User talk:D-Hell-pers/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Fraternity Issue 2 Mis-using Edit Summary to Correct Those Mis-using It :-p 3 Wiki- Pages of Interest 4 kappa alpha 5 thanks for the rvv 6 Alumni 7 Village Idiot, 72.223.117.236 8 Regarding reversions[1] made on May 15, 2007 to Image:Xxxxx's Letter.JPG 9 "Admins have already approved" 10 Introducing, Brookie 10.1 Welcome!

[edit] Fraternity Issue

Thanks for the needed citation! I owe ya! LetTruthBeKnown2006 23:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hope you see this...please look at the response to your explanations of the edits to the fraternities section of the Washcoll page. I've been watching the edit war, and I think I've got a good middle ground.

Thank you!

209.whatever

I thank you for your help in this matter. I looked at your edit and found some of your ground to be neutral and some to be controversial. I read it, had several of my graduate friends read it, and we all agreed that you turned bias in the end. Your neutral points were kept, but the "these groups are terrific" mumbo jumbo that tagged along was removed. Sorry. However, I do adopt my points to some of your insights.

Thanks again

Dear D-Hell-pers. I have been following the constant battle over information involved in the Washington College page. After some research, I have found the citation provided to have no information at all regarding hazing, or the creation of a fourth fraternity at Washington College's campus. After further research (searching the edit history), it can be seen that the same individuals are continually editing in false information, and now are getting away with it using an incorrect citation

First of all ###.###.#.####, if you want to point "errors" in edits of articles, you may want to understand all the rules. All edits in discussion pages should be signed using the 4 "~", even if you are just a set of numbers - this is like rule #1 for discussion. I admit that I from time to time forget to use this in my haste to complete a discussion/edit, however, I do use it most often.

Secondly, Wikepedia is based on the fundamentals that the people who read them can think for themselves. Take for instance a rock thrown into the air...it comes back down to the earth. Why? Because people who can read into it see that gravity pulls the rock back to the earth (for what seems to be the lack of your competance, we'll just leave it to this simple definition). It does not grow wings and begin to fly; it does not aim for the nearest bird and act like a homeseeking missile (unless it was thrown in this casual manner, then ignore this "will not").

It is in this simple example that demonstrates my point, "All actions have consequences." In the manner you speak of, the fraternities being kicked out of their housing is the consequence (as well as members being booted from the group, etc). For this reason, think to yourself why? As I have explained on the discussion page of that article, it was not the general thought that the fraternity was getting too cool for the campus, and had to be split up for a period of time... it was because they HAZED. Please take the time to go through your sources, look up the campus policies towards hazing, and for the fun ot it, look up other policies that would result in the whole group being booted out of housing. Hint, it was not like the episode that happened five years ago this past fall, where the third established fraternity on campus, theta chi, was ejected out of there housing for selling drugs in the housing. This could be a fun article for you to search out, however, it does not help with the fact that a fourth fraternity was created (well, maybe if someone said, "because all other fraternities on campus are either hazing or selling drugs" but wow, what a fun stretch this would be).

So, when you can learn these two simple, and yet possible in your case, crucial, lessons by all means come back to discuss this subject further. Thanks for playing! D-Hell-pers 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Since many of the "dumb-frat-boys" wish to hide the fact, additional researching for references has been done. (2) articles that have been archived on the WaC homepage, plus (1) that has yet to be placed online (but has been retrieved), are now referenced at the bottom of the WaC article in wikipedia (as well as citations to it from the overview). Editors are more than welcomed to read these articles if they wish to continue to contest the facts (because the facts are now CLEARLY stated in these articles). D-Hell-pers 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are so cool man. I wish I was as cool as you. I apologize for being such a dumbass in this matter. I should have read the articles before opening my big mouth. Thanks for the addition of referenes and cleaning up my 'vandalism.' Natural22 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mis-using Edit Summary to Correct Those Mis-using It :-p

don't you find it the least bit ironic that you used an edit summary to chastise others on their misuse of edit summaries? :] The undertow 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did feel the irony when i wrote it. However, I found that someone who does not know how to discuss on the discussion page probably doesn't pay attention to it either. If he/she was an actual editor (and not an address), I would have messaged them directly and not on the article. Unfortunately, I had to take the brightest of the darkest paths- correcting someone incorrectly rather than not correcting them at all. You catch my drift. I find it funny that you did find the irony in it as well. :-P D-Hell-pers 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki- Pages of Interest

Warning Templates

Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism

AMI

Sock Puppets & Suspection

harassment

templates

sprotected

[edit] kappa alpha

np about the revert. behind the shaved head and 12 tattoos, i'm actually an esteemed alumni of the order (which by the way is NEVER referred to as 'the order.' haha. the_undertow ^talk 04:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the rvv

i thought the dr from greys anatomy stopped by with that kinda language! the_undertow ^talk 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alumni

have any desire to contribute on the list of wc alumni page linked to the main entry? WillC 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Village Idiot, 72.223.117.236

The "Internet" is not the Internet without the servers of the sites connected to it. Vice versa.

Therefore: Wikipedia = Internet = Wikipedia. Dissed and dismissed. 72.223.117.236 03:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you not pay attention to the rest of the message, or did you ignorantly pick out the only part you could reply dumbly reply to? In response, please refer to the last statement of my message.

