User talk:Teddythetank/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

[edit] simcity

It was also built without the expantion pack, which means my traffic planning is pants and i'm not getting additional revenue from road tolls. I've got an airport on one of my newer cities.... I've never quite been won over by it, the police chopper stays over one corner 100% of the time which is no fun. --BesigedB ^(talk) 16:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to the police chopper that hovers over the corner of either an airport, the University, country club, et cetera, I haven't quite figured that out. I know the advisor screams at you ("This locale is swarming with criminal activity. Build a police station now!"), and despite building a police station right next to it, the chopper doesn't cease. Oh well, it's a fun game. --Ted 01:43, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism art?

Couldn't the vandals be more creative with their vandalism art? --Ted 06:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Be more specific. I, myself, am a former vandal of the Bush article. I think I pushed the administrators to their limits enough, so I quit. My style was to replace Bush picture with Jar Jar Binks or Palpatine from Star Wars. I, along with a few of my collegues, held the administrators up for three days straight. At one point, we were even able to make around 50 edits in 45 minutes. Yeah, I would say we kept them on their toes. Using sock puppetts, we were able to continuously vandalise. To my happiness, I forced them to reconsider and change their policy, which was my goal from the beginning. The situation was, and I blatantly told them of this, that: they either block the page, thus preventing the wikipedia "anyone can edit" policy, or not protect the page, and allow us to continue our vandal streak. They were stuck between a rock and a hard place, so to speak. In the end, I won of course, despite my constant warnings to the administrators. Actually, I won on both sides for a while. Not only did they protect the page, they changed, and heavily discussed their policy for several days. I was still allowed, or got away with vandalizing for quite a while, until I faced a year-long ban. I had my fun while it lasted, and got to play around with the higher powers for a while, all while playing it safe. I kept a couple of accounts, one for serious edits, and others for vandalism. In the end, through multiple discussions with the administrators, I was able to keep my serious account, and they caught on to my ideas. You want to talk about vandal art? That was vandal art in its highest degree. Adamwankenobi 02:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well I was looking for vandalism that was witty and crafty with the usage of humor. That sort of pastime would require a lot of free time on someone's part. --Ted 23:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

G'day, Ted,

I must confess to some confusion as to your reversion of my attempt at dealing with a rather silly addition to the indentured servant stream. You admit, nay, proudly boast to vandalising articles you do not like, yet display a typically Seppo lack of humor at others. My point was simply that the paragraph about very well paid(cf: qld health web site) doctors has absolutely no place in an article about 19th century employment practices. If you are such a pedant, why didn't you remove the entire ridiculous stream?

Regards, DylanThomas.

Hmm, I suppose I overlooked the "rather silly addition" that you are talking about. I am not a pedant, but the article was on my watch page. I couldn't help to notice that somebody posted an edit to that article, and I found that you added a witty comment about so-called "indentured servants" earning $100,000 annually. I actually laughed at that. At the same time, being such a Pedant (with a capital P), I know that Wikipedia is supposed to be (in theory), a open-knowledge, Non-Point-Of-View depository of information.

You claim that I "boast" to vandalizing articles that I do not like. As far as I know, I haven't vandalized any articles on Wikipedia. I thought about putting some time into making some humorous witty edits to some controversial articles, but I would know that those edits would be reversed quickly, and would seem to be counter-productive in the end.

To be honest, I did not notice the addition you were talking about in respect to well-paid doctors being out of place in the Indentured Servitude article. But thank you for pointing it out. I shall remove the entire ridiculous stream, because my common sense tells me that it has no place in that article. Further, I shall find out who made that ridiculous addition and chastise them for doing that, just like what I did to Gene Mosher for his suggestion that the French Fry Girl was invited to incriminate against herself for possessing drugs.

But anywho, it was nice reading your post to my talk page. I speak American English and you almost lost me with some of those words (e.g. pedant, Seppo). I still haven't figured out what Seppo means. Oh well. (Ted 16:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC))

G'Day Ted,

Thank you for your balanced and restrained reaction to my rush-of-blood-to-the-head. The removal of the offending paragraph was top of my list, not because of parochialism- I am a Queenslander, (and I know our health system is stuffed), but because I find Wikipedia an unerringly useful source of facts. I am new to editing the content, and assumed you were the author of the offending text. Rather than delete, my first reaction is a rather Australian retreat into sarcasm. Sorry again, but I have learned something about the machinations of the beast. Maybe I can continue to contribute. For the sake of clarity, pedant & it's derivatives are in common use in Australia, & you have obviously got a handle on it. Seppo has it's roots in cockney rhyming slang, which we picked up on and bastardised big time. Seppo, as in septic tank, as in yank! I know it's tenuous, but I rather suspect that is part of the charm. Anyway, it has a certain frission with your handle, no?

Regards, Dylan.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:ALHS_DSM3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ALHS_DSM3.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. -- Carnildo 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maculinist Comments

Appreciate your questioning the origins of my original entry. I really hadn't finished, but you did help me look at what I had written more thoroughly from the reader's perspective. I have inserted references, further clarifications, and much new data where it seemed appropriate. I suggest you reexamine BOTH of my entries - I have added another addressing feminism's pay inequality assertins much lower on the page. You may also find knowing something about my background helpful. I'm not pleased with the latter, but it does tell you something were my analyses come from.

