This is an archive of past discussions with User:Onorem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
OK, no problem. I think personally that all editors we can trust not to vandalise and to act in a responsible manner should be admins, but I recognise that my criteria are a bit wider than most. The idea of adminship being an "award" is one I'm unhappy with, it's just a software upgrade after all. Anyway, all the best and happy editing. Tim Vickers02:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, so I won't be blocking anyone today. Also, it appears that this user has already been warned. I know it isn't pleasant, but sometimes people will say things that aren't very nice. You really need to learn to not take it so hard. --Onorem♠Dil13:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Re:
I was trying to clean up the vandalism. I saw pagemove vandalism, and I reverted it. Then I tried to request the that redirect for deletion.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.12:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey I noticed your user pages are getting hit with a lot of vandalism would you like them to be semi-protected for a little while. Gnangarra13:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No thanks. I don't mind my user space being vandalized. It's easy enough to detect and revert, and anything that keeps the vandals away from the real articles is a good thing. --Onorem♠Dil13:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you trying to keep this discussion civil, but if I get accused of libel and vandalism for just correcting the spelling of one word....if I don't stand on principle here, there will be no copy editors left on Wikipedia. -Animesouth22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Head Wound Thankage
Hey I'm trying! Sorry about being mean to the bot, I was only preparing myself for the upcoming Hate for the Sake of Hating Day, and I guess I took it out on a robot... Thanks for fixing the fair use on the picture! Tubeyes12:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!
This editor is a Yeoman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
Thank you fixing my user page when it vandalized. I noticed you already had several anti-vandalism barnstars, so I decided that one for sheer diligence was needed. Keep up the good work. Also, you are qualified to recieve a service badge:
It's not up to the person reverting to locate a source. That responsibility lies with the person who wants to add the information. Your edits so far have consisted of unsourced trivial information and flat out blatant vandalism. I don't think it's unreasonable to request that you source your additions. --Onorem♠Dil14:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that I've said that I was relying on Google. Even if I was, my point stands. If unsourced material is removed, it should be sourced if it's going to be readded. --Onorem♠Dil14:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Check again. I have not removed anything that you've provided a "source" for. That would be *gasp* a different editor. --Onorem♠Dil14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Especially using Twinkle. Twinkle is the embodiment of evil. It would have made a huge difference if I'd taken the extra 3-4 seconds to revert manually. I'll keep that in mind. Is VandalProof more acceptable to you? --Onorem♠Dil14:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you corrected something I edited on the Michael Jordan article, and then sent me a warning about neutral writing. I just wanted to let you know my perspective on the whole thing. I was simply trying to clean up over-qualification of a superlative by taking out "one of." The fact that 'widely considered' is included in the sentence removes any doubt about neutrality--it's a factual statement that "Michael Jordan is widely considered the greatest basketball player of all time." It's not a violation of neutrality to include pop opinions in Wikipedia, as long as they are labeled as such (i.e. "widely considered"). It would be a violation of neutrality to say "Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time," but that's not what I did. I have no animus towards you, and I respect the fact that you take your hobby so seriously, but you came across as a little overbearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.132.178 (talk)
Jeremy blamed my relocation of his comment from the top of my report. He said my valid relocation is too problematic to file another report, then I gave him the same opportunity. --Appletrees (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
So you complain when he did it, but then go on to make your own point?
He at least signed his comments when he added them to "your" report.
Please think about "good faith". I forgot the signing, and in case, a bot might've usually filled that kind of missing info.--Appletrees (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"Good faith" doesn't explain why you warn Jerem43 for "distorting" your report, and then go on to do the exact same thing to him.
