User talk:Apis O-tang/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1

Welcome! Hello, Apis O-tang, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --theblueflamingoSpeak 07:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Contents


3RR warning.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Biodiesel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are aware of course that it is you who have been reverting my edits repeatedly the last few hours, not the other way around? But perhaps you are just trying to intimidate me from making any more edits in wikipedia... --Apis O-tang (talk) 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That really doesn't matter for the 3 revert rule. I tagged you - not because you've done something wrong. But to warn you of this rule, which you might unintentionally break. We're in a content dispute - and hopefully we can resolve it on the talk page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the "countless references" [1] part (as if i hadn't provided any). As for my editing - i edit on global warming related articles, which are constantly vandalized or otherwise POV edited by people who think that global warming is a hoax. Which is why quite a lot of my contributions to this project is reverting such. I suspect that our points of view aren't that far from each other - so please just assume good faith with regards to my objections to your edit on Biodiesel. Lets please discuss this on the talk page there, and come to an agreement. But please keep in mind that other editors can have a different opinion than yours. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't provide any references, ignored the ones i provided, and repeatedly reverted my edits of trying to point out additional environmental concerns for which I provided reliable references. You have provided references after that. I pointed out, and you agreed, that you misunderstood them. You then pointed out that your report had already been considered in the IPCC report that I referenced. I'm aware other editors can have a different opinion. If they can support that opinion with facts, then I think it's great different aspects are presented in articles. You don't like what I'm saying based on your personal belief so you revert my edits even if I have good references and are just stating things that are considered common knowledge in this field of research. And you demand me to find more and more references while you cant come up with anything. So then you threaten me from making edits, and then an administrator conveniently appear.--Apis O-tang (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


April 2008

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because of concerns that the chosen username may not meet our username policy.
This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username which is quick and easy. To do so, please follow these directions:

  1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.
Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you. KnightLago (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|There must be a mistake. No reason or explanation is given. I can't see how my username is inapropriate or in disagreement with the wikipedia username policy.}}

Here is where the complaint was made: [2]. Would you be willing to change your username? howcheng {chat} 21:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should he? This is an established editor; why do we block first and ask questions later? Wouldn't it have been better to first talk? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I didn't see that one comming. With a lot of imagination and new insights in american(?) slang I can see how it is possible to make this connection. As it happens o-tang is short for orangutang, and apis have many meanings, none of them a piece. Would it be enough to remove the hypen perhaps (as in Apis Otang)?

May I also bring to your attention that: Raymond arritt is offensive becase it is a variation of Raymond are pitt[3]. Pitt used here in the swedish sense obviously.

Howcheng sounds an awfull lot like Ho[4] Cheng[5], which clearly is very offensive to all the sex workers on wikipedia.

Have you noticed that if you read KnightLago bakwards you get "o gal thight" wich I think is obviously hostal to the female editors here on wikipedia. --Apis O-tang (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not discussing my concerns with you first. I am a new admin, and am still learning the ropes. However, I still lean toward finding this username inappropriate. How about changing the tang part? KnightLago (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that will be necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Unnecessary name block. Let's not invent problems where none actually exist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Request handled by: jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Multicolumn reflist

Just following up on the multicolumn issue, would you be interested in logging the issue with your browser's bug reporter? Wikipedia's bugzilla says the problem is not on their end. superlusertc 2008 April 11, 21:32 (UTC)

My issue wasn't with speed or compatibility issues (although I agree those are problems as well). I just think it is very bad layout, and it doesn't work well on smaller screens, and imho it's better to simply remove support for that in the template? Maybe I could have expressed myself clearer. What I wanted to say is basically the same as what brion added. --Apis O-tang (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
And, umm, although the problem may be with the browsers, the quick fix would be to remove multicolumn reflists from wikipedia! I doubt the browsers will be fixed anytime soon (although it's good if people make bug reports about it!). I'm not sure how these things work on wikipedia so I don't really know what to do about it other than trying to get some administrators attention =). (Since only admins can edit the template that is). --Apis O-tang (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


3RR

You, sir, have logged many more reverts to the Oreskes age than I have, and ones which disagree with consensus slowly being reached on the talk page. I have to warn you therefore you are approaching violation of three-revert rule (3RR) and edit warring. FellGleaming (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted, Thanks. --Apis (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Septic

That is in fact not a spelling error. Its a combination of SEPP and sceptic, and WMC uses it for a specific group of sceptics. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha, that makes more sense then. =) I just found it annoying that they jump at every chance to make a personal attacks, while ignoring the actual question of notability. --Apis (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, the above does not make sense since the word is spelled: "Skeptic". Ooops.Grazen (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact remains its being used in a derogatory sense and has no place in rational, civil discourse. FellGleaming (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of changing things that we have reached a "consensus" on in the discussion forum, the discussion forum has had no such consensus! You changed the article and then began to argue that "unchanging" your changes is somehow wrong. No - the onus is on *you* to defend your position or to identify where in the discussion page such an agreement was reached. In the meantime, the article SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED. Pretty simple really Grazen (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed for several days on the talk page? You where involved in those discussions so I presume you noticed them? --Apis (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as well as on Peiser's discussion. If you think that this merits a "consensus" then our definitions of the word vary. Essentially, what is happening is that Peiser's work is being diminished on Oreskes' page (which should focus on her biography and relative importance) and being highlighted on the Peiser page which should do the same for him. You are attempting to diminish his positions on both pages so that a person looking for the link on Peiser will not be able to identify the basis of the controversy.Grazen (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you see it that way, as far as I could tell you agreed with Wellspring, and since Wellspring agreed on that version, and you didn't complain, and the other editors involved in the discussion probably would rather have removed any mention of peisler all together, I presumed we could agree there was something of a wp:consensus on that version. FellGleaming just started changing everything that we have been discussing for the last couple of days so I think it would be better for the article if we could discuss changes on the talk page before changing the actual article, don't you? And I assure you, I am not trying to misscredit Peisler, I even think hes probably right about there being a small minority of skeptic scientist, so stop accusing me of slander. Vandal was quite enough. Thank you. --Apis (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Use of the word 'Tenuous' in Benny Peiser article

My aplogies here; I missed the word in my original reading; You are correct.FellGleaming (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive cleanup

That was a leftover from my screwed up attempt to set up archiving. Thanks for fixing it. I deleted the superfluous archive page. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem =) Apis (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:(ec)

It simply means edit conflict just to let others know that you were responding but another editor responded first. (ec) is usually used when another editor resonded in the same conversation you are or about to be involved in. Any questions?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded on your talk page. Apis (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)