User talk:Escape Orbit/Archive 4

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Re:"Stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox"

I was simply pointing out that there is a difference between pedarasty and homosexuality, which would make Wikipedia more accurate. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you weren't. You were inserting your opinion on these subjects into an article that wasn't about it. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh well

So that I may taunt silly notions of foreign insignificance further, I'm letting you know I started an article on Tsiigu, another recent infamous shady enterprise in Estonia. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

R.E Celtic

I'm sorry but you are so wrong. the content removed was malicious with no basis in fact or related to Celtic football club. It is part of an agenda by fans of a rival club to sully the name of Celtic and is done with malicious intent. I don't expect you to have a grasp on the factors involved with Scottish football and the black sectarian propganda but is you are going to remove my editing perhaps it is time you did. Thanks81.102.233.188 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For the love of god would you just accept that it is malicious. It's about a subject matter that can easily be proven is not linked to Celtic F.C. and had you any knowledge of the depths sectarianism in the west of Scotland and the lengths that some of these bigots go to score futile points in a proxy propoganda war with one another we would no tbe having this arguement. If you need me to source i will do, as i stated before, but i am not aware where to put this in order to satisfy you or any other editor. Thank you 21:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.233.188 (talk)


I really am bored with this now. The comments were removed for a valid reason if you or any other editor do not have the time or will to verify this then the whole wiki enterprise is build on unsound grounds and not worth continuing with. I will now be post a thread on several fans websites so that other fans can be made aware of the malicious content being used to sully the name of the club on the wikipedia platform; this, no doubt, will lead to an increase in your workload. I will also be making the Celtic football club aware of the unsubstanciated, speculative and malicious content about their organisation, held by the wikipedia platform.

Your reason is not valid. Your claims are not valid. Your accusations are wrong. You have made no attempt to understand what has been explained to you. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Respecting variations in the English language.

Sorry! I changed "colour" to "color" while I added some other information about the subject. No offence was intended. AmyEruna (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

its a highly significant fact that he was the first ever director general to pay such a visit, which you would see if you read the article. this in itself is reason for citing the article from The Indpendent newspaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaffacake (talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Yes, I am aware that Wiki is not a discussion forum but I was hoping that some other editor could incorporate my comments into the relevant articles in some way, something I did not feel articulate/editorial enough to do when I wrote them. I understand what you're saying but I hoped I was being constructive when I added my two cents worth.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

wtf

I am unsure of what you are getting at in terms of "joke entries"

If you mean updating entries because they are lacking in background source references... then I understand. If you actually look at the information added then you will notice that I have made no false statements.

Iain lee has been in all the mentioned films, radio shows, tv shows etc. he has also said that he wants his wiki page "vandalised". I have not vandalised his page. I have provided fact.

as for adams grammar page, Mr Matthew Parker is an explorer of south america, in particular Brazil and also an old Novaportan. he has a publisher lined up to print his work/findings in the near future... It is based upon his variation on the motorcycle diaries/long way down, based principly in the Brazilian outback. this work covers much of the "unknown" aspects of brazilian culture outside of the major cities. It is an indepth work that has seen a great reception so far in Rio de Janeiro, where he is based. If you wish to threaten me, don't bother. If you have influence over wikipedia, then flex it and get me kicked off... alternatively, feel free to please refrain from sending me threats.Magicpatmarker (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DCEETA deletion

thanks again for your help with the article, you see the result. what troubles me, (given that i subscribe to the "The advanced human aircraft hypothesis" (Ufology), is that avowed military users are following a similar modus operandi, in this case. (then they call it a personal attack.) this is more of an ad hoc coverup, than a conspiracy.

i suppose i shouldn't wave the red flag of area 58 before them, the problem is, it's in the NYTimes. then the tenditious cutting down 'not authoritative', 'trivial' begins. the longwinded changing of arguments, and not giving an inch, dosn't strike me as good faith either. here we have articles about museums yet to be built, Cold War Museum, civil war forts that no longer exist, Fort Corcoran, but no Area 58. (all in the same neighborhood.) and the problem being, that if i can find it so can any enemy researcher, so it ends up only obscuring the government program from public oversight.

the implication for wiki is that subcultures, with group think, can impose non wiki rules upon specialized parts of wiki, withholding public information. the dissenters are shouted down with specious arguments: All the quotes say is that this facility is "alleged to be" a satellite downlink station. Even if you choose to ignore the blatant weasel words, that's hardly a big deal, and notability isn't inherited from any notable data which goes through the place. The other citations appear to only mention the site in passing while discussing data which has passed through it

i've written worse articles, and will continue. how long will it take before they delete it from my userpage? well i will go back to my other articles, where more polite, rational editing prevails. Dogue (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wonky Pop

Added refs as requested, although since there were only three references, and virtually all of the acts were cited in the BBC article, I don't see why a global ref could not have applied. Furthermore, you could have done this yourself if you felt strongly about it. The time it took you to add cleanup banners (twice) could have been better spent improving the article. Regards Millstream3 (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks

i fixed(mariah carey)i provided the source,thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balto9902 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

lol

yeah,i didnt realize that..lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.159.237 (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply re Tony Blair article

That's not true. I have on two occasions on the talk page, when asked, specifically stated what improvements should be made.

