User talk:Dbmoodb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank You for visiting. Do come again.

I have added some Extra silliness below.

1 3RR warning
2 ang-N
3 Your user page layout
4 Milw0rm
5 Vandalism to user:adam1213 - warning joke
6 email
7 January 2008
8 Moriah College, Sydney
9 re your comments at WP:ANI here
10 Debian edit

[edit] 3RR warning

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.
-- Dbmoodb 15:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Thank you. WazzaMan 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I will read that. One thing though, if I abide by this other must also. I want there to be no double standards. Perhaps wikipedia could identify a person's location and therefore their preferred version of the English language ?

[edit] ang-N

As one of the very few people in the category, you may be interested in a discussion of the possible deletion of The category User ang-N at the UCfD pageDGG (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page layout

I mean, you could have at least tried to make it not look like you didn't blatantly copy mine. ;) -- Daverocks (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and smooth move, forging the date on your reply. :P -- Daverocks (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well did not mean to do that ... that was an accident I have commented about that on your talk page. Well your page is covered by the GFDL ? Ergo, copying your page should not be merit for commenting, other than to say yes I did that, which you are more than entitled to do and have done. :) Dbmoodb 12:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my user page is GFDL, and the GFDL has certain attribution requirements, particularly ones pertaining to attribution of the original author of a modified version of the text in question. You are required to give attribution to me; see section 4 of the licence. -- Daverocks (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, I'm asking nicely now ;) Please either change your layout and remove the plagarised text, or give attribution to me on the page. Thanks. -- Daverocks (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. ^_^ -- Daverocks (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Milw0rm

A tag has been placed on Milw0rm, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Milw0rm. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Milw0rm, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. andy (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah Andyjmith I am curious, what policy have a violated ?... I would like a specific policy listed. Otherwise I will take your post as an act of vandalism. For it is not useful and is in no way pretty. If I receive no reply from you I shall accept this as a sign that you are ok with what I have said here and that it is ok to remove your post. To prevent this you simply need to state the policy that you think I have violated so I can take action to avoid breaking it again. Dbmoodb 14:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to user:adam1213 - warning joke

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to user:adam1213. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Adam1213 Talk 14:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that it was no joke. Also, saying you talked to me does not change anything. I did not. Dbmoodb (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] email

I cannot email you as requested unless you enable your email, or unless you email me. DGG (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As adam1213 will not let me keep a copy of my thank you message on his talk page, i shall post it here. Thank you for removing the potentially copyvio content.

Thank you for removing the potentially copyvio content.Dbmoodb (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) See his user page history for more information.

[edit] January 2008

I suggest you read my posts to the moriah page then get back to me. Also re-read what I posted. It makes sense and you are reverting to a version half written by me already. Would you like to say all my edits are stupid and unhelpful, Please do, I will respond in kind.Dbmoodb (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted you because you introduced a repeated 'Notably' into the sentence which is a typical kind of test edit. Sorry for the mistake, I've removed the warning from your talk page. Regards, --Farosdaughter (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes well, if it did you should have removed the notably. In addition I never used the word Notably. As I recall. Let me see the edit again and then I will confirm or deny this. Dbmoodb (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

yes I did do that. I am tired and forgot to remove it. Will fix that now. Feel free to revert my edit if you think it is required. Oh I didn't think i used the word because i don't use it myself that was copied from the previous edit. Dbmoodb (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I offer you my apologies, my revert was a mistake. I won't revert again of course. Regards, --Farosdaughter (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mistake acknowledged. Welcome to my extra silliness section. I may or may not keep your entry here for a bit.Dbmoodb (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the extra notably and gurch fixed the line break but I suggest you go to the talk page to resolve your apparent dispute with Andyjsmith. Regards, --Farosdaughter (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moriah College, Sydney

Hi there. There are a few points of grammar, punctuation, and style involved.

"Students who are not Jewish" is better than "Students that are not Jewish" since they are people, not inanimate objects. It's debatable whether or not that is absolutely incorrect here, but who is certainly preferred as a matter of style.
Jewish should be capitalized.
When a dependent clause is in the middle of a sentence, it must either be set apart by commas at both ends, or neither.
Orthodox should be capitalized when referring to Orthodox Judaism.
It's clunky and a bit redundant to say that someone who's not considered Jewish is not considered Jewish. Better wording is needed.
Have trouble to enroll should be have trouble enrolling.
The flow of the first sentence is broken up too much by having two non-restrictive phrases in the middle, back to back.

Happy editing. --Reuben (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way do you believe that your edit corrects the grammar of the article? --Reuben (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

From Reuben's user page. "Yes so, please tell me what is wrong with the grammar. I would like to know. Please do tell me so I can improve it in the future. Dbmoodb (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have correct the that to a who, for style reasons as you point out. The clause was in commas so I believe that it is fine if it is not I have missed it. My edit corrects and adds facts. If you are not considered jewish you cannot attend. Yes it is bulk but this is a fact and cannot be ignored. If you want to word it go on, but do not leave out the facts. The flow is altered. The flow is flow. Flow can change. Please phrase it differently if you think you can do it better. Dbmoodb (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)"

Your edit summary indicated that you believed you were correcting the grammar. Is that not the case after all? The clause "who are not considered jews by orthodox means" remains set off by a comma at the beginning without a matching comma at the end, which is incorrect. Most of the other points I mentioned still stand. Thanks for correcting some of them. --Reuben (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Moriah College, Sydney. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. andy (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re your comments at WP:ANI here

I consider that "Remember Andy I am watching you...", and a similar comment at the beginning of your edit, constitutes a threat, and an attempt to harass another editor. This is not tolerated on Wikipedia. This is an official warning; any repeat of these statements and especially any action in regard to these comments will be dealt with most severely. This is the only warning you will receive in regard to these matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User LessHeard VanU. I am watching Andy for he personally attacked me. I am watching him and not threatening him. I am not harassing him nor am i attempting too. If you read my post on the page you post above you will see that I propose that we (andy and I) proceed down the dispute resolution process. I also reply to accusations of being a sub-troll. I do not think this constitutes a threat I think this constitutes a motion to follow the official wikipedia rules to resolve a dispute. If you think posting that i am watching a user and I post a reply and a how-to resolve our differences constitutes harassment I think you should reconsider. Otherwise, you are giving users who are in the wrong free rein. Please watch me, for if no one is watching the watchers' we are all in the wrong. Dbmoodb (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Per your request; repeating "...I am watching you" constitutes a threat and harassment. If you wish to advise another editor that you will be reviewing wikispace for instances of policy violations, vandalism, or other disruptions then it would be best if it was addressed in that manner. I would draw your attention to WP:NPA where it quite clearly states in the nutshell that comment should refer to content only, and not the contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So to be specific it is the "Andy I am watching you" or where I may have repeated I am watching you. As I have said mention above, you are allowed to watch other users and the logs are made public for good reasons. So as i understand it if I had said I am watching you that would be harassment ? I do not buy this argument. I think you are suggesting that the use of the users name there suggests it is a personal attack. Again I do not agree. I do not see how warning another user that I am watching them is an offence of harassment. The tone was certainly playful and this is were you might have grounds to warn me about harassing another. I am not challenging your warning. I am trying to understand where the line is drawn, just to be clear. This is so I do not get action taken against me for harassing a user/ip simply by stating I am watching them or use of a playful tone. Dbmoodb (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a very simple line - negative comment directed toward the individual, rather than their contributions, is a personal attack and is not tolerated; you can say to another editor that their contributions are bad (although it would be best if examples were forthcoming) but you should not say that the same editor is a bad person. The former can be considered as helping build the encyclopedia, and the latter will likely cause disruption. If you say "I shall be watching X article in case there are more disruptive edits" then that is fine (providing there is agreement that the edits are disruptive) but not "I will be watching you". Lastly, even with the use of icons it is difficult to interpret mood. It is best not to be 'playful' lest it get misinterpreted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debian edit

Why have you changed my modifications in Debian ? The paragraph is exactly the same as the one that was there before but with a title change and some small modifications...Ximian99 12:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC) See my reply on your user page Ximian99.