User talk:Pyrrhon8/Archive 1

MedCab

Hello Pyrrhon. A MedCab case has been opened here, naming you as a participant. I have accepted the case for mediation. Could you please visit the case page and sign your name to indicate your agreement with the ground rules I have laid out, and your willingness to participate? Thank you. — [ roux ] [x] 13:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pyrrhon, please indicate at the MedCab page whether you intend to participate in the mediation or not. If you do not intend to, please open a request for comment on the article in order to end the dispute. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature

I noticed that your signature is not linking to your username. Per Wikipedia:SIG#Internal links, your signature should include a link to either your user page, user talk page, or contributions page. This allows other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log. As you are not signing with your full user name, it is especially important that you link to one of those pages in your signature. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dignity: 3O or mediation?

alright, how do you want to work this. do you think requesting a 3rd Opinion will be sufficient, or should we turn directly to mediation through the wp:Mediation Cabal. your choice. --Ludwigs2 04:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, I personally have no issues with Ludwigs most recent edits to the Dignity article. Shot info (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Signature(#2)

I notice your signature uses breaking spaces, and is actually rather large. Please reduce it in size, per WP:SIG, and please use non-breaking spaces, so that your signature does not disrupt the surrounding lines like it has been doing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re my old signature

My old signature used an html-table. The default-behavior of Wikimedia keeps the link-text and the time-stamp on a line below the table, and pushes everything to the left margin. I tried various devices to defeat that default-behavior but those devices failed. I tried to make a table in Wikitext but Wikitext has problems too. If anyone wants to tell me how to make a table and link-text stay with any preceding text, please leave a message. PYRRHON  talk   22:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, well, I don't know if I have the spelling right, but you might want to see what Sandestine.. or something, has for his signature. It is like yours, text in a box with a backround. Just check WP:ANI and look around, hopefully you'll find it. Other than that, I like your signature now, but again, in regards to boxes, I do suggest you try to find it. If I do, I'll let you know.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

what precisely is the effect you're looking for? I'm good with CSS, wikitext, and html, and I'm happy to whip something up for you, I just don't quite see what you're after. --Ludwigs2 23:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments on my signature. I fixed the problem by removing the table, and by using "span" instead. I regret having caused any inconvenience. I appreciate your offers of help. PYRRHON  talk   21:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

looks good. I'd suggest adding 'padding: 2px', or maybe 'padding: 0px 2px' to the style element of the span, just to set the border off from the text a bit. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ludwigs2. I applied your suggestion to my signature. Thanks. PYRRHON  talk   18:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Sudbury_school#Another_merger_proposal

I have no idea the purpose of what you just posted in Talk:Sudbury_school#Another_merger_proposal. Does my edit history look like this is "my cause"? I've barely an edit in the topic area before a few weeks ago, and an edit history 4-years long! Just because I think someone is wrong, doesn't mean it's "my cause". Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent editing patterns (see 'Frequently edited pages') Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, I'm being followed! ... what a cool app! Nfitz (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, thank you for introducing me to WikiChecker. Nfitz, I will respond to your remarks at Talk:Sudbury_school. PYRRHON  talk   23:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dignity

since you refuse to discuss the matter with me, I've requested a 3rd opinion. --Ludwigs2 05:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

wikiquette alert

Hello, Pyrrhon8. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

notice of ANI case

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikihounding

Pyrrhon8, just as a warning, wikihounding is against wikipedia policy, and if you continue following me across pages I will ask an administrator to to take action against you. please desist. --Ludwigs2 04:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We are amused. PYRRHON  talk   04:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

you may be, but I'm not. you have a deep dislike for me - I can deal with that. but if you follow me around trying to disrupt whatever I do you are way over the line, and I'll do what I need to to reign you in. I'm not asking you to be nice, I'm not even asking for you to be civil; I'm simply asking you not to start screwing around with the project as a whole just to get your rocks off where I'm concerned. --Ludwigs2 05:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Status-stars

Your 1 to 4 star suggestion has a serious gap. An editor could be a troublemaker but has not been blocked. So they would be higher than a 3 star, but not a 4 star. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my further comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incivility_blocks. Thank you for your interest in this matter. PYRRHON  talk   04:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't really agree with the status star suggestion, but I do understand that you have the best of intentions. I do hope that the others didn't scare you off the discussion. We have some proposals we are suggestion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks, if you wanted to comment I'm sure your feedback would be appreciated! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

yin and yang

Hello. You have a new message at Machine_Elf_1735's talk page.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

smilies

there is a template {{=)}} that you can use for adding smilies to posts - no need to dig up the images yourself. that being said, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep personal attacks of that sort off of article talk pages. I don't want to take you to ANI again for incivility. --Ludwigs2 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Taijitu

Hi. Could you do me a small favour and copyedit, if necessary, the section on the geometric figure I have added. In case you have command of French, I would appreciate a brief check of the translation, too. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

new anti blasphemy law in Ireland

There is a new anti-blasphemy law in Ireland as of Jan 1, 2010.

