User talk:AbstractClass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leave me a new message by clicking here. Don't forget to sign your messages!


Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello AbstractClass, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Neo-Jay 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Stating that someone was a Buddha is PoV (note that Jesus isn't described as the Christ in the article). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat and Mouse

Can you provide any reliable, verifiable sources for this section in Emergent gameplay? Is it actually a popular method of play?--Drat (Talk) 12:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I played extensively myself. It is defiantely a popular method of play, or certainly was when I played. Jump into a multiplayer PGR race on XBox Live and ask "do you want to play cat and mouse?" AbstractClass 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. . Please stop reverting my edits as vandalism unless they are genuine vandalism.--Drat (Talk) 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Case for Mother's Day?

I laughed out loud when I read that. Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee at the time. Very clever. Kudos. Gilbertggoose 05:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC) = Gilbertggoose

    Heh, thanks.  Nice to see a sense of humor around here. :)  - AbstractClass 13:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tili3.gif

Hmm, hard question. I myself have never really looked that much into the copyright thing with images. I'll try my hand at a fair use thingy; If that is deemed insufficient by the admins, an alternative would be to have the copyright owner release the image into the public domain or under the GFDL, essentially making it free (in terms of copyright). Another path would be to take a picture of a German Pinscher yourself, which you could release under a free license. I'll get another user whose judgements I trust greatly to have a look. He'll know if the tags used are right.--Drat (Talk) 06:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks dude! - AbstractClass 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ID

Hi AbstractClass. I couldn't believe it was possible at first, but it is quite true. All of the leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. Amazing. ... Kenosis 13:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:GUS

You made a (misplaced) comment on the Wikipedia:German Userbox Solution page, which I figure might as well be addressed here.

Userspace exists for the purpose of project collaboration, not just as your personal webspace. In other words, you can put whatever you want in it within reason, but you do not own your userspace. It's part of the meta, the same way essays and policy are, and you have to follow the same rules about civility, etc. there as anywhere else. The whole userbox debate has evolved from whether or not expression of personal opinion is a valid use for userspace, since it has little conceivable benefit to the project of writing an encyclopedia. --tjstrf 01:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm starting to understand. Well I just spend three hours rounding up my user boxes. :( - AbstractClass 01:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
lol, and you used all the "trivia" ones I can't stand either, XD. Forget polemical, I wish they'd done something about random. No offense, of course, it's just that the priorities of this place frighten me sometimes. --tjstrf 02:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not personally attack others.

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Political_Parties: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. I remind you that comments about what a person is can be taken as personal attacks. (Personally, as I did not attack you, there is absolutely no excuse for attacking me) — Nathan (talk) / 05:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying "don't be snitty" is not a personal attack. It is a defense from YOUR personal attack against me.
Now me telling you that you are a pussy and need to grow some balls, now that is a personal attack. I hope you enjoy it as much I did. - AbstractClass 13:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

Gwernol 13:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate: "Don't be snitty" is a personal attack as you are commenting on what another person is. As you don't know me and don't know what I am and what I'm not, it is a personal attack. "Although you probably didn't mean it as such, I interpreted your comment as a personal attack because <fill in the blanks>" would not be a personal attack and I would not be offended if you had worded it as such. I reiterate again that there is absolutely no excuse to personally attack others. It is immature, rude and just uncalled for. Why attack others when you can maturely and civilly handle any dispute?
Now maybe this is a miscommunication, so I am going to explain: I did not personally attack you anywhere on Wikipedia. I did say "Your question was answered in the previous section" (perhaps not in that way) in a blunt fashion but no, I did not personally attack you. If you perceived it as such, well I apologise for coming across that way but I am absolutely not in the habit of personally attacking people I don't know. Now that we've got that out of the way, do not personally attack me or anyone on Wikipedia again or you will be blocked from editing.
Please read Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks again. Please note that if you continue with your attacks, you will be blocked for violation of Wikipedia guidelines. If you have a problem with me, kindly post it to my talk page in a much more mature fashion. Wikipedia also has a policy against incivility. Please be civil to others as I'm sure you would like others to be civil to you. Kindly treat others in a manner that you would like others to treat you. Thank you. — Nathan (talk) / 18:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"I reiterate: "Don't be snitty" is a personal attack as you are commenting on what another person is. " ...oh brother. Dude you are going to have some issues in life if you can't abide someone calling you snitty. - AbstractClass 22:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for personal attacks for a duration of 1 week. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list.Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 20:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that in spite of WP:NPA, you've made three personal attacks toward me. This is a blockable offense and despite warnings, you continue to make personal attacks. You are now blocked for a period of time. I suggest you take some time to think about what you've done. — Nathan (talk) / 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"I suggest you take some time to think about what you've done." LOL. Will do. I'll spend seconds upon seconds dwelling on it. BTW, I never got "warnings". You escalated this situation because you are a cry baby. Most adults wouldn't have felt the need to go off crying because someone said "don't be snitty". - AbstractClass 22:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Riight. Responding to personal attacks with another personal attacks is really mature, isn't it? Again, "Don't be snitty" is a personal attack because it's a comment on who/what someone is. Read WP:NPA again. If you're smart, you'd stop attacking and take a look at your own behaviour which is genuinely appaling. — Nathan (talk) / 18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Password attempts

If the IP address of 216.78.95.188 is you, I strongly suggest against trying to get my password.

