User talk:Tasc/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i'm temporaly ceasing my contribution to wikipedia to remonstrate against wikitrolls on wikipedia both amerocentric and wrong-doing admins

Archives: 1, 2

Contents

[edit] british l family

This article is biased, man! (British Royal Family)

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Tasc/Archive1, 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!  --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tasc 17:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] misunderstanding

[edit] PHP

Why did you remove my link to PHP.NET on the PHP site? it is a useful link, and was unobtrusive. If you have a reason for removing it, use my talk page to tell me why, and I won't put it back again.

[edit] France

Why did you vandalize the France article ? --Aquarelle 12:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

just unbelievable! have you tried to look at history page? it's worthwhile to check yourself before accusing people!--tasc 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my, I'm sorry. I don't know what came over me. I must have clicked on your name by accident. Please excuse me, it's just that there has been a lot of vandilism on that page and I get frusterated. --Aquarelle 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
it's ok. don't be frustrated, they're not worth it. cheers --tasc 20:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of World War II

Not that I'm disagreeing with your editorial call but why did you remove this paragraph from the World War II article please?:

"World War II may be one of the most complicated conflicts in history and it is therefore difficult to explain its origin. Never have so many nations gone to war in so many different ways and by so many different means. Regardless, there are a few basic causes of the war which are recognized by most authorities. Many people see the Second World War as a continuation of the first, so many of the are applicable to World War II. When reading this page, it is suggested that the reader have a basic knowledge of World War II and of dates pertaining to it. "

Coricus 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

well, first of all, I've never edit article World War II (at least I don't remember it and don't see my nick in history page). therefore, I just don't know what are you taking about. could you clarify? --tasc 15:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
O! causes of world war ii! anyway, question is why did you decide that I'd removed smth.? --tasc 15:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
How strange. It must have been a ghost in the software on my PC. You did a reversion titled (Revert to revision 38611806 using popups) and underneath all the junk that disappeared my PC had it down that the paragraph above vanished too. (Which struck me as a strange thing to do since at first glance it looked like the rest of what you'd done was simply removing vandalism). Then I thought about the paragraph my PC said was gone (so I thought you'd taken out) aand realized.... it doesn't actually say anything. So I wanted to ask if that's why you'd removed it (which you hadn't) or if there'd been some other reason (mistake, you didn't like the number of times the letter i was used in it, etc.)
glad, that it's clear now. Revisioin 38611806 is your revision, i revert to it after 3 consequent vandal changes by 204.255.30.20. At lease, history page tells so. good luck. --tasc 23:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk: Homosexuality

Oops! No, my comments were not directed toward you. Thanks for editing the indents. -Seth Mahoney 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

it's ok. you're welcome :) --tasc 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop your vendetta

I am not the owner or writer of any of the articles on http://www.hirhome.com The site is a respectable alternative media site with articles written by Gil-White who also works for http://www.tenc.net which is another very well known alternative media site. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with linking to the site according to the wikipedia guidelines for external links because it is not a blog, it is not commercial, and it is not my site. The site contains analysis with an emphasis on footnotes and factual documentation for every claim. The fact that you may disgree with the conclusions does not entitle you to delete the links. 68.162.75.62 22:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

please, both sites have alexa rating far lower than million. what you're doing is promoting those sites nothing more. --tasc 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

I did not vandalize the [Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy page], since we [Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#Why_not_put_the_pictures_on_subpage.3F agreed] on putting the image on a subpage. Raphael 62.116.76.117 22:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

well, I don't think that nice talk between two users might be considered an agreement on such special question. Anyway it's not up to anonymous poster make such step. --tasc 22:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't agree, you are welcome to join the discussion. Besides I just followed WP:IAR. Why is an anonymous poster not allowed to edit an article? I thought that wikipedia is not bureaucracy. What steps do I have to follow to make such an edit? How many people do I need for a consensus? Raphael 62.116.76.117 23:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Tasc. First of all please let me say right up front that I admire your taking the time to combat what you see as vandalism. Secondly, while the above anonymous poster has sometimes gotten a little bit ahead of himself, he is trying to discuss these issues on the relevant talk pages. As such, I don't think his attempts to change these articles can be construed as vandalism. At worst, he deserved a lower level warning. I encourage you to consider reducing your warning to a {{subst:Test1}} or at worst a {{subst:Test2}}. Thanks for your consideration. Johntex\talk 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ariel Sharon