Posting his comment on top of my report looks "distorted" enough. He is not the person to file the report, but myself. The latter info is very useful tip to keep editing safely in wiki.--Appletrees (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that his comment would have been better placed at the bottom of the report. I'm not sure I've ever said that I disagree. That still doesn't explain why you did the exact thing you'd just finished complaining about to him. Anyway, I'm done with it. --Onorem♠Dil13:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I already answered your question at the first comment. I don't think you behave improperly as relocating my addition to the top of his file. You didn't say you're agree with which side is right or wrong. I just give you my rationale. Take care.--Appletrees (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't understand what it was you were trying to say with your first comment. It's not really important... --Onorem♠Dil13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If you're implying my wrong grammars in English, that is my limitation in the language, sorry. I thought you would come to ask my addition on top of his report, because some people did. As you saying, that is really a trivia. --Appletrees (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am having a hard time understanding some of what you've written, but I'm in no way trying to insult your English. It's far better than my Korean, German, or French will ever be.
Your addition at the top seemed strange, and it seemed like you were doing it to intentionally annoy him because he did it to you. I'm sorry for not assuming good faith, but that's what it seemed like to me. Whatever you're intentions were, it was inappropriate to add your own unsigned comments at the top of what he had written, especially in the same format as the rest of what he'd written. I moved it, and I'd move it again if you replaced it in the same manner. That's the end of my involvement here. --Onorem♠Dil14:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I do never think you are uncivil to me and tries to insult my English. I just plainly admit my limited writing ability in the language. I have no intention to do so again. I wanted to just alarm to him about his misconduct and false blame. I initially you're an admins, so I left the wording. If this converse consumed your time unproductively, I apology to you. Take care.--Appletrees (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you didn't take my comments as an insult. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that wasn't what I meant. I don't think civil conversations are ever a waste of time, so there is no need for an apology. If there's any confusion, I also want to make sure you know that I am not an admin. --Onorem♠Dil14:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Userpage MfD
Hi,
It's very kind of you even to consider doing this for those folks. I'm going to email you a copy of the last revision to the page prior to the MfD, and you may use it for the purpose you've described. I don't want to restore it anyway on WP, since it does appear to be advertorial. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I sent you an e-mail on Tuesday about an interview for my thesis on Wikipedia. Let me know if you'd be able to participate. I'd really love to talk with you about your experiences!
At this time, I'm not planning on having an e-mail based survey as part of my research, although if that changes, I'll be sure to let you know! Thanks for your wish of good luck!
Hi, Onorem. On the World wrestling professionals page you stated that my article is lacking 'notability'. What exactly does this mean, as I stated in the tags that it is 'a South African wrestling promotion'?
Thanks for keeping such a vigilant eye on the vandals and reverting my user page so quickly! Much appreciated :-) --Storkk (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
re:sandbox
Well, I saw that he/she had a lot of warnings and a few blocks, and they are told not to delete the sandbox header, so I thought naturally it was just petty vandalism.
But fair enough, I see what you mean.
CG's revert of SoV's edit said, "Rvt'd so ca;lled c;lean up". I was questioning why she would call it "so-called?" when it was absolutely correct for the list to be bulleted. --Onorem♠Dil15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You discussed and pointed out my reverts over the SofV's edits that I, shall we say, had issues with over the misunderstanding of how the pages were found. That issue was worked out but it brought the revert issue to my attention and I'd like your opinion. Earlier I reverted edits to The Shield back to a more concise summary per User:Xihr. Then I, in 100% good faith/experience removed some extra / (forward slashes) from some break indicators as part of clean up. Xirh reverted the removal of the slashes. I asked why and got the following [1], to be told to only make constructive edits. Now, this comes down to the point you made about reverting legitimate edits. I would like you opinion. KellyAna (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No idea. I usually start my morning by filtering Recent changes for User page edits made by anonymous editors. Your page just happened to be one of the most recently hit. --Onorem♠Dil13:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop reverting the La Plata High School wiki page, as your information is wrong, not cited, and incorrect. This school was established in 1927, the picture is a picture of the school. All of the other information is correct, you are not even bothering to read it, what you are doing, sir, is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSilentJanks (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What kind of paper? I don't care if you are or are not the bass player. I don't care if they do or do not rock. --Onorem♠Dil12:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
sorry to bother you, but i was casually browsing wikipedia like you do, and i decided to amuse myself by looking up slang words, again like you do, and i curiously typed in "brap" and i came to an odd to say the least, divert to an angel page. interested, i went and had a look at the history and it said you were the last to edit the page, and it seems that you reverted it back to this divert.
