User talk:Ck lostsword/Archive/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

| These pages have been vandalised 7 times | Edits: 3900 | [ edit ]


	Archive 1 Automated messages		Archive 2 27 December 2005 - 9 May 2006		Archive 3 9 May 2006 - 30 December 2006

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

With the exception of automated messages, comments from 27 December 2005 - 9 May 2006 are archived here.

1 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
2 Correspondence
3 Thank you!
4 Complaints
5 User:Gordonamisano
6 Skyview reponse to IP
7 Happy Birthday
8 Happy Birthday!

Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!

[edit] The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I don't know if the new series were broadcast on BBC Radio 7, their digital station - the 5.1 episodes were available as streaming webcasts though, for one week after each BBC Radio 4 stereo broadcast. And as posted, the 5.1 mixes will be available once the DVD-A discs are out. --JohnDBuell 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correspondence

[edit] With Kareeser

Your comment in the AOEIII discussion page was nice. I also saw your attempts at editing the IE userbox, so I helped you out a little.

Feel free to change it back if you don't want it! Kareeser|^Talk! 22:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I'm glad you like the change... and yes, I was talking about you in my userpage. Thanks! Kareeser|^Talk! 18:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've edited your page once again to fix the external link. Unlike internal links, you don't have to pipe them, just a space will do:
"Go to [http://www.google.ca Google!]" will render as:
"Go to Google!"
Hope I've helped! Kareeser|^Talk! 02:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've also updated the header on my talk page to include three "archive" folders. You can use them if you like. =) See here. Kareeser|^Talk! 02:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Sweet, I got mentioned on your user page. I feel honoured =) Kareeser|^Talk! 03:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, =) Besides, use of external links in Wikipedia are so infrequent anyway... =P Kareeser|^Talk! 06:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Beleaguered, eh? Now you're just coming up with excuses to have the last edits ;-) Kareeser|^Talk! 04:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bispham, Blackpool — Actually, it wasn't you who messed up, it was I. I wikified the word "transient", and double-checked, only to find out it meant "homeless person", and several other definitons except the one it was supposed to mean! I then wiktionary'd it. =) Kareeser|^Talk! 17:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh... I also found out that having "self-proclaimed wiki-newbie" in my page, although cute, made me lose a lot of clout. That, and all the exclamation marks really didn't make my page serious =P I can be light hearted... just not when dealing with commercial spammers. Kareeser|^Talk! 17:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave a note saying that I like the new header, looks good =) Kareeser|^Talk! 00:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you like my header... =P I do think it looks better with the blue and red books than with the brown filing cabinets. Also, if you look inside the archive, you'll see something different as well... Kareeser|^Talk! 15:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and I like the <small></small> fix you did... look better now =)

I really hate to admit it, but Age of Empires III has completely gotten out of hand for me. When I started making sweeping changes (like adding the HC section), only a handful of one-time editors poked changes at the page, and I wished more people would come. I suppose my wish has been answered, but now we both have more work than we can manage.

There is one thing I'm proud of though: That we managed to get the campaign summary almost completely spell-checked...

The deletion of the military units page has me worried, however. The page would not have been deleted if there were a more discrete link to it. I propose we make an infobox to place at the bottom of the page. Linking to Age of Empires, Age of Empires III Campaign, Buildings of Age of Empires III, and Military Units of Age of Empires III (if it ever gets recreated)). Kareeser|^Talk! 03:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for fixing the article. Lengthwise, we're all set for featured article status, but like the peer review said, we're sorely lacking on several other aspects. I'll support anything you decide to do, so count me in. Kareeser|^Talk! 16:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Argh!!! Your practical joke got me... >< The even sadder part is... I've fallen for it before, too. Kareeser|^Talk! 06:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] With Dougp59

I'm curious why you deleted the external link on the intelligent design site. You labeled it vandalism when all it was, was an external link to a pro-ID website. I'm new, so I'm still learning. Dougp59 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand the NPOV guidelines. But for the life of me, I'm wondering why the double standard? For instance, under ID, under External Links, there is a sub-heading of links called Non-ID perspectives. These links are all critical of ID and obviously do not ascribe to a NPOV. Under the Creationism articles External Links page, is a sub-heading for Evolution, again, certainly not a NPOV. Under the Evolution articles External links page are ZERO links to dissenting articles. ZERO!!! My attempts to add an external link to all three articles were subsequently removed? Why the double standard? I put the external link in the ID article under the ID perspective heading. I put it into the Evolution article under it's own heading 'Alternative view'. I put it in the Creationism article under external links and in all three cases, it was removed.

