Hi!

Yeah, I'm a new user here... Eventually, and hopefully, I'll be a Pro-Wikipedian. Hehe...

Hey, There was a time that I edited a page, and I added a few lines and a paragraph and I saved it. And the next day, when i visited that article, my contributions were erased. I guess that there are people who saves their articles word-by-word in other writing program. And if there's someone who would change or edit something, they'll just copy-paste their article from that writing program, erasing the ones of the person who edited just a little bit. Gets? Hehehe... I mean, there are people who are so selfish that they want nobody to edit their article! So mean...

Anyway, have a nice day!!

Mogultown 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xiner01, this is Ghostrider01 on Air Force Common. Bandit at my six oh clock, vampires engaged. Obvious slang tips me off. Reverting back my TCS Ghostrider01, out.71.142.213.199 04:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly inbound your station, email check. Ghostrider01, out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.213.199 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You wrote: If the three are showing up, as I see, but not in the order you want, which I'm not sure about but if you say so...then have you tried switching their order in the code?

Well, I forgot to say that it's not showing right on Mozilla Firefox (the browser I use), but it seems to be alright on Internet Explorer (probably the browser you're using). - Aditya Kabir 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xiner -

Sorry about the edit summary - I was having some connection problems. Thanks for pointing that out. Avi9505 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was amazing! I thought that creating new templates was a form of "Black magic". But they arent and their easy to make! Thank you for your assistance. --Regards, Darkest Hour ^Talk•_contribs 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah sure. Um how do I get that around to every body though? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkest Hour (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• How does every one find out that there is a new help template out on the "market"?
• Well it was your idea for putting it on talk pages. Infact I made it because I found out that when typing {{helpme}} It says to put your question below. Well I found out if you type it this way: {{helpme|I have a question}}, the question turns out to be above the ask your question below bit. Also asking on the help desk will get you farther than just checking out the FAQ. --Regards, Darkest Hour ^Talk•_contribs 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay. I do belive some people like change. What did you mean by "other behavior"? --Regards, Darkest Hour ^Talk•_contribs 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. Check it out. That is a lot easier that creating something new.
• Great I like it! Case closed. --Regards, Darkest Hour ^Talk•_contribs 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my plea for help regarding copyright for translations. Your comments (as well as those of other experienced Wikipedians) were of great interest and help. Sorry abt putting my foot in it with the user page - I misread it for "user talk page" (or was it vice versa?) --Technopat 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would be surprised how many people have other user's talkpages on their watchlist (part of the open system I spoke about). I have one on mine who is actually doing me a favor. I have 493 pages on my watchlist. Many were accumulated while I was on active vandal patrol. About a third are actually ones I really care about and contribute to regularly or just protect. When I came off active VP earlier this month, it was my intention to go back and clean up pages. Now, all I have to do is make a minor correction on a page and the other user does the majority of the work for me. Every so often I hit an orphaned page and watch the fun. :) Ronbo76 04:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both sides of this debate. If I read the whole nom correctly, it kinds of boils down to two issues for me: choice and the ability to contribute as other users put it. If you side with the free choice debate, then it's keep in my mind. If it about your ability to contribute or not contribute based upon being in the category, then it goes contrary to what Wikipedia espouses: openness. Unless some user manages to seize on the second issue firmly and convince all that it is contrary to Wikipedia, I see this being a split vote. This is typically the type of AfD I avoid. I want my votes to show I care, thought about the debate and voted my conscience. Sometimes I will weigh in on definite WP:SNOW debates in the majority. But, I have also been a lone voice in the wind. That's why my comments in the TV talkpage are relevant. If you followed my thoughts there, you saw how in a matter of minutes, I had the info at hand, linked it and hopefully crystalized the conversation for others. That's what I do with an AfD. I read the nom, article, follow links and then do do-diligence voluntary research on the net to finalize my vote. I will incorporate typically my net research into my position.

I don't see where your ultimate position in the Wiki community will end up in jeopardy (unless I am really missing the debate and what you are asking me) - unless, someone somehow turns it into SNOW. Hope that helps. Ronbo76 05:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the debate several times after my initial assessment and again prior to this post. I still believe that the debate will be somewhat evenly split because it is a heated topic. And, unless someone can seize on the Wiki opensource edit option and convince all of it (which I find highly doubtful), I think it will end in tie unless the closing administrator tips it one way or the other. I do not believe that revealing your position would be detrimental unless you do one, if not all, of the following: 1) take an odd position that is non-supportable; 2) reveal something about yourself that leads others to question your debate choice; 3)continue to argue your position beyond two or three comments; and 4) violate the Wikipedia:Trifecta.

I stumbled on the Wikipedia:Trifecta last night. I sure wish someone had pointed it out to me when I first became a member. If you follow the links, I typically get tripped up by the DBAD community facet. But, once you get to know me, you will that I am not part of the Peter Principle.

I feel honored that you trusted me to ask my opinion and respect what I said. Likewise with the horse you rode in on (little levity). Cheers, Ronbo76 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xiner01, ronbo76 angels 280; aluminum cloud cruising; seeking a trifecta; ronbo76, out Ronbo76 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical call sign is TCS using have a number assigned. Aluminum cloud indeed is a Tomcat loaded for bear or a fight. Angels is altitude times 100 (can be 1000 if the trailing zero not utilized). Trifecta refers back to WP:TRIFECTA. Cruising means available.

If you meant cryptic, not really but as I said people watch your talk pages. People that speak the same lingo can fly like an aluminum cloud in a grey sky all day long. Ronbo76 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not leaving one. I missed the bit about "no matter how minor", and as it was the caption and link to a photo I just uploaded I guess I thought it didn't matter. I know better now. Thanks. :-) Makrhod 12:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where, pray tell, did I fail to give an edit summary? As a matter of course, I don't summarize minor edits. Non-minor edits (almost) always get summaries from me. Biruitorul 02:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I will try to be careful. Biruitorul 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go back and add info about previous edit? Since I didn't start making comments. I am the same when programming, but I eventually go back and add comments (months later when I no longer understand my code). I have already started, if that helps. If it does not automatically come up, how do I add the date and time stamp? Graham

Actually, my comment was about both, edit summaries and signing, I got the signing last night, and I have started leaving edit summaries. Thanks Grahamwild 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namely, adolescent sexuality, you've been involved with this before. And it'd be GREAT if you could get involved again. see talk:adolescent sexuality for more details.

I have been reminded of assuming good faith multiple times, but if you look beneath the surface he acts QUITE to the contrary. although i'll try to be a bit more good faith assuming, but if no progress is made for another few weeks or so.

It's going to slowly begin to crumble (If Illuminato stays the reason in my opinion for no progress being made)

Anyways, bring articles to AFD for merging?, if you mean adding in POVS to the article, than read the talk page on adolescent sexuality, i've proposed putting all major pov's on a subarticle.

However, if you mean deffirently then PLEASE feel free to explain.

I seriously DO think that deleting the article might be a good idea. Perhaps for the meantime it would serve wikipedia well to be devoid of articles on this subject.

Regards, Nateland 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xiner, when I tried to move a disam page over an existing redirect, as part of a well-planned migration project, the system showed an alert saying only an administrator could do it, so I used the {{helpme}} tag on my user talk page to ask for this. Less than one hour later, you removed the tag and left me a message saying "no one has responded" and suggesting I use WP:ANI. I don't understand; WP:ANI seems a less appropriate place to ask for help. RSVP, Fayenatic london 07:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]