User talk:JRDarby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A&M Wikiproject

WikiProject Texas A&M

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Texas A&M. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Etiquette, lol, that was kind of rude of me to add that for you. but yes, that template adds you to the project officially Oldag07 15:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC/USER discussion concerning (ThreeE)

Hello, JRDarby. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning ThreeE's conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by "ThreeE" in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE, where I would appreciate your participation and comments. — BQZip01 — talk 12:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

Thanks for the heads up! :) Jmlk17 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about that revert on The Republic (Plato)

My twinkle hung up on me and I refreshed the page and just hit revert with popups and didn't notice you had fixed it already--revotfel★ 01:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(I replied on his talk page) JRDarby 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I definately couldn't live without the Twinkle and popups scripts. They make reverting and rolling back several edits a breeze, and with a few mouse clicks you can revert and article to whichever version you like. Check the pages out and if you need any help installing and using em shoot me back. No promises though, I've been using wikipedia for three days, popups for two days, and Twinkle for a grand total of I think 4 hours :D --revotfel★ 01:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Alrighty, just in you case don't wanna deal with all those scripts, I made up some pictures to show you how you can restore to edits without doing each one in between. First Step and Second Step. Ok, any problems, just drop me a line at my talk page --revotfel★ 02:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qualfications

Hmmm...let's see...you've been here for 7 months. As your primary area of interest is Texas A&M, it's likely you're a college student, or a recent grad. Most of your edits are not substantial, but, rather, reverts. And you have the audacity (I think that's a 10th grade vocab word) to question the credentials of another editor who has been making substantial contributions for over 5 years?

What, then, are your credentials, pray tell. And how would you substantiate them? And I didn't go back an forth, I made one statement, nor do I make gross generalizations and ignore research. Don't take things out of context.

PS -- and even if we were in Germany, I'd be clean as a whistle. Idiot. --69.182.126.94 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is ostensibly Empacher replying to my post on his talk page and I have replied him there. For further consideration, see the article talk page to which I refer in my post on his talk page where he can't make up his mind on how many degrees he actually has. Hit ctl+f and search for "master" and you'll see the two instances, not to mention the gross rudeness and meanness exhibited likewise above. JRDarby 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't me. In addition, your interpretation of my statements is erroneous. I have never claimed to have an MD. I have 3 Masters, and two PhDs...not that it's really any of your concern.
As for the other concerns you've voiced, no worries. I have not edited here in months, nor do I intend to in the future. I am responding to your post, patronizing as it was, only becuase a colleague of mine remarked that someone was snarking at me. Personal attacks, as I recall, are unwelcome here. --Empacher 01:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to this user on his talk page. If there are any doubts about who the anonymous user it, please see the correspondence between this user and Empacher and you will see that everything the "anonymous" user said was in direct response to my comments. JRDarby 04:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fork substitution

As a previously interested party, I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts and I seek your acquiescence in the edit I propose.

You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alice.S&oldid=175027524#Edit_war

Alice.S 11:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manfred von Richthofen

JRDarby: I just went through the article on Manfred von Richthofen and do not agree with your (?) translation of "kaputt" by "broken" although "broken" is the first choice given in the dictionary. When the Germans were beaten at the end of WWII, many of them would say "kaputt", which in that context meant "beaten". I believe that in the case of MvR, his use of "kaputt" meant "finished" "done" "dying". In other words, "it's over for me". However, since I have not participated in this, I do not want to remove "broken", even though it does not sound correct to me. FW Frania Wisniewska 01:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Aaaaagh!

That's OK. I knew it wasn't you and I'm sorry if it appeared from my edit that I was suggesting it was. I had not been online for several days and did a comparison between the last version I'd seen and the then current one and that stood out a mile, but I couldn't be bothered to go back through tones of edits to identify and name the culprit. Keep up the good work. Emeraude 09:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Griffin

I see you have just removed the anti-semitism category that was recently put in the Nick Griffin article. Are you sure about this? I know (because his supporters in this page and on the BNP page constantly remind us) that Griffin claims he is not NOW anti-semitic nor a holocaust denier, but, and it's an important 'but', he certainly used to be and not in a small way, as is amply demonstrated elsewhere in the article. He even edited an anti-semitic magazine (The Rune). I'm not suggesting he is being untruthful in his claim to have changed (though this may be the case), but as a matter of encyclopaedic record it is surely correct to record that he used to be an anti-semite and therefore the category is appropriate. I am open to persuasion on this. Emeraude (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Looks like we're neither of us particularly decided on this one. There's also a holocaust deniers category that he could fit in, though he claims to have changed now. It's interesting that David Irving has now accepted that millions died (though not at Auschwitz), but he is still categorised as a holocaust denier, so changing one's stated views does not automatically mean removal from a category. It's a serious question about whether people should be categorised by what they were in the past. However, ex-footballers are still classified as footballers and retired politicians as politicians. (And how about all those reformed criminals who are still categorised as such?) In the long run, I don't think categories are anything like as important as what appears in the article, but I keep an open mind on this issue with Griffin and will wait and see if anyone else has any contibution that makes sense to me. Emeraude (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cannabis

hi, this change was made because of the emerging consensus to merge this info into cannabis, expressed here. I think that merging more than what I added would be too much, but not merging the info at all will result in information loss. best, Pundit|utter 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, apparently the editor whose opinion was not supported in the RfC decided to ignore it. I would appreciate your support in keeping an eye on the article. Pundit|utter 21:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)