Go to the talk page and work it out. You are both in violation of 3RR CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing godmode-light.js

Thanks a bunch for fixing the godmode-light script, those MD5 hashes on the contributions page were driving me insane! Obli (Talk)? 23:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome :) --tasc 00:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Howcome Lupin's popups are not compatable with God-mode light? The variable "vandal" always becomes "undefined" for some reason when I have popups on.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been using popups with godmode-light variation. It's compatible version, may be you're just using general one? --tasc 10:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me echo the thanks above! I don't usually use the rollback buttons on contributions page (I like to check the diffs to makes sure), but it was really annoying to see that bug. Thanks also for pointing me (and others) to the popups variation. I had trouble with the normal version. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Chan-Ho (Talk) 15:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for both the fix, and the link to that compatible godmode-light variation - the problem I mentioned still having on Sam Hocevar's page is gone using that version. - dharmabum 22:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TB, Belarusian TV

I have been watching that station for a while now, and pretty much, all I see is election coverage, pro-Luka talk and the playing of a song called "Ya Belarus" (Yes Belarus). I intend to watch TB in the next few days and find out what is going on with the elections. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you're hoping to get reliable data trough state-controlled tv? I'll tell one thing they might not do any wrong with bulletins. They're just not going to count them. one of the rumors of the internet... --tasc 20:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ceased contribution

[edit] returning sentence

Tasc, if you look at my talk page you will note the reason for removing that sentence. It is redundant as the same points is mentioned virtually word for word elsewhere in the article. Lokiloki 06:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV on arab/israeli

It is disengenous to say you don't see a NPOV discussion on the talk page... there is one quite clearly there, and it has been there for some time. I think it is inappropriate for you to assert that this article is neutral since many of us believe it is not. Lokiloki 11:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you just point me directly to that discussion. Thanks. --tasc 11:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Please look for the heading "The Article Is Not Neutral" in the talk section. Lokiloki 11:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
So this is the reason! the flaiming started by some ip! that's not a discussion, sorry. not to mention that it doesn't worth an npov tag. --tasc 11:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It "doesn't worth an npov" tag... I don't understand your English. If you mean that IP addresses cannot add comments and edit comments I think you will find that you are at odds with the majority of Wikipedians who feel that they can. Regardless, several people have added the NPOV tag. I personally support the NPOV tag, yet for the sake of civility with my fellow editors I am not currently adding it. And, in any case, in this instance, I was not so much addressing the NPOV tag itself, but your assertion that there was no "discussion" of the NPOV in the talk. Clearly you were mistaken on that point. Thanks, Lokiloki 11:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If you read that comment. It was totally baseless. If you read NPOV tag, it says :"see discussion on talk page". There is nothing!!! So, whoever adds it should at least start some discussion on talk page. I can repeat myself. This was not a discussion. At most it was just opinion exchange, very nice, but very pointless. PS i was having few hot debates at a time on different languages, sorry. --tasc 11:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added some a comment on why I think the article isn't NPOV on talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab-Israeli_conflict#Reasons_for_NPOV_tag Nloth 06:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] div

I'm not familiar with the div format, so there may be a simple way of fixing this, but the templates were being automatically hidden, with only the header bar displaying. I suppose the ability to hide them is moderately useful (is this meant to relate to a CSS setting?), but clearly, automatically hiding the template defeats the whole purpose of having it in the article. Warofdreams talk 00:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously I disagree that the table is "huge" - it's as small as it can reasonably be - or that it is "useless". Having it hidden does, I agree, make it useless, because then a user will have no idea what it contains. I'm quite interested to know which user settings control whether it is visible (as it should be, by default). There's the option to show TOCs, which could sensibly control this, but that doesn't seem to control it. Interestingly, when I log out, it becomes visible. Can you shed any light? I can't find any documentation within Wikipedia on this format, nor can I find any similarly treated tables. Do you know of any? In the meantime, I've reverted back to the standard format, pending further discussion. Warofdreams talk 23:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup rewrite

Hi. You removed the cleanup rewrite template from Arab-Israeli conflict with the edit summary "rm teplate as per talk". I don't see why you removed this anywhere on the talk page. The template is meant to help prevent edit wars. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that template will not help. I don't see how template may prevent anything but readers attention. In summary i refer to your phrase on the talk page that you don't object removal and it could be "removed easily". --tasc 07:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Didn't see your intermiary edits. Lokiloki 08:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AoC Edit

Hi. I am writing to you about the Age of consent article. You removed an image I placed and gave unclear, cryptic reasons as to why. Can you please explain why the image I uploaded was removed from the article before removing it again? Thank you. --OrbitOne 20:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel and units of measurement

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 21:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block on Age of consent

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
You have aparently check my comments and find them false? --tasc 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
i know you don't care. bad for you. --tasc 22:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked that you had made >3 reverts. If there are extenuating circumstances, please discuss them here. But there are very few such circumstances William M. Connolley 22:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, i'm going to sleep anyway, you can go and clean after vandals yourself. off: why admins doing such work? It seems that it's kinda bot's job. They don't think in a same way as you, they reply in exactly the same robot-like manner. --tasc 23:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

We had best talk about this here. The 3 Revert Rule is to prevent edit wars. It doesn't give anyone the right to make three reverts per day, but prevents anything from getting out of hand. In the case of AoC, you have made five reverts within 24 hours to protect an image. This in general is unacceptable. I see on your talk page, you have gotten a 3RR warning on another page. Take the warning to heart.

Who started any revert war is meaningless. Everyone is punished if they take part in such a war. I see you have made five reverts, so I will back down and not take part in a war, but you yourself must follow the rules on wikipedia too. --OrbitOne 22:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

aparently the application of the rule is not always perfect. Admins don't care if blocking request haven't been made. And this case is best example how provocative user such as you can use this "rule" for his own benefit. And please, don't leave your mentors comment on my talk page anymore. --tasc 22:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, these talk pages are ways for us to leave messages to each other, but I will stop after this per your request. I will just say the rules are the rules and 3RR has nothing to do with blocking requests and such requests are granted only to the most serious casses. On a more personal note, I do not see how I am provocative as a user when I only follow the rules and uploaded a picture to an article I felt would benefit from my edit. --OrbitOne 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
oh, don't be ridiculous - serious cases! go and clean all that vandalism which i see in my watchlist and cannot revert. Please, please, skip me of these "explanation". I've pointed out what you've been trying to do - on relevant talk page. PS I will be just happy if you'll NOT aswer here anymore. BYE --tasc 22:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abkhazia Article

MR TASC, YOU ARE VIOLATING BASIC WIKEPEDIA RULES. DO NOT REMOVE THE DISPUTED LABEL FROM THE ARTICLE. THE ARTICLE ABOUT ABKHAZIA IS DISPUTED DUE TO FALSE STATEMENTS, BIAS AND UN-SOURCED MATERIALS. YOU CAN NOT SIMPLY REMOVE THE DISPUTED LABEL WITHOUT FIXING OR ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM FIRST!

please, what heaven have against me today! %(
first, don't use ever on my talk page capitalized or bold text. It distresses me and I'm getting highly agressive. second, that label clearly reads talk page. There was no and still isn't any normal discussion. There is just NO problem in my opinion. If you wish to leave that tag plaese clarify some point on talk page of the artilce. NOT my talk page. I'll refer to them as soon as i can. --tasc 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits on adult databases

Hi Tasc, at first I didn't understand your edits on Adult databases, so I reverted them. Then, after you reverted my edits and gave your comment in summary, those edits made sense. You're right. Couple of those were not external links. One was and it's been approved by several other Wikipedians because it's non-commercial. I still believe that it's important to have links to such databases. It's one thing to talk about something, but even better to show people examples (in a non-commercial way, of course). I'll hunt up some good external links and add them there. Thanks for your explanation in the summary. Best, Coolmojito 14:47 20 March 2006 (PST)