It is impossible to regard the article as it stands as being neutral when the introduction makes no mention of the Iraq War-Lying-Hutton Report affair which defined his premiership and led to his eventual downfall.

I think the heated talk page discussions of the past fortnight show that some people believe the article is not neutral.

Fundamentally it writes about Blair very positively - and minimises criticism. For example, all corruption allegations were removed about a week ago.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I confess I got carried away, though Bliar is his nickname.
Re corruption. Even if you don't agree, you must now that Blair has been accused of significant wrongdoing. particulartly formula 1 affair, and cash for honoursJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Then cite them! What I know isn't relevant. What you claim isn't relevant. Only what you can cite is. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Talk:Blair Peach

I would note that I made those comments on the article talkpage after making this edit on the article page; I was refuting that Peach was "assassinated". I would further bring to your attention that it is considered extremely poor form to alter, amend or otherwise change the meaning of another editors comments within the discussion areas of Wikipedia - and can only believe that with with your long association with WP that fact had dropped out of your mind (there are some acronyms I could litter this message with, but I am not minded to presently). If you do not care for the comments I made (and which have stood for 17 months) then perhaps you should bring them up at a neutral venue and get further opinion. In the meantime I should be grateful if you would return my comments to the status in which I left them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

a =

You have got to be kidding me. You're going to make a big deal about me linking pages? What's the big deal about having more than one link to a page? If this is true, then wikipedia is an absolute joke. And please don't tell me you reverted all those edits, cuz there is absolutely no reason why this should not be, its lot like i am vandalizing or anything. Give me a break, why do you have to make such a big deal over nothing? Can't you just leave it? This argument is a joke and I hope you realize that.

Bort08 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Guiness World Rec. issue 2002 p.156

I have nominated Guiness World Rec. issue 2002 p.156 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 20:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've got a few people upset with you from the look of this Talk page...

Listen, the HoverRace article was accurate.

Even if you were trying to stop edit warring, removing fact and content from an article just to stop edit warring is seriously against the whole idea of free information. You're essentially censoring people because you want there to be peace and queit.

Do me a favor, and don't mess with the article anymore. I'll take your improvements (better wording, etc.) and incorporate them into a revert I will be doing.

On another note... You claimed that people shouldn't name names if they can't cite sources, yet the only name you removed was for someone who used social engineering (and admits this, as it was just a silly part of his childhood) to steal the server source code. You left in the name of the person who hosted using said illegally aquired source code (uncited, yet also true), and the name of the person who got Richard Langlois to legally publish all of the source code to the game.

In essence, you're removing the negative, and keeping the positive, which is NOT NPOV.

If you want every little bit of information cited, then you're just going to have to submit the article for deletion, because there are no NPOV sources.

Most of what you removed was common knowledge for anyone who has ever been a part of the HoverRace community since 1998.

Furthermore, a clear indication of your POV is the fact that you removed all references of HoverRace.com's fork of HoverRace being a fork, and yet actually added that fact to the HoverRace Plus fork.

Make up your mind: If HoverRace Plus was a fork, then HoverRace.com's, "HoverRace," is a fork. The original game was developed primarily by Richard Langlois, and published by GrokkSoft. Neither are in any way associated with HoverRace.com, nor have they ever been (HR.com has always been a fan-site, while GrokkSoft.com was the official site).

HoverRace.com's, "version," of HoverRace, and HoverRace Plus were both based directly off of the original source code, and forked from there (two seperate development teams who never worked with the original development team). OpenHover is clearly also a fork, as it is based on HR.com's HoverRace 1.23.

Finally... All three projects are not entirely open-sourced at the moment. HoverRace Plus never made it to a stage where any changes were made, except to get the source to compile. HoverRace.com's fork utilizes a proprietary scoreserver, while the original scoreserver source code remains available, the scoreserver that is actually used by them is not available. In addition, their PHP IMR has only been partially released, however I'm willing to let that slide because (as far as I can see) the only parts of the source code for the PHP IMR that have been removed from the published source code are the direct MySQL enquiries, etc. OpenHover's Website only allows you to download a rebranded version of the original GrokkSoft source code, and has not released the source code to their improvements, their PHP IMR, or their scoreserver.

People who have played the game in the past, or anyone who starts playing the game now has a right to know that the verions that they will be playing are not sanctioned by GrokkSoft, and so are forks of the original game.

Free software, and open source enthusiasts have a right to know that all forks of said game are not entirely free/open.

