Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The undertow (talk | contribs) at 06:58, 7 April 2008 (→Thank you: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

unu doi trei patru cinci şase şapte opt nouă zece unşpe doişpe treişpe

Middix deletion

Hi. I'm a little confused. This doesn't make sense to me... this vs. this. Am I missing something? I'm cross-posting on Tikiwont's page as well. -- Swerdnaneb 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I see the error of my ways, but it seems like some of these "web desktop" articles are straddling the fence between web content and software. -- Swerdnaneb 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky one, but a good question Swerd. At the time I deleted the A7 article, 'software' was not excluded from the A7 criteria. Since December, the criteria for speedy deletion has changed and articles about software cannot be speedied for lack of notability assertion. the_undertow 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for the help! I'll quit speedy-nom-ing them. :) -- Swerdnaneb 01:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

<3

You rock. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Congrats on your successful Burro crate candidacy. Now, get your burro-cratness over to the bot approval page, I have a main page deleting, Jimbo blocking bot that needs the sysop bit turned on. K thx bai. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So that means that you're not a Mariah Carey fan? Too bad, because that's the sole reason I supported your above nomination...well that and the reason expressed on the page. Dude, I'm disappointed. Mimi is the Queen!! <Don't tell me you're a Madonna fan....so help you God!!!>

What the topic said...and hi! Orane (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Whaddup?

Hokay, so I got a few minutes in to research, check my notebook for progress. I'll work on it more tonight and tomorrow. I got distracted... but I'm good now. I'm Lara! I remember! A'ight, ttyl. Lara❤Love 20:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the good faith defense you posted on the SSP page. I don't even know why I'm suspected really. But people can think whatever they please. I just wanted to thank you for the nice words. Rm994 (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I don't want to see any editor get discouraged, ya know? C ya. the_undertow 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And at that point, I must admit I almost considered deleting my account and never touching another page. Thanks, though. I'll tough it out. Rm994 (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey look, you came out ok, yer not a sock, and most likely won't have to go through that again. Everyone, seriously, almost everyone gets 'bitten' at first. It's what motivated me to stick around though, because I wanted to show that I can hang and that I'll be around longer than the person who first bit me ;) the_undertow 06:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

zOMG

Teh anxiety! So check it, my sweet the_undertoes, last night was teh suck. Srs. I woke up every few minutes, really weird fucking dreams about wikipedia articles and wiktionary entries... I'm addicted, obviously, to a point that it's unhealthy. Regardless, I haven't puked since just before I went to bed, which was before I talked to you last. There's still a Spanish-American war in progress, but I think it's drawing to an end. However, McDonald's for lunch, cause teh intraweb told me to keep the fatty foods coming, so we'll see how that ends up. I've not had anything to eat since 3 slurps of broth last night before bed.

So okay, just met my Chinchilla's. They're so cute! Now to decide between Baxter and Ozzy or Tank and Diesel. Although we can't tell them apart... but, okay, time to go eat. I hope you're doing well. Just wanted to drop by and say o, hai. :) Lara❤Love 16:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Didn't know you were back. F'kin kewl! Look forward to seeing you around. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Same, when I saw your name pop up and ANI I got excited. Good to have you back, Tiptoety 01:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The next six weeks I will be in limited capacity due to a miraculous graduation from college, however, after that, I expect numerous RfCs and ANIs that are a direct result of my actions. Fare thee well. the_undertow 01:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront (website)

Y'know, it's actually better to correct misspellings than to remove sections that have misspelled words. Glad you came around to it. --jpgordon 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You realize the irony here? You re-added the information despite the spelling errors. It's the burden of the editor adding the information to make sure it is grammatically and factually correct. And given the additions by the editor, the latter is unlikely. the_undertow 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's why I didn't restore it in the first place; but the reason I noticed it in the first place (Stormfront, of course, is on my watchlist) is that I only parsed end of your comment, "obvious spelling errors", and for whatever reason the first part ("irrelevant information") didn't register. Sorry about that. --jpgordon 03:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also very uncomfortable correcting even grammatical errors when it comes to a source to which I do not have access. Basically if it's a good faith insertion, I will take the time to correct the grammar - I'm here to contribute, right? But in this case, I am hesitant because I don't see it as a good faith edit, nor can I verify the source or the content. I don't want to correct something, which amounts to endorsing it, if I can't be sure that the source is accurately utilized. Ya know? the_undertow 03:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I don't think you have an obligation to verify sources and such when you're correcting obvious spelling errors; why would anyone think that an endorsement? --jpgordon 04:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think because if I'm correcting it, I must believe in its inclusion. Also, then it gets buried in the history and the recent addition may not be scrutinized. It's tough. These are edits made by a user who consistently adds the 'racism' category to white pride while actually and soberly removing the same category from Black Panthers AND Black Supremacy. When someone literally says "Black pride is not racist. It is a response to all the racism black people had to suffer through. White pride, however is; it is just a sanitized version of white supremacy" they really deserve to be topic banned for life. This user is way too POV to be touching these articles. He is incrementally making Stormfront and white pride completely negative subjects by using various sources at his discretion. the_undertow 04:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and I'm not defending the particular section - as I said, the revert was a mistake based on my missing part of your edit comment. All I saw was "misspelling", and the content was obviously much more than that, and I assumed something odd was up. Anyway, responsibility for edits is a personal issue, and I understand your POV; I guess I spent so many years fixing bugs in other people's crappy code that "fixing" and "taking ownership of" (or, in this case, editing and endorsing) are entirely separate issues for me. --jpgordon 06:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean, that makes sense to me. If you suspected that the coding you were working on was going to be used in a virus, for example, you could see where editing and endorsing sort of overlap. Anyway, I'm off to sleep, so have a good one! the_undertow 06:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)