Finally, I ask you to remove the disclaimer you inserted at the top of the masulinism page. Thanks for your interest and contributions... and I do meant it. --DougBaker 00:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As posted on User talk:DougBaker (apparently directed at me for my Noncompliance tagging of the Masculism article)

    Herostratus: Why do you have the warning about non-compliance with your standards on the masculinist's
    (I submit that is a better choice for a label, derived from mansculine), but not on the feminist's (which
    is derived from feminine) page. I have been studying feminism in depth for several years now, and can
    assure you that there is absolutely no gender-balanced scientific or holistic empirical evidence to support
    any of the movement's positions; they are all, at best, one-sided partial truths. From the first paragraph
    of that the article on feminism onward, I can point to repeated factual falsehoods and distortions of
    history and modern reality.

    For example, modern feminism is not continguous with the Women's Sufferage Movement. Nor did it flow from
    Prohibtion, which modern feminists fail to mention was also primarily a female-activist-driven campaign
    that lead to unfortunate consequences and failure. There was a 30-40 year gap in which any such widely
    popular movements did not exist, and so claiming only creates the illusion of historic legitimacy that
    simply did not exist. The entry is also dominated by content that is inherently prejudiced against males
    and biased in favor of females. Filling a document with lots of citations from other "experts" who share
    the same prejudices and biases represents nothing more than one group's consensus speculations and
    assumptions. Does popular opinion, whether that of a powerful group of academics or the public-at-large,
    equate to the same thing as scientific facts? Do such interpretations of reality define philosophic truth?

    It is request that the warning be removed - or at least exempt both of my entries in some equally obvious
    way. What I have written has citations where I feel they are truly warranted, and the rest simply draws
    upon commnon knowledge available within any of the specialized fields I call upon. And I challange you to
    point out any instances of one-sided commentary or analysis. Both of my entries do nothing but describe
    how the sexes are inherently equal in every underlying fundamental respect
    (i.e. basic characteristics/attributes) - as well as share different but still similar and off-setting
    qualities and traits.

    Another alternative - assuming you don't believe my additions are either fully objective and credible -
    would of course be to put exactly the same warning at the top all of the feminist based entries, as well
    as masculinist related topics. While I believe most of the content I have read in the masculinist's piece
    are reasonably accurate, it is written from a male's perspective and there is a subtle "emotional" tone
    that seems to come through in most of the entries. On the other hand, the feminist entry is loaded with
    the "realitistic" intellectual manipulations now common in academic writing; tactics designed to givethe
    impression of objectivity while "soft-selling" one's personal point-of-view. The best brief example I can
    think of is the common use of qualifiers like "some, many, and most" when the author wants to take a
    position and pursuade, but does not have actual data to support their argument, and s/he wants to minimize
    criticism.

    Please advise. Feel free to email me if more convenient.

    Regards, Doug Baker

Doug,

I glanced at your recent revisions and they seem satisfactory. It is in my interest to see that the article, to some extent, be expanded to represent all points of view (and not be loaded with biased academic opinion, an interesting point that you brought up). I removed the {{Noncompliance}} tag from the article page, and posted other tags on the talk page, as there are some bugs that ought to be discussed and cleared out (i.e. that "misogynist" comment in the first paragraph). As for citing sources, it is important that editors should avoid weasel words, unless they can actually provide hyperlinks or references to web-sites/publications that support those views that are held by some social group.

Anywho, thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I assure you I was acting in good faith when I disagreed with some of the assertions made on the article (i.e. I was NOT attacking you or your contributions specifically).

Signed --Ted 06:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MARTA

Thank you for reviewing my edits to the Atlanta article, specifically the Transportation section. You helped clarify the differences on the two reports that I cited, but you removed the mention of Lewis Black's opinion on MARTA. The opening track on his album, End of the Universe (which was recorded in front of a live audience in Atlanta), he talked about the traffic problems in Atlanta. His "crude" comments, although insightful, are notable (IMHO) and ought to be mentioned in the article about MARTA. Hence, I restored this piece on the article about MARTA (not directly on the Atlanta article). I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this, and to provide you with an opportunity to form consensus, or to refute. --Ted 01:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ted.

Thanks for your note. The truth is that I want to think more, and inform myself more, before giving you a proper reply. Still, I want to let you know that I've read your note and that I intend to send you further thoughts on the matter. That may be tomorrow or later this week. If, in the mean time, you restore your bit about about Black, I'm not necessarily going to cut it out again; as I said, I want to consider your argument. Anyway, no guarantees yet, either way, about what I'll conclude—and, obviously, my conclusion isn't the only one that matters.

Until soon. President Lethe 04:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know when you have given it further thought. --Ted 16:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Veishea2006.jpg listed for deletion

I'll see if I can get a better picture and I'll repost it on the Commons. --Ted 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About AntiWikipedia

It puzzles me the reason of your bias against AntiWikipedia. You've obviously made a personal matter to include comments into the page about to be deleted. Including even the error message displayed at their own site. Even though is not of my business, I would like to get some insight into your beliefs and attitude towards AntiWikipedia since I happen to agree with their mission.BrandNew21 12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Shoot, you caught me in the act. I suppose I made a POV edit to a POV edit. My personal matter in regards to beliefs and attitude towards Antiwikipedia, if any, is that the interface is sloppy. To prove my point, that page is extremely sloppy. Whoever designed the layout of that page could have incorporated some page breakers, as opposed to using three or five hyphens to separate the different versions of a page.

Interesting to note that you linked my IP address to my userpage on Wikipedia. You are holding me accountable for creating the "Poop" article. Not exactly the opposite of Wikipedia, now is it? Or are you suggesting that there is absolutely no accountability on Wikipedia? --Ted 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)