User talk:Usb10/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Usb10. 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.

Well, it is a theorem, whether or not it sounds silly or essay-like. I would like it if it was it's own page, but if that doesn't comply with you, then I guess leave it under my namespace or whatever. In my defense, it's source is me - the creator, just like any other theorem and it has to be proven correct - by anyone willing to do so. And besides, they can edit it, right? :)

EDIT: sorry, I was dodging the bullet with that response. What I meant was that if the article doesn't comply with wikipedia's rules, then this is fine, but if it does comply, I see no reason for having it moved to a user page essay (as I don't see it as an essay). Hope this was a bit more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesseoffy (talk •contribs) 01:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK maybe I was using the term "essay" too loosely. My point is the tone/style of a actually theorem full-out stating of a theorem/idea is not the style we are looking for on Wikipedia. Read WP:NOT, especially the WP:NOTESSAY section of it. Cheers. Usb10 ^Connected? 01:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't waste any further time; I've reported him as a promotional username. HalfShadow 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I really don't understand why random people try to write their autobiography on Wikipedia. Usb10 ^Connected? 23:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I just want to remind you that the WP:BLPPROD process only applies to living people. You added a BLPPROD tag to Gudō Toshoku, but it was clear from the article that he was from the 1600s. Calathan (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be editing the Dan Benishek article. I would like you to read WP:3RR and note that WP:SOCKPUPPETs should not be used to avoid 3RR. At this point I am making no accusations, just posting the same message on all editors' talk pages. Per WP:BRD, a controversial edit should be discussed on the talk page, not become subject to an WP:EDITWAR. I have notified the BLP noticeboard here and encourage you to join the conversation at Talk:Dan Benishek. Thank you, Mechanical digger (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring? Um, all I was doing was reverting vandalism on that article; look at the diffs and you will see. Usb10 ^Connected? 00:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Futhermore I think you got the wrong person; I have no idea what you are talking about; I was just reverting obvious vandalism by this guy.Usb10 ^Connected? 00:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I went a bit over the top on that, went all "OMG A BLP VIOLATION" over this diff. From the history page and the edit filter tags thereon I assumed it was a sock of Rob buns and you were just reverting the addition of material. But yeah, a bit more haste and a little less speed in reacting on my part would have helped &ndash looking at the size of the article edits, or a diff of your edits, would have stopped me blowing a molehill into a mountain. Thank you for your very reasonable reply too. Bigger digger (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Usb10. You have new messages at Ale jrb's talk page.
Message added 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~NerdyScienceDude 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to WikiProject Apple Inc.'s collaboration! We're currently working on the project's flagship article, Apple Inc. There's plenty to do, and goals on the talk page—all members are encouraged to participate. Additionally, collaboration participants will receive a barnstar after the article reaches GA status. If you have a spare moment, please join in or tell your friends. Thanks! You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active participant in WikiProject Apple Inc.

Monomium (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, but I don't see any collaboration opinions or any active discussion on the talk page of the article. Maybe you could tell me about on things that need to get done so that I can hack away? Usb10 ^Connected? 01:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

first time, I have gone through this sort of approval. wonder how you think of it.

1. Is it a pain in the ass (for approvers, for editors)?

2. Does the approver have some general knowledge of the category of articles? Or just a responsible person?

3. Is the apprval loose (just screening vandalism) or tight (maintaining the beautiful clean copyediting extant in wikipedia)? I think I know the answer to that one...hehe!

4. How much does it bug you to get multiple edits in a row. (I find myself needing them copyediting or content creating.) It's just too hard to try do the the stuff offline and load finished copy, for one thing because of wiki code and lack of a sandbox for an IP anyhow. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 72.82.43.222 (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not hard at all to approve an edit; only users with the reviewer right like me can do it and all I have to is click a button. This reviewing process is done on certain articles that are protected in a special way (I really don't want to explain it unless you want a lecture, read about it here). To answer your second question, yes, the reviewer must have some knowledge of the article if you want to do some serious screening. The approval is a bit loose, basically we are just looking to make sure it doesn't violate any policies on biographies, it's not a copyright violation and it's not anything simply wacky. To answer your fourth question, it doesn't bug me about multiple edits; the reviewing button handles all of that. Hope that answers your questions! Cheers. Usb10 ^Connected? 01:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Kadua at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Left more comments at T:TDYK Materialscientist (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw this edit on my watchlist, hit rollback and went to the user's talk to issue a warning. I did not see your warning when I posted. I'll be glad to answer your questions if you post them to my talk...no need to hide them in your edit summaries. RegardsTiderolls 16:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)