  • the e-mail gets sent to me. You can't get my password that way. What are you going to try next, hacking my e-mail?
  • it's not the smartest of things to do, as your IP and timestamp gets logged in the e-mail and I find out about it. I can also (and have) report the incident to the Internet provider of the IP.

If this is you, please realise that I can very easily request a bureaucrat to check if the IP matches your username. You can then be indefinately blocked. Please stop now before you are indefinately blocked. You could be a good contributor if you'd learn to act within Wikipedia's guidelines.

If this isn't you at all, I'm sure you can understand why I suspect you. — Nathan (talk) / 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not me, I would never do something like that in any case, but it's not surprising someone would be doing it. I'm sure with your winning personality you are allways makeing friends. - AbstractClass 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You know what, I appologize to you for being rude. But I didn't do anything wrong originally. I disagree that that's a personal attack, or if by a strict and anal definition you would consider it so, it is of the mildest and most inconsequential of "attacks". I would say that to my own mother, geez.
You created the issue as it stands. You talk about being mature - it was totally immature to raise this issue in the first place and it escalated the problem. And I was immature in how I responded and as I said, I appologize for that. - AbstractClass 22:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't create any issue. All I said was "Your answer can be found in the last section". You - not me, you - were the one who saw that as some kind of attack (I reiterate: Under no circumstances did I intentionally set out to attack you, I'm not that kind of person to attack for no reason - let alone a reason anyway) and kept attacking me. You can apologise to me for continually attacking me and I'll see what I can do about unblocking you. Do you attack anyone who you -think- attacks you? Wouldn't it instead be more polite to say "That looks like an attack but I can't be sure, is this the case" instead of assuming? Wouldn't it be even more mature to not attack at all? In any case, I'm sick and tired of these constant childish attacks. Stop or you can stay banned, I don't care. I'm thirty years old and I'm above this sort of crap. You can post a sincere apology on my userpage or for all I care, you can stay blocked. Wikipedia doesn't need this sort of thing and neither do I.
As to the password thing, I know who it was now. I suspected you because of your constant personal attacks. No, it is not immature to raise the issue - read all the "if" statements ("if" this is you, "if" you did it, etc). Don't presume to tell me whether I'm being immature or not. Namecalling is immature yet you keep doing it. It's also Wikipedia policy not to be a dick yet that doesn't stop you in the least. Pot calling the kettle black? How would I know "you would never do something like that"? Sorry, we haven't invented telepathy yet. Anyway, I'm sick of your attacks and you're going the right way to be indefinately blocked. If you want to make an apology, my talk page (or Wikipedia e-mail as you're blocked) would be a good thing to do unless you really like being blocked. I'm not going to stick around here and be attacked more. I have better things to do with my time.
To be absolutely blunt: You don't know me. How do you know what I am/am not? You don't. So kindly stop making such assumptions and attacks, they're not wanted. Wikipedia is not your own personal playground. Would you like to be blocked for longer (for making more unwarranted personal attacks) ? I'm sure an admin can certainly arrange that. — Nathan (talk) / 18:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"You don't know me. How do you know what I am/am not?"
By your actions.
Anyway, I already appologized to you. I don't care about the block, that's not why I appologized. - AbstractClass 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to stop

AbstractClass, if you continue to make personal attacks against anyone, I will extend your block and protect this talk page to prevent you from continuing. You do not have the right to make personal attacks no matter what the provocation. If you wish to continue editing WIkipedia you will take this time to calm down and come back with a more civil attitude. Thanks, Gwernol 21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edits to Uranus

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Uranus. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally love Uranus. - AbstractClass 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your sense of humor is not appreciated. I and many other users, take this encyclopedia seriously. And for you to make joke edits so casually, will not be tolerated. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design Talk

Hello, if you would be so kind i'd like your opinion on my proposed change to the Intelligent Design Article, please go here to give your opinion. Thanks! Bagginator 10:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still value your opinion

The discussion was archived over at the Intelligent Design page but i'd still like to get your opinion. What do you think of...

Ive offered the following as meeting WP:V and WP:RS in regards to the sentence in dispute at the Intelligent Design article, "All leading proponents of Intelligent Design are affiliated with the Discovery Institute." The San Francisco Chronicle, August 28 2005 calls Norris Gravlox, "a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory" the Tribeca Film Festival calls Jack Cashill, "a leading proponent of intelligent design." The Orlando Weekly from September 1st 2005 calls Mat Staver, "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" and on May 26, 2006, the Legal Times calls John Umana, "a leading proponent of intelligent design" establishing WP:V and WP:RS.Bagginator 05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Humor

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I'm awarding you this Barnstar of Good Humor for your edit summary here. It's rare to see such good humor reverting vandalism, particularly Colbert related vandalism. It was refreshing and it brightened my day.

Miss Mondegreen 09:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe! Thanks! :D - AbstractClass 18:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)