User talk:Ginbot86/archive3

Message from 69.244.66.218

Look I know that I wasn't suppose to use the talk page as it was a forum and that I wasn't supposed to retaliate you reversing it by reversing your user page ,BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT HAPPY TREE FRIENDS CONTAINS SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING.--69.244.66.218 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is subliminal messaging, you need to be prove it with verifiable sources. It's the way Wikipedia works. That sentence has been removed and will stay that way until you cite references. Ginbot₈₆ 22:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federal 2001 article

I tried revamping this article a while back. It's impossible to keeps stupid little kidlets from messing it up, and it's just not plausible to make an article about this siren without it turning into a giant listing describing each type. I'd try to revamp it into a much more compact article, but it just won't work. Is there any way this article can be deleted faster? --JustInn014 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learn about WP:DELETE and WP:CSD and take a look about deletion policies and try putting it up for deletion. I am not an admin and cannot delete it (and it needs approval anyway.) Ginbot₈₆ 04:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folding plug

As you're not a bot, you may be interested to know that I've restored this article per this request.--Tikiwont (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read it. Thanks for the info. Ginbot₈₆ 05:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Uw-npov1}}

Hi,

Just a note, per the Template:Uw-npov1 documentation, don't forget to substitute the template (i.e. you added {{uw-npov1}} to Drjem3's talk page it was raw and resulted in a template, when I added a subst: after it turned it into permanent text). I'm not sure why it's recommended, but if I had to guess I would bet that one result is the pages load faster 'cause it doesn't have to load transclusions.

Also, as a personal preference I always like to put in a pipe with a reference to a specific page - {{subst:uw-npov1|alternative medicine}} will give you a warning that embeds Alternative medicine as part of the warning template. It's an option, but it means there's no questions over what page you're talking about. Personal pref, by no means mandatory, but it's a nice trick to know about.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind next time. Thanks for the heads-up. Ginbot₈₆ 21:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind readers.

If I had a clue what you were talking about, it might help. I B Wright (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the following links ([1]) ([2]) will remind you. Ginbot₈₆ 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christ! The first is going back a hell of a long way (and the person concerned DID (and still does) attempt to own articles. The second is a statement of fact. And Mikus IS a persistent vandal, which if you took the trouble to examine his talk page, you would discover. I B Wright (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airbags.

Yo, it wouldn't fit in the edit summary but the reference itself contains the text:

"The advent of non-azide propellants, however, has complicated particulate/gas attenuation due to high combustion temperatures, and due to the characteristics of particulate combustion products produced by non-azide propellants. Furthermore, rapid cooling provided by conventional filters results in incomplete combustion and excess levels of toxic gases such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen (II) oxide."

I take this to mean that CO and NO are only issues with azide substitutes not described in the patent; it also fits with atom-conservation chemcial sense, as an azide explosion contains precisely no atoms or carbon or oxygen.

also I can make a good case for removing the reference rather than rewording it or moving it to another section; it refers to a patented sub-offshoot of airbag research, rather than the systems likely to be present in a commercial vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.223.186 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I B Wright – what's up with that guy?

Hi. After a rather unpleasant, grueling experience with I B Wright (and what currently seems to be his alter ego, 86.182.66.217) on my talk page and elsewhere, I decided to take a look at the history of his talk page and and wasn't too surprised to find that he clashed with many other users in the past, you among them.

And while I think it was wrong of some of you to threaten him with being blocked (for tendentious editing, personal attacks, harassment or whatever), he's really damaging Wikipedia, putting falsehoods in article after article (I'm still not sure as to why he does what he does: Is he really serious, or is this all some kind of a very bad joke? Or maybe he's got some, um, "other issues" to deal with?). Isn't there anything that can be done short of revoking his editing rights (which already had been tried once before)? Couldn't it be arranged that his changes must be approved by someone higher up before they are applied? Oh, well, that's probably not feasible, still, it's comforting to see that I'm not the only one who's had a close encounter of the third kind with this unnerving guy... Thanks!

By the way, did you ever read the self-description on his user page?

"[...]he has a wide ranging knowledge on some often surprising subjects.

Note: I B Wright is not his real name, but an apposite if modest description."

It doesn't get much more disconnected from reality than that.

Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's supposedly using an IP to edit from, he can be reported and banned because he's using a sockpuppet for his own use. Ginbot₈₆ 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although it looks suspiciously like it, I can't prove the sockpuppetry thing – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide some history diff links for evidence when you report the IP and account that I B Wright is using. See the following links too:

• Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

Also, enough (a.k.a repeated offenses) of personal attacks and harassment on Wikipedia is enough to warrant a block. Ginbot₈₆ 22:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever became of that?: Sockpuppetry case – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want any more trouble than the guy has already given me. But thanks for letting me cry on your shoulder a bit! – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. After looking through the sockpuppet report archive I noticed that I B Wright was either extremely defensive (or even aggressive) or in denial about his sockpuppetry. Go to the admin notice board and follow the instructions at that page to send a report. Ginbot₈₆ 22:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll think about it. Thanks again! – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic new developments on my talk page. Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I call shenanigans. I B Wright was mentioning overscan and other framerate/resolution topics BOTH as an IP address (all within a certain dynamic IP range) and logged-in user, not to mention all the entries by the IP/user are written in both the same style and tone. Also, such deletions needn't be likened to a personal opinion and just arguing about it will not get very far. Also, what about the user warning template coming from an IP address? Don't worry about the warnings; they have no merit and were not actually reported to anyone. Ginbot₈₆ 12:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your smallbasic program

Hi - you seem to be the author of a vector graphics program written in smallbasic with a screenshot posted on the photobucket web site. Is there any chance you could share the code on the smallbasic web site? thanks ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.56.137 (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider it. Ginbot₈₆ 17:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Based on your name my assumption is that you are a bot. Is this correct? If you are not a bot then you may wish to request a change of username. The assumption that you're a bot may be harmful to you. Mr. R00t ^Talk 03:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage has a little line mentioning that I'm not a bot, and I used to have a blurb on my signature saying that I'm not a bot (but I found it made for a complicated signature. I've had people ask the same question before, but still, thanks for letting me know. Ginbot₈₆ 03:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message from 24.205.205.240

This User has Administration rights, is in High School, has a post called 'Fail Blog' and uses his admin rights to reverse comments that are not entertaining to him/her, regardless of the information content contained within. If I figure out how to get admin rights, this is the type of person should be banned on Wikipidia! Join in and help me block this person. This is not a personal attack, they have removed MY helpful posts. This post is in self-defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.205.240 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have administrative rights here on Wikipedia for the time being, actually. The reason I reverted your edits was because they don't conform with the Wikipedia content standards (I've told you this for the third time now). Second, you can't be an admin just because you don't like why I removed your 'simple fix' section; besides, they're not going to just give you admin rights. Also don't just say that you're going to 'ban' me if you don't even know how banning works on Wikipedia. And lastly, I'm not here to reverse edits that 'are not entertaining to me'; I'm here to revert vandalism, spam and other things that don't belong here on Wikipedia. And again, it's still a personal attack if you're trying to rally people against me; do this kind of behavior one more time and I'll have to report you. If you can't follow the rules of Wikipedia, then don't edit here. ^GB86 03:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]