So the picture I get is this; The gods presiding over the evolution article make sure there is NO dissenting links or any dissent at all. Evolution is treated as a sacrosacnt piece of work immune and exempt from criticism or opposing links. Meanwhile, the keeper(s) of the ID and Creationism articles have no problems allowing external links to 'the truth' of evolution. C'mon! How is this even defensible!!!!!!

Dougp59 16:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I will post my objections at the Evolution talk page. Think I'll get anywhere? And yes, I developed evolutionsucks.org's content and design. I see what you are saying about advertising, so I'll repect that. Can I write an article about the site and not worry about someone deleting the whole thing?

Dougp59 18:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So where do things stand with adding a link to the evolution page? I just added some comments to the talk page. Very interesting thing regarding (IMHO) borders on paranoia. When I attempted to save my comments, the spam filter kicked out the evolutionsucks link that SOMEONE has else put in an earlier response to my first comment of the thread. Man oh man!

Dougp59 18:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So much for NPOV and tolerance on the evolution wikipedia article. I find that so irritating that they throw that at conservatives 'we are intolerant', then they turn around and show how intolerant they are of ANY dissenting view on their sacrosanct evolution article page. Hypocrites! Is there a higher power in Wikipedia? I am a figther. Barring that, anyway I can get the link restored on the ID and Creationism site? Thanks for your communiques

Dougp59 15:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] with Jdavidb

On Doug's page you stated that addition of a link that was opposed to a particular point of view was disallowed because it violated NPOV. That is not, strictly, correct. External links do not themselves need to follow the NPOV policy. Nevertheless, we do need to be choosy in the links we include. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Resp: no problem. You might want to let Doug know, so he doesn't feel persecuted or something. :) As I said, the real issue is we need to be choosy with links. And I mean seriously choosy. We can't have people linking to their own sites. And we can't link to sites that don't justify taking up space in the external links list. I haven't looked at those sites; I can't say where they fall. But Doug is (or would be) right that it would be a double standard if Wikipedia policy allowed links to anti-ID sites but prohibitted links to anti-evolution sites. We use links to inform about the various points of view, not to establish which one is right. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CK! If he can become a valued contributor (perhaps in another area), that'd be great. Of course, if he wants nothing other than to promote his site, he can't help us. Been fighting linkspam for what seems like forever now. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

[edit] Featured Article Medal - JohnDBuell

I just wanted to say thank you for granting me the Featured Article Medal. --JohnDBuell 18:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

Thanks for that. I don't know what people expect from spamming admins of all people's talk pages, telling them to vote keep on an AfD. It's only going to make us want to delete the article more and more! — FireFox • T • 21:13, 24 January 2006

[edit] RfA - Peruvian Llama

Okay, this is perhaps a bit overdue, but thank-you for your support in my recent RfA! I passed with a final ~~vote count~~ consensus of (82/1/0), which was a lot of support that I really appreciate. I'll try to live up to the expectations; and on that note, if there's ever something I do wrong (or don't do right), please spit in my general direction. Cheers! --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Advisory Committee - KnowledgeOfSelf

Hey Ck lostword! I wish to say thanks for your vote at the Esperanza elections.

I've made my way into the Advisory Committee, so if you ever need any help or have any queries about the stuff we do, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks again, KnowledgeOfSelf 09:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints

Please watch what you are doing when you edit another's user page. Thanks Dysprosia 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Inadvertent edit whilst fixing double redirects. Sorry. I'll be more careful in future.Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta! 22:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

hope you don't mind i thought some color would look nice

User's edit history doesn't leave much to be desired. If you actually think the edit looks nice, feel free to revert it, but otherwise, I've reverted for you. =P Kareeser|^Talk! 16:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gordonamisano

You put it on his user page by mistake. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to your welcome message. :P Kareeser|^Talk! 17:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skyview reponse to IP

Well thank you for the response. Don't get me wrong, being able to edit and contribute to wikipedia is great, but the school generally wouldn't find it appropriate to do it here at Skyview. It's in respect for the administration, because I've read the numerous vandalism complaints. Students here shouldn't abuse the school's IP, and thus teachers who know about this will frown upon students editing articles at wikipedia; in a constructive or destructive matter. The school policy is strictly against the use of emails, forums, and chat clients. In essence, I shouldn't be replying but I find it justifiable as I am doing no harm and my work is caught up. Those who don't abuse the privilege are more than welcome to, it just seems most of the edits are probably vandalism. Though it's ultimately upon the decision of those monitoring and moderating such IPs, so if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. Good day, I'll be happily on my way. And I'm signing with my actual account. Reply to my talk page :) --Hellogoodsir 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)