now i have no doubt this is a valid edit, and even if it was last edited back in july 2007 (a long time ago now), i was just wondering if you knew what brap meant, and its references to popular culture at the moment. if you are, then wouldn't it be a wise idea to at least add a disambigued note at the top linking to the slang page? if you aren't entirely sure what it means, then just have a look back at past edits on that page, you will find it correct.
i just wanted to ask for reasons why you kept that page on a divert, just incase there was a fully valid reason before i started to edit the page.
Thanks again, Random articles (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
For intervening on my Talk page. There's a group of editors on the Waterboarding whose behavior has been less than exemplary, and they've followed me home. I would hope that of all the pages on Wikipedia, I could expect to avoid an edit war on my own Talk page. I'd appreciate it if you'd look in on the Talk:Waterboarding page every now and then. Thanks again. Neutral Good (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out deletion use on user pages, wasn't aware of this but will follow your advice. I've got a small issue with one contributor who has listed on Dec 23, 2007 some rather inappropriate comments on my Shaun Wilson page. Can you take a look at the x4 "stewarthill" edits and advise what the Wiki policy is on these matters to stop further disruptions. With thanks. Doug Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug church (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It is actually the official site that is formatted as soapcentral.com and why the bold is as it is. It is respectful to the site we reference. KellyAna (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that our manual of style doesn't care how other sites choose to bold and/or capitalize their names. Please stop undoing my edits while I try to confirm this. --Onorem♠Dil04:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Should I tell you to stop undoing my edits? The project (soaps) has tried hard to be consistent and the bold isn't against anything. We should be respectful of external sources if we are going to reference them as verifiable sources.KellyAna (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's pick a page and stick to it. I like you, I respect you but the soap project has ideals. Soapcentral has always been respected as soapcentral. It doesn't violate any guidelines and respects the source. Why, when so many of us have run around bolding soap are you removing it? Can we smile, shake hands and let the soaps be who they are? Please KellyAna (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, the soaps project isn't some special segment of Wikipedia that don't follow the general guidelines that everyone else is supposed to. Like I said, I might be wrong, but the edits I was making were made in good faith. I don't care how soapcentral bolds their name, but that has nothing to do with my not respecting them. If our guidelines state that links should appear a certain way, that's the way that they should appear. I respect this website's rules. --Onorem♠Dil04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's my "stance" ~ I've titled article references how I felt they should be and they've been changed per the SITE'S name. That's the fact with soapcentral. Their name is soapcentral, with soap bold. If other sources can go by the site name, so can soap central. It actually isn't about the link, it's about the link TITLE as with other references (as has been told to me lately). I guarantee, my friend, others will revert the change. What is the Star Trek saying "resistance is futile." As references go, it is a title and the title has bold. KellyAna (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not finding the guideline I was hoping to that I thought addressed this, but I'll look into it more in the morning. Again, I can accept it if I'm wrong. If some consensus has been reached on WP:SOAPS, I can accept that too. What I don't accept is just being told to get used to it just because there's a few editors that will revert no matter what the guideline or consensus says. If there has been a discussion regarding these links within the wikiproject, I'd appreciate a link to it. Either way, have a good day. I'm off until tomorrow. --Onorem♠Dil05:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be too but I have that other editor to deal with. Here's what I know, the teley projects all have their own guidelines as do those horrid boys on the NFL project. Many have gone around adding the bold. Rather than saying "find me a guideline" can we just "go with the flow" rather than reverting 3000 articles? Onorem, you're a good person, if the bold isn't against MOS, or you can't find it, let it flow. Have a good night!!KellyAna (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Trolling for opinions is against guidelines. Onorem, we both know that. As for "help US" it's one person begging for help. Again against guidelines, as we know, and she's been doing it on several pages. KellyAna (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Spring Thomas, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Onorem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
