride 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Punk 2

Great changes. :) Madangry 17:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Much the Same / Christian punk

Gunner, a Christian, was the sole writer for the first full-length CD (Quitters Never Win and one of the main writers for the second. His Christianity can be seen in the lyrics for "Wish", for example:

I'll follow through with all these claims I never cease to make
A promise to myself is one I promise to break
But when I have You by my side then I can do what's right
I'll become the co-pilot and You control this flight

There's also an EP of theirs, I guess, which I haven't heard. This is an excerpt I've found from Moto, which is on that:

If I believe a savior is the only thing they need
And I hid it between the metaphors what kind of person would Ibe?
Is it that important that the crowd thinks we're the best
What is the benefit in the end?
I'm just trying to show them all that there's a better way
How can I do that if i veil what I say?
No one will ever silence me!

And from Crying Wolf, on that same EP:

So I'll say it again, for what must be the thousandth time
I know I've sinned against you and that's not another line
You're the only one who knows what's inside my feeble heart
I repent for it once again, once again a brand new start

Their latest CD isn't nearly as explicit about Christianity, but "Skeletons" has this first verse:

Get on your knees, beg for forgiveness, you broke everything and you can't fix it
But you will not admit that you're no saint, a drunk, you steal, you lie
And with a loss of grace you realize you're setting yourself up to take a fall

Let me know what you think. I'll probably add Much the Same back again soon, unless you're still opposed and want to discuss. Jpers36 02:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems borderline, I guess. It doesn't seem that noticable, and I guess (like some other bands) it would be very easy to take these lyrics as whatever you interpret them as. I mean, most of them aren't at all explicitly Christian, they could mean a number of different things. I've seen Christian imagery used by bands full of atheists, and there are plenty of times when things get mistaken for religious statements or purposely religious lyrics when they're really just lyrics. That being said, if you really think they belong in there, go ahead. Also, FYI, this should have gone on a talk page for one of the articles.149.43.x.x 19:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to be: Emo

Feel free to edit that first intro. Apparently I'm in too deep so 'outside' input would be great. Thanks. TIinPA

Thanks for the heads up, I've made a few changes too, and we ought to discuss them on Talk:How to be: Emo. -- 149.43.x.x 04:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] username

Hi, 149... ! Unfortunately, your username seems to be in violation of our username policy, which prohibits usernames that are like IP addresses, even invalid ones. If you would, please request a username change at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible. Thanks!--Kchase T 07:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of that clause of the policy when I created my account. I will be making a name change shortly. And sorry for a late response, I've been offline for a while. 149.43.x.x 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. Thanks for your cooperation.--Kchase T 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Note everyone that this has been fixed.Cheeser1 23:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Chill out indeed.

I gave a full explanation of my action in the edit summary, what more do you desire? As you said, it's a completely minor cosmetic change, nothing to be worked up over and certainly nothing worthy of a talk page topic. As for "childish quips", that was not a childish quip but rather the all too sad and accurate reality of what goes through the minds of our more puerile readership. Take a look at the history for the page Rangiku Matsumoto for instance, which is vandalized constantly by anons changing the word bosom to breasts/boobs/tits/whatever and then wikilinking it. --tjstrf talk 10:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're taking such an active stance against the terrible act of wikilinking the word breast - after all, if it's vandalism once, it's always vandalism (that is sarcasm). If you want to discuss something, discuss it next time, don't talk down to me like I don't know policy or am a vandal. I'm not interested in your opinions about the "puerile readership" of articles that you seem to have a stake in. I don't care. I want to make Wikipedia better, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain to you my side of a subjective argument in which you've already convinced yourself that your opinion is an "all too sad and accurate reality." You want to discuss overlinking and our opinions about what constitutes that, fine, I'll discuss that. You want to bemoan how inappropriate links to the word breast are, you want to complain to me about vandalism that you're insisting my edits are tantamount to, you want to presume that your opinions on wikilinking contexts are absolute law? I'll thank you to kindly just heed my graceful bow out of this argument and leave me alone. I'm not interested in arguing this any more, I never was, so you can have your article, do whatever you want with it. I'll thank you to let this whole thing go and scurry back to your corner of Wikipedia. I've already done the same. I'll do my best to avoid you and your lack of good faith, I suggest you reciprocate. Good day. Cheeser1 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no assumption of bad faith here, I did not think you were vandalizing the page. I merely happen to agree with the IP editor that wikilinking the word breast is useless. You wouldn't wikilink the word "head" or "arm" or "leg" in an article unless it was on health and anatomy, links should only be made that are relevant to context. The exact same thing is true in this case. Per WP:CONTEXT, there is no need to link words that are neither uncommon nor on related subjects. Your accusations of bad faith here are nothing but a complete overreaction.
Let's both move on to something more relevant to the actual quality of the encyclopedia rather than bickering over trivial nonsense. --tjstrf talk 10:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I already have. I've been on wikipedia long enough to know that when I disagree with someone, I might as well just tell them to do whatever they want and leave them alone. And now I'm archiving this discussion and hoping to never hear about it again. Cheeser1 16:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For archival purposes, the original post was in response to this, posted on User_talk:tjstrf:

Next time you disagree with a minor, subjective edit, I'll thank you not to give an edit summary that reads like a childish quip. And it is subjective - I don't wikilink to common words often - the word breast appears exactly once in that article, linking to it in that one instance is hardly what I would consider often. If you want to discuss something, especially something like that, I'd love to discuss it civilly with you on the talk page of the particular article. If you want to talk down to me in an edit summary, go ahead, but I certainly don't think it's very productive. Cheeser1 06:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/e/User_talk%7ECheeser1_Archive_ea11.html"