i don't see how one particular database can be singled out of so many. Non-commercial? hm, but heterosexual. will you find also bdsm, homosexual (etc. etc.) ones? --tasc 22:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tasc, the external one I'd added is the most comprehensive one I've found. It includes homosexual, bdsm, etc. I'm also an editor at Dmoz in this category so have had an opportunity to review the ones out there. Btw, I don't know why it said "heterosexual" in the title. Someone else had added that.Coolmojito 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
this addition made me delete that link, it was made yesterday i guess. anyway it's hard to justify just a few links out of millions? is that true that it's only one such non-commercial site? --tasc 23:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Actually, there are non-commercial pornography sites out there. Unfortunately, most are lacking as far as being a resource goes. The other ones are too blatantly commercial and dripping with ads. There's also some interesting Web 2.0 type pornography sites and databases popping up. The good thing about them is that their users post and decide what is good content. A Wikipedia-type concept. Unfortunately, they're ad-intensive too. Coolmojito 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check your email

Please check your email. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 01:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you got the email, I take it back. I checked the IPs. --Khoikhoi 03:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Gil

The reason the Gil party was included in the 2006 Israeli election article was because it actually did receive a seat in a poll conducted several weeks ago. That poll isn't part of the ten-or-so-most-recent ones that appear on the table any longer, so it was good you removed it :) Kimpire 10:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DONT REMOVE THE TAT LINK

Its one of the most comprehensive sites rebutting the "genocide" thesis and it contains a lot of factual information. By removing it, not only are you practicing vandalism, but you are promoting censorship and contributing to making the topic totally biased! Let the reader decide what to regard and what to disregard, its not your business to take on this job!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.79.109.74 (talk • contribs). What an absolute douche bag you are! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.77.132.29 (talk • contribs).

[edit] LoR

Hi Tasc. Now I think that you're right. I claim honest thinko. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I could not get back to you earlier. My net link keeps crashing. The hrhstyles box is one of a very large series, the look of which was agreed in a long debate as a compromise design. It isn't possible to unilaterally change the design of one of the templates without changing all the designs of all the county-specific boxes for kings, queens, queen mothers, princes, popes and others and other spin-off boxes, given that they are all part of an almost identical set (the only difference is in images imbedded in the individual boxes and unique titling features required. In addition the change you made does not show up well on some browsers.

I tried to put an explanation on your page but my link went down (three times!). I'm only up and running again now. As a set we have to keep them inform, so unique design features for one and not them all is not an option. But the sheer number of boxes would make editing them all for minor tweaks an enormous labour. In addition, as I said, the change did not work on some browsers. That is why I reverted. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

ehm, israel article? seems crossed... --tasc 12:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tel Aviv partner cities table

Hello Tasc, I like your solution to this list very much. It works very parsimonious with the page space. Can you perhaps order the cities in the table in such a way that the flags are the bullets points, that is the cities would still be one under an other but without the now redundant (*) bullet points. I tried, but all the cities got scrambled. Regards, gidonb 17:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I did as I can. Looks as you wanted though. --tasc 17:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks great! Thank you very much! gidonb 20:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
you're welcome :) --tasc 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation case Israel infobox

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-20 is now open. -- Fullstop 08:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of harmonious editing and in the spirit of compromise I suggest that you allow both metric and imperial units to stay in the article (for now at least), as per the suggestion in the mediation case above. Whilst I congratulate you in attempting to discuss the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/archive40#Conversions, it would be best to attempt to continue discussion (bringing up at WP:VP if needed) to reach consensus rather than continue to remove units from articles. Petros471 19:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Looking through your recent contributions looks like you've done some good work, keep it up :) Petros471 19:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Is that supposed to mean that my previous contribution weren't so useful? (just kidding). You know, smth. i'm just getting sooo tired from wiki-bureaucracy that would prefer passive observation of how things are going to hell. --tasc 20:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it's just that I only looked at your recent ones. Go for RfA and I might look further back ;) I'm curious, what is smth? I'd rather fix something, or help others fix something than let something broke stay that way! There is always the template {{sofixit}}... Petros471 20:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I meant sometimes. --tasc 21:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hey Tasc, I'd really like thank you for taking the time to vote at my RfA. I withdrew due to certain controversies, but I appreciated your vote and hope to see you here in the future. Thanks again. --Khoikhoi 05:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] abortion

Please undo your revert on Abortion:

Cry Me a Shill is a vandal. Hidden inside a few good edits on Abortion are his vandalism, changing things like "There is controversy over a number of proposed risks and effects of abortion. Evidence, whether in support of or against such claims, might in part be influenced by the political and religious beliefs of the parties behind it."

to

"All of the effects listed in this section have no proven links to abortion. They are reviewed here because they have become well known as a result of political and religious campaigns."

and

"Nevertheless, gaps and inconsistencies remain in the research, and the subject continues to be one of political and scientific contention."

to

"The subject continues to be one of political and public contention."

and plain incorrect things like "in both the [[United Kingdom]" to "in both Britain".