Why do you remove fact only where it suits HR.com's interests. The article now reads more like an advertisement for their fork than an informative article.67.70.104.138 (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think all this discussion just proves my point. Editors on this page are arguing over details about what they believe to be the facts all based on their own personal experiences and personal opinions. Wikipedia is not interested in this community's in-fighting.
If the facts cannot be cited from reliable third parties, and the facts are in dispute (as they clearly are) then they cannot appear on Wikipedia. What I did was an attempt to get back to some facts that cannot be disputed and remove the opinions, which can. How so-and-so got the code appears to be a matter of opinion, whether they should have the code is again opinion. What they are doing with the code is disputed opinion. That they do have the code would appear to be fact. That is what I attempted to leave in the article. If anyone is remotely interested in the ins and outs of the debate I'm sure the relevant websites linked can provide all the discourse they desire.
And incidentally, I have no POV. I have no interest in this dispute. My POV is keeping the dispute off Wikipedia and prevent it being a battleground for editors whose only interest in Wikipedia is pushing their own version of particular events. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Watch out man, this guy is so disconnected from reality you might hurt your mind trying to figure out how he thinks what he does. Igglybob (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ironic how you've left most of the so-called, "opinion," so long as it makes HR.com look good. Also ironic is the fact that you allow your talk page to be an area where users such as Igglybob can insult other users, while claiming to have Wikipedia's best interests in mind.70.51.251.110 (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please revise your edit comments

Using a condescending and "know-it-all" approach to making edits is not conducive to others who have worked on articles. See: edit comment and Edit comment. Having a "drive-by" MO is also indicated, please see WP:POINT. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

Responded to Bzuk's mystifying comments on his/her talk page. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Noted. Look over your own talk page. Bzuk (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

TORONTO ZOO

The wiki site for the Toronto Zoo has no promotional additions. These edits are to expand the readers knowledge of the zoo and to better understand what the zoo does. Can you please reply to this and undo your post of saying that these edits are for promotional purposes when they are not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.51.49 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So addressing the reader as you, with instructions to "Visit the new tree shrews!" isn't promotional?? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

editing Queen songs

I am editing Queen songs in good matter cos the articles are not full and complete or missing some important facts. As I can see the articles of other's bands and their songs are much more true, cohesive and full, so I don't see the point why the same shouldn't be with Queen songs. And just to let you know everything which I add is not my personal opinions, it's common and general opinions from many sources like music reviews, articles, internet channels, lists or books. For all changes which I made into the songs (as for Now I'm Here) my sources are "The Complete Guide To The Music Of Queen" by Peter K Hogan (1994), "Queen: The Early Years" by Mark Hodgkinson (1995) and "Queen: The Complete Biography" by Laura Jackson (2004). So if you are some kind of "Queen encyclopedia" better than these three which I mentioned then you continue to delete my good and TRUE contributions. If you are not, why you don't put it these sources in my additions and leave them so that other people who are interested in Queen's songs and music would have full and accurate and complete articles about it on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani mc gregor (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

iBus

Why do you think this problem does not exist?

"Another problem is the on-board computer is liable to be corrupted, resulting in multiple annoucements and display locations of bus stops being made in a continuous loop. As the volume of the annoucements cannot be adjusted, this has left passengers listening to non-stop annoucements of bus stop names throughout their journey." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibusker (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it exists, I don't think it doesn't exist. I think that its your personal experience or opinion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Beckz

Please kindly explain how it is vandilsm? This is from the beck's website. There is a press release on www.becks.com please kindly explain why you have listed my edit as vandalism. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadgearse (talk • contribs) 12:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it's an April Fools joke, and you know it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it is an April Fool's joke? Seems realistic to me, who are you to decree what goes on etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadgearse (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Get a secondary source then. But I'm not interesting in debating with you. It's a hoax. You know it's a hoax and your edit was an attempt to spread the hoax. Do not put it back in. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Escape Orbit,

Given your apparent enthusiasm in seeking to ensure that articles conform to Wikipedia's principles and regulations, I am most surprised by the confrontational approach that you have adopted. As you are well aware, contributors are required to assume good faith in the edits of others. You have fallen far below this requirement in the manner of your exchanges with me:

Because it's an April Fools joke, and you know it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC) The latter part of that sentence demonstrates clearly an absolute lack of good faith assumption on your part. You compound this negative behaviour in your subsequent comment:

Get a secondary source then. But I'm not interesting in debating with you. It's a hoax. You know it's a hoax and your edit was an attempt to spread the hoax. Do not put it back in. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Such behaviour is unacceptable and precludes positive engagement between contributors on Wikipedia. Moreover, if you are indeed uninterested in debating the edits of another contributor in the appropriately designated forum, namely the Talk page, then your temperament is clearly ill-suited to the interactive nature of Wikipedia.

I trust that you will now refrain from this objectionable and entirely unproductive approach.

Regarding the substance of your assertions, namely that the change of name in the Beck's beer brand from Beck's to Beckz is a hoax, you have presented no evidence to support this claim. Indeed, the evidence that has been provided, namely a link to the company official website, completely supports the edits that have been made to the article. As such, rather than arbitrarily determining what is genuine and what is not, if your doubts on the accuracy of the edits persist, you would be well advised to actually investigate the matter further.

With best wishes,

Fadgearse (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you finished? Your protests are disingenuous as your original edit. My point remains. It's an April Fool joke, from a portion of the Beck's website that is hosted by a comedian. Amazing, this news has been taken up nowhere on the internet except random blogs and other unreliable sources, most of whom are probably fully aware it's a hoax. You knew it was a joke from the start, but are continuing this outraged innocence posturing. Please give it up. I'll be removing any further edits to my page. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)