Besides, "vise-versa" is an incorrect portrayal of thought. Servers can be used, for example, on a university campus. If you want to be technical, this is not the "internet" as it is opened to campus use and is a "network", "[intra-collegial] domain". Again, you are incorrect with your thought. Nice try though. D-Hell-pers 04:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I was just plucking a single bit out of the longwinded message, because I know that sort of thing gets under the skin of the anal retentive sort that you've made yourself out to be. 72.223.117.236 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I just try to enlighten morons (please refer to the beginning of my discussion page). D-Hell-pers 04:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you're trying to say, but the problem is that what you're trying to say will only end in me not caring even more than now.

You see? It's futility, take it into consideration sometime. 72.223.117.236 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I got that picture long ago, you are not the first nor any different. The poor will always be poor, skin color will never change, and idiots like you will always be ignorant. However, it's always still amusing to watch futile attempts of idiots like you trying to outsmart me, and when you best is just not good enough play the whole "i don't give a crap" persona, thinking you a bad-ass or something. Please, your childish mockery only succeeds your intelligence level (that's not saying much either), nothing more. I have bested you, and whether you see it or not, lessened some of your ignorance where you were wrong, I was right. You learned ... so no matter what you say, my job is already done. D-Hell-pers 06:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll still be a failure at life until I get my boyfriend's rocks off tonight. You don't know pleasure until your boyfriend does you up the ass like I take it. =3 Why do I suck so much cock? The world may never know. 72.223.117.236 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, very good for you. I am not exactly sure where this comes from, however, i am unable to provide you with information to lessen your ignorance. As you see, i am a straight-guy, so getting another male off is just my cup-of-java. You are on your own with this one friend. D-Hell-pers 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on May 15, 2007 to Image:Xxxxx's Letter.JPG

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not kidding about this warning. If you keep reverting, you're going to be blocked. I might even encourage you to undo your most recent edit, to be on the safe side (you're already in violation of WP:3RR and could be blocked at any moment). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Unless I'm wrong, D-Hell-pers has only made two reverts. That's not close to being a violation of the 3RR. It's certainly not the most advisable action but a violation of the 3RR it's not. --ElKevbo 03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In either case, I have opened a discussion on both articles in question. With a little luck, this may fix this problem as well as make up for any mistakes I may have made. However, from this point on, I don't see why i should not revert any edits that were made by editors who ignored the discussion page and moved on to just doing whatever the hell they pleased. D-Hell-pers 03:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC):::D-Hell-pers, why not just reference the letter without worrying about the image? I agree that the actions taken by some editors to remove the image seem a bit silly (particularly the "images are not reliable sources!" as if documents are immediately suspect once they're uploaded to Wikipedia....). Just reference the printed document. --ElKevbo 03:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried that before when the edit was in debate months ago. Somewhere in the Washington College archive, some person doubted that I had this as a reference, hence the reason I uploaded it to Wikipedia (funny thing- the moron has yet to make another edit since I uploaded the image, like 4/5 mths ago). D-Hell-pers 03:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to ElKevbo: one, two, three, four. I would prefer a non-blocking solution to this, however. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that has been covered in his last message, but thanks for the clarification? And I believe I already remarked to my behalf as well. D-Hell-pers 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mainly, clearing up any possibly ambiguity regarding exactly which edits I was referring to (given ElKevbo's reply, there was clearly some ambiguity). I'm happy to see that you've started discussion on the matter. If I'm coming across as gruff and mean, that's primarily because I'm specifically avoiding taking anyone's side, if I can manage it. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No no, stern but not mean. I was merely commenting on the fact that El Kevbo made a reply stating that he understood what you were talking about, and then half-an-hour later you state it again. D-Hell-pers 05:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Admins have already approved"

Could you please point to who/when this happened? It seems pretty questionable to me as an outside observer. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was typing a similar message at the same time and ran into an edit conflict with you, Eskog. I, too, am curious about this issue. I also suggest employing the article's Talk page to discuss this issue with the other editor instead of reverting and relying on edit summaries as the primary means of communication. --ElKevbo 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on ESkog's page, I have put in to kuru (the admin who currently oversaw this months ago) to protect the articles in question, as it seems no one wants to use the discussion page. The conflict seems to be revolving around someone's person thought that "images" can not be used as references. Who made this rule up in the past 2/3 months since that revision was made? D-Hell-pers 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Classy move! It's frustrating when someone else seems to have bulled their way into an article you've worked on without regard for hard-earned consensus. Good job on taking the high road and attempting to defuse the situation! --ElKevbo 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. As I mentioned on your discussion, it's hard to rely on the discussion page, as most users just come and go. This one seems persistent, and I opened up the discussion. Hopefully the editors will actually read this before just doing whatever they place by butting in as you so put it. D-Hell-pers 03:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left my primary comments on the issue on the article's talk page. I'm hoping that we're not referring to me as the 'admin that approved' this situation, or else some miscommunication occurred. An image of a letter that you uploaded is not a reliable source; online or offline citations to newspaper articles, as discussed, are. I would strongly advise letting this particular issue go. Please be careful about the 3RR; and be thankful that you are dealing with some seriously mellow admins here. Let's continue the content discussions at the article's talk page, to keep it all in one place. Kuru ^talk 05:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introducing, Brookie

Welcome!