Please revert back. View his contribs if you don't believe me. It's a vandal only account. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Checkuser showed them to be sockpuppets anyway. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I thought you were ceasing your contributions

Regarding your edit to Talk:Child sexuality):

if you want to believe - read bible. there is nothing to believe in science (-like) article. --tasc 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't troll, it annoys, thanks. Herostratus 04:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

oh, really, it does? well wp is not soapbox, as you should know. so, please, don't troll it annoys. --tasc 09:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So what is the deal with this edit?:

if you want to believe - read bible. there is nothing to believe in science (-like) article. --tasc 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus 12:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

so, what is your problem with this edit? --tasc 12:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If your point is that only the Bible should be used as a source for scientific articles, you have enough edits to know that is not gonna fly on Wikipedia, and continuing to post stuff like that is just nonsensical. If you were being sarcastic and saying something like We use evidence and not belief here on Wikipedia, you were being rude and unhelpful, since the person was using "believe" as a synonym for "think" and not for "have faith", and you know it. (The editor had said "I also don't believe unsourced assertion in article nor do I believe another unsourced assertion in article as this article seems to portray." and was just making an argument, not justifying an edit). Either way, no biscuit. Herostratus 17:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

this article wanted to make me puke. this passage should've be understood as I don't see some of the contribution to this article valuable. Yes? User expressed his personal opinion which hasn't been referenced with neither of appropriate sources. If he wanted to objected to some specific statements in the article he should've provided some opposite info. W/o it his comment was pure flame. --tasc 17:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amerocentrist

I will help you address issues of "Amerocentrism" if you feel there are places where this is happening. I can't see anyone wanting to keep the viewpoint of one nation after being asked to address the issue, but if you feel it's happening, let me know where and I will be happy to give an opinion or assist you in correcting any problems you feel are out there. --DanielCD 15:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would echo this. I work hard on reducing pro-US bias where I encounter it, for example in the Superpower article, and working towards a NPOV state. Please don't revert my edit on the Russia article again, unless you are willing to discuss it in talk. Thanks. Guinnog 15:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology of homosexuality

Hey, thanks for cleaning up my Russian contribution to terminology of homosexuality. I had a question about your change: My wording was that голубой is "neutral to moderately offensive" because it was my understanding that it is sometimes used as an "in" word - a gay person calling another gay person голубой would generally not be considered offensive. Is this incorrect? -Seth Mahoney 17:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

to tell the truth, it's quite rare among gays to call each other "голубой". Usualy are used either gay or some more generally offensive words (equal in usage to queer i'd say). --tasc 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting - thanks for the info! -Seth Mahoney 17:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
you're welcome :) --tasc 17:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtdirl (talk • contribs).

you're violating admin authority. --tasc 22:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Private Eye

You've switched "Daily Mail" to become "Daily Mirror". I think this is incorrect. Can you cite any examples of reason for the change? Thanks, --Oscarthecat 22:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

most probably just a mechanical mistake. sorry. --tasc 22:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I'll switch it back to the Mail. --Oscarthecat

[edit] Rollback abuse

Please note that I've reverted your changes. Although constructive edits are welcome, your recent edits are unhelpful. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, see our help pages and policies and guidelines. [1] Deuterium 10:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

please, don't talk to me on template language. do you think that it's any better than rollback use? :\ --tasc 10:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Aqsa Intifada

I've shortened the title without chaning the subject as you have requested.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Sea

What sead does the Black Sea connect to according to the maps?? The Aegean Sea. Where is your source that this is wrong?? Georgia guy 19:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

isn't aegean sea just a part of mediteranian? -- tasc talkdeeds 19:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
No truer than saying that the Mediterranean Sea is part of the Atlantic Ocean. Georgia guy 19:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
you're not right. distinction between mediterranean and atlantic much clearer that between aegean and mediterranean. -- tasc talkdeeds 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Edits - External Links

