User talk:Davidjk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page has been vandalised or flamed 7 times, by 2 users.


Contents

[edit] Denzel Washington

Regarding Denzel Washington...my bad on the erroneous revert. Peace, Kukini 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-- No problem, the incorrect information had seemingly been in place for a few revisions so it was easy to miss when reverting later changes. :) Davidjk 07:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright

Hi, just a heads-up that you may be violating Wikipedia's copyright policy by using two copyrighted fair-use images on your userpages (the Pages and Metapackage icons) which are listed as for use only "to illustrate or identify the computer software in question". :) Davidjk (msg+edits) 16:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry, didn't even cross my mind until you mentioned it. Fixed. Thanks for the reminder. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vegetarian Edits

I have just read your slight changes to my edits. Good Job. You actually agree with me. Then I read your comments in the talk page. Someone may misinterpret your comments that you still disagree with my contributions. I hope you are not playing it both sides and trying to encourage another editor to delete our collaborated contributions. Please correct your comments in the talk page because you actaually agree with me based on your edits. Or archive it. Happy editing, --Just an onlooker 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the talk page to say that we agree on the article as-is (or at least the additions you made and I edited). To clarify, my comment was made before I edited the article, so it didn't really apply any more (and I'm not sure why I posted it... chalk that one up to universities having a cheap bar). Glad to see the article improved, and thanks for your collaboration - hopefully you'll apply your knowledge to some more articles :)
Happy editing. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Response to "User talk:213.100.56.76"

"Thank you for experimenting with the page Vegetarianism on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you believe that this reversion was made in error, please contact me. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 08:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"

I just corrected some spelling mistakes in the Judaism section, the errors were "yeat" instead of "year", "mean" instead of "meat" and "whearas" instead of "whereas". I would call this contribution, not play ;)

213.100.56.76 20:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. My bad, I'll drink my coffee before I edit Wikipedia next time ;) Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vegetarianism article has been damaged.

The information you and I collaborated on has been altered and changed. I consider it borderline vandalism. Please add back in your version that was clear and easy to read. Now the information has entire weasel sentences instigated by a user who seems to be disruptive. Your version that you edited was easy to understand. Now it is hard to read and confusing. Thank You. --Just an onlooker 17:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the user who made the changes is currently involved in an investigation of sockpuppetry involving yourself, to avoid creating an unpleasant situation, I'm going to leave the article as it is for now. I'll work on a more "agreeable" version of that section in the meantime. Thanks, Davidjk (msg+edits) 19:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'd welcome constructive criticism to the edits made. Saying its "altered" or "damaged" doesn't really help improve the article. Also Just an onlooker, please familiarize yourself with what is considerd vandalism. Adding a referenced fact is not vandalism. Please be clear on what Wikipedia considers vandalism and especially what is not vandalism before throwing this word around. As well, as you've been warned about being civil and assuming good faith many times in the past via your sockpuppets, please comment on content, not the contributor and do not resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars to get your way. Your use of sockpuppets to get around a final warning for this also violates Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Yankees76 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Modern Inventions

I am trying to fix the pages! It is that ShadowBot that keeps deleting my edits! Ajisai2007 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, sorry - I work through the recent changes list very quickly, and the edit I picked up on appeared to be just page blanking. Hopefully you can convince the bots to let you improve the article :) - Davidjk (msg+edits) 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] PS3

Hey, sorry about the PS3 Thing, I just must have mixed up units shipped and units sold.--Furon 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Last Edit

I meant to remove that. I didn't see it as accurate. 24.107.66.62 01:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the information in the article is correct. However, since the article contains no citation either way, I'll let your edit stick unless someone else objects. Sorry for any inconvenience :) - Davidjk (msg+edits) 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. If anyone can find a source proving contrary, I would be happy to support the addition to the article. However, seeing as to how it was a fairly bold statement to make without citation, I figured it was best left unmentioned. Sorry if I messed things up. 24.107.66.62 04:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting good faith edits

When you revert a good faith edit like 16:54:38 →The Fifth Season, you should explain why you are reverting. It is clear you did not like the new wording. But why? Do I need to add {{uw-agf1}} to your page? Will (Talk - contribs) 05:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that the edit was made in good faith - from the context, it looked like "misled" was the correct word. As my userpage says, though, I run through recent changes very quickly, so I do make mistakes - if I've done something wrong, just change it back. Sorry for any inconvenience :) - Davidjk RC Patrol 06:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I know the problem. That is why I decided not to use the template. However, perhaps you are checking things too quickly. Do you use WP:POPUPS to revert? If so, there is an option I can help you install that causes popups to always display a box that lets you override the edit summary before it is saved. Interested? Will (Talk - contribs) 06:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I revert and warn using a hideous combination of Popups and Twinklefluff, but I'm always open to suggestions :) - Davidjk RC Patrol 06:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Check out what I have at User:Will Pittenger/monobook.js#Options for Popups. Please manually purge (save it with no changes) the page if the section link does not work. That should enable the TOC I provide. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
That works nicely, thanks :) - Davidjk RC Patrol 06:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)