User talk:CanadianLinuxUser/Archives2

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post.

Ooh... Shiny!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You've been beating me to reverts for a couple days now. Keep up the good work! SQL ^{Query me!} 13:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what flavor of linux is your favorite? SQL ^{Query me!} 13:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS for the Barnstar !!! These days it's Mepis but I may go back to Fedora

Re: Second Opinion The Lives of John Lennon

Other than one sentence, which I removed with a request for a cite, it looks pretty good to me and he reworded the section regarding Lennon being sued in this edit. I have never read this book either, but I'm going to guess this is the source of my dad's opinions on John Lennon and especially Yoko Ono. (If this book is indeed the source, I'm pretty sure that what is being written by the IP is accurate) My opinion is that since the article is about a book that is stated to be critical of Lennon, it is ok to add more information about the book's contents even if that content is potentially libelous toward the subject. I hope that helps. Regards. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then what the heck is reason for you two threatening me? I spent a lot of time on that article and I'll be happy to email you excerpts from the book backing up everything I've read. I've cited pages, I've even quoted a little text, I'm not exactly sure how much is fair use, so I'm paraphrasing, which is probably better anyway. I'd appreciate some debