User talk:Supervox2113

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] January 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to No Country for Old Men (film). Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SEWilco

SEWilco: Please refrain from further vandalism to this page. This page is reserved for edits about Supervox2113, not "Bruce Willis" or other persons you randomly choose to speak about here. Further disregard of this notice will result in the removal of your privileges to edit this page and/or suspension of your account. Thank you. Supervox2113 (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "random" that SEWilco left you that message. You did make these edits, didn't you?

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Willis&oldid=199252950 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Willis&oldid=199252678 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Willis&oldid=199252411

Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not.

They were made with your account. Do multiple people use your account? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure; we'll look into it. Supervox2113 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage you to take a look at your own record of contributions: [[1]]. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to look at the second sentence of the first paragraph in WP:TPG. If you still have difficulty learning what it is you are doing wrong, I will translate that sentence into a story containing the characters "Dick and Jane" for you.

Only the last sub-section of WP:TPG is applicable to user:talk pages. It states that users may freely remove material from their own talk pages. You obviously make liberal use of that prerogative; and I have no problem with that.

The first sentence of your paragraph (above) is incorrect. The title of the wiki guideline, and its use of the word "talk page", refers to discussion pages of which "user talk pages" are a sub-set (see WP:Talk Page for this definition). Because user talk pages are talk pages, your first sentence is inverted: whereas the last subsection of the guidelines only applies to user talk pages, it does not follow that only the last section of guidelines applies to user talk pages. This is immaterial; the more viable argument is probably that the guideline sentence I referenced contains the language "article talk page", and that this language should restrict the guideline only to those talk pages attached to an article.

You are mistaken, despite your attempt at taxonomical wizardry. Of course it is true that "talk pages" are defined so as to include both article talk pages and user talk pages. However, by express self-limitation, the talk page guidelines apply only to article talk pages, except for those that expressly apply only to user talk pages.

And that brings me to another point. I am intrigued by your reasoning. Like our discussion on talk:hearsay you seem to have (a) attempted to justify yourself and (b) applied canons of interpretation requiring some degree of intellectual sophistication to (c) arrive at an unreasonably backwards conclusion and (d) do so with gusto and panache. Item (c) by itself could be the mark of an ignoramus; but the combination of (a) and (b) are inconsistent with that hypothesis. You write like someone who is smart and knows it and wants everyone else to know it. Therefore, I conclude you are not an ingoramus. This makes me wonder how you arrive at some of your conclusions. My current hypothesis is that you are just testing me and others to see if we can keep up with you. Am I right?

It also states that removal of a warning is evidence that the warning has been received by the user. You seem to have issues with that one - you clearly received the warning for vandalizing bruce willis but it seems very important to you to act in a way that avoids taking responsibility. I cannot figure out why that is, and frankly, I am curious what your agenda is. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As you may have considered, it appears that the security on this account may have been compromised (I suppose the password was rather obvious). I had hoped that the responsible party might re-avail himself of this breach, and allow administrators to narrow the possible IP addresses from whence his edits are created (the original edits in question somehow were completed from two different IP addresses). However, as you have been persistent in bringing attention to this issue, even resisting my attempt to deflect with humor the same, I expect this party will probably make no further attempt with my account (assuming he has been monitoring this conversation at all; or in any case attendant to the user talk page history). Thus, I have merely changed my password and given up any dreams that the responsible party might be ascertained and excluded from future use of wikipedia.

I respectfully request that you style all of your future comments on this talk page in Latin, which I assume you speak (based on your nickname). Should a similar issue represent, and you don't "get the hint", anonymity of subject could thus be preserved. Supervox2113 (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Supervox: Thank you for answering my curiosity! I understand that you attempted to be humorous - however, that was not the only reasonable interpretation of what you write. That and, with all due respect, though most of your edits to wikipedia are bona fide and positive, and the bruce willis edits were vandalism, they were written in your a style similar to the style of many of your other edits. Hence your humor looked more like denial than deflection, and I couldn't tell what the appropriate response is. I apologize for making you feel as though someone is prying into your business - I don't care for that feeling, but please keep in mind: this is wikipedia. Everything here is public record, and nothing goes away, even dead edits.

As for what languages I speak, they're listed in my babel boxes. Latin is not one of them. Finally, I wish you many happy edits to come, especially if you are dedicated to improving law-related articles. Please sign up at WP:law if that is one of your priorities. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)