Here is a link to the Irish govt. website

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/sec0036.html

I am a newbie, could you please forward this to the right user, thanks. AthiestGlen (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hate speech vs. hate crime

Thanks for letting me know; I wasn't sure where to put it, because there's no "hate speech" category. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:131.215.195.228/User:131.215.7.137 reported by User:Eugeneacurry (Result: Not actionable)

Re your comments there: I like your style: can I interest you in global warming and related matters? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am occupied by other interests at the moment. PYRRHON  talk   04:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Islam and Blasphemy

Dear Pyrrhon8,

Kindly look into the wikipedia page regarding Islam and Blasphemy. There are several points that are factually incorrect and subtly anti-Islamic in nature. I have tried to make deletions, but it seems that there are consistent reversions to a version which is riddled with historical and theological inaccuracies.

Kind Regards,

PhoenixSF90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixSF90 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see my remarks at Talk:Islam and blasphemy. PYRRHON  talk   01:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding your edits

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Dignity. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

edit warring

Steady reverts over a stretch of days or weeks is edit warring. If you carry on edit warring at Dignity, you'll be blocked from editing. Please be aware, this may be your only warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also, [1] is an unacceptable edit summary. Removing your pet reference is not vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Describing good-faith differences over content as vandalism is uncivil and can lead to you your being blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• In reference to your remarks above, I ask that you make note of the following.Wikipedia:Vandalism has a gray box near the bottom of its page. The first row in the box says that one example of vandalism is this:

Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

I reverted the attempt to remove a significant part of Dignity because the offending editor User:128.223.222.75, a limited-purpose account (one edit at that time), did not provide any reason for removing relevant and referenced information. Whereas most anonymous editors at Dignity use insults to justify their blanking of text, User:128.223.222.75 offered nothing.

Accordingly, what I removed from Dignity was vandalism. Contrary to what some administrators seem to want to believe, removing vandalism is not subject to the 3R Rule; removing vandalism is NOT edit warring. Let me quote from WP:Edit_warring, "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring." An editor not only may but should revert vandalism as often as the vandalism reappears. Removing vandalism and keeping an article from being turned into drivel are the practices of good editors. Sometimes excellent editors will effect several reversions to one article in a day. Those editors have no qualms about making many reversions to stop vandalism because removing vandalism is not subject to the 3R Rule since removing vandalism is NOT edit warring. Removing vandalism is NOT disruptive editing. Disruptive editing has as its aim to make an article bad. Removing vandalism does not make an article bad. No administrator should accuse an editor of being a single-purpose account or of being a disruptive editor merely because an editor makes reversions to counter vandalism. No administrator should notify an editor that he is liable to be blocked for doing what every editor should be doing. PYRRHON  talk   01:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As the policy says, good faith edits, however awful an editor may take them to be (or not), aren't vandalism. If you remove GF edits as vandalism again and I see it, I'll block you myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes three experienced admins that you take issue with upon the proper application of WP policy. Since you are not Galileo and we are not the Spanish Inquisition then you may wish to deliberate upon the concept that you might be wrong (or the concept of admitting the possibility that there may be times when you could be wrong, if the former is too much of a leap for you). LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism says Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason is vandalism. There is no good faith when someone is unwilling to provide a reason for blanking an article in whole or in part. It is uncivil--at least--for an administrator to threaten to block an editor for removing vandalism. PYRRHON  talk   17:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of good faith and WP:Vandalism is mistaken. I also think you may now be wikilawyering. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) "All or significant parts" does not equate to "your pet paragraph". (2) Good reason has been given repeatedly, but you choose not to hear. Final warning. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blasphemy and the United Nations

Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blasphemy and the United Nations would be greatly appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Defamation of religions and the United Nations

You should review Wikipedia:Civil#Avoiding_incivility, because you're not fooling anyone, spamming me templates. You do not own the article. I waited for two days for you to respond to my comments. If you don't care enough to contribute to the discussion, then I will be bold. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, I can do it too!

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. You have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

Sending you these templates sure will improve your ability to edit, or help us approach a consensus on the article! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations#Factual_accuracy regarding the tag you put on the lede. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Disruptive editting at Defamation of religions and the United Nations. Thank you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)