I already talked to Jpgordon about this and he said as long as I added that they were opinion/analysis articles I was free to add them. They are not my website, nor are they commercial. Please revert my edits - he said it was ok. 216.27.107.128 19:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

post reply to your talk page. -- tasc talkdeeds 19:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hi tasc (you seem to prefer lowercase, correct?). Just wanted to cheer you up and thank you for improving WP - I know that fixing all those refs is a tedious and thankless job. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

thank you. -- tasc talkdeeds 07:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmadinejad refs

I seem to have bulldozered your work on the refs; I was in the process of a major cleanup (as per talk). Sorry! It should be easier to add the Farsi refs back now, and to check which links still exist. — JEREMY 10:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detonation

I saw the edit on "Current Events" where you changed the phrase from "detonates himself" to "blew himself up"... at that point in time, someone (who was reading over my shoulder) suggested, "Why not write 'HE SPLODE!'" ... it wouldn't have hurt so much, except I was drinking a nice cold Coke at the time.
Phosphoric acid's not good on the nasal cavities. :(
Kylu t 22:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

Oops! You are right something very awkward happened in this edit. My apologies for the system problem and for reverting without checking! Regards, gidonb 09:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amerocentricity

Can you give an example? gidonb 09:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

i had a problem with imperial units vs SI for country infobox. -- tasc talkdeeds 09:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think metric should be leading with imperial in brackets. Metric is clearly the international standard. gidonb 09:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was saying that there is no better understanding of 50 thousands sq. mi vs 75 thousand sq. km - it's just nonsense. the reasons to have this figures are statistics and comparison between them. and IS units can do this job perfectly. -- tasc talkdeeds 09:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that it is a wonderful system. I think it is hard however for Americans and even for many Canadians to grasp the numbers without adding the imperial. I just looked at the country article of the US and it had kilometers leading. Kilometers are hardly used here, so the Amerocentrism should not be so bad. gidonb 09:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

i think that there is no better understanding of miles over kilometer when we are talking about thousand, and hundred of thousands (and vise versa - km over mi, btw). -- tasc talkdeeds 10:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. Very few argue that the imperial system makes more sense. It is just hard to think metric if you always use a different system. For example, when I take a kid to the doctor they take measurements in grams, but then translate it to pounds and ounces because hardly anyone has a clue about kilograms here. I ask them to give me the original measurement because it is the one I understand better. Regards, gidonb 10:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thing to do is to figure out how many Wiki users are from America or using imperial. I'm sure that info's here somewhere Jago25 98 18:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)jago25_98

so what would it give us? -- tasc talkdeeds 18:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Well if you want to get technical then for things like language it is customary to learn the version of the country where the greatest number of people live. For instance if you are learning Spanish in a non-spanish country you will customarily be taught Mexican Spanish. It is kinda different with English though since it depends on the country where it is being taught.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear Program of Iran -- Brzezinski

Hi. Could you tell me, which rules did i violate? If you looked at the article, you'll see there position of Brzezinski. And what to do if there are no other resources revealing his viewpoint? ellol 08:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

there are rules for formating reference. I worked hard to make them look decent. They are simple enough, just take a look at any other references. If there is no sources, don't make that claim. -- tasc talkdeeds 08:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. A journalist made an article about some talk made by Brzezinski. To describe it she used some quotes, and also some 'descriptions' alike Iraqi Shiites and Kurds might prevail in a civil war, Brzezinski said. or Brzezinski also called for a new U.S. nuclear dialogue with Iran. A precedent for one already existed in the Bush administration's multi-lateral talks with North Korea on nuclear proliferation, he said. "Surely it cannot be our deliberate intention to fuse Iranian nationalism with Iranian fundamentalism?" he said.
It's not a commercial source. You just need to sign.ellol 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
than perhaps, you could find source for her citation or any other appropriate opinion. I need first to sign, that to pay, etc. etc. It's a commercial mass media promotion. -- tasc talkdeeds 08:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Already found. ellol 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please discuss on talk page

Please discuss on the talk page, before you change the Good article nomination system to keep the JP article nominated. Raphael1 10:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/s/User_talk%7ETasc_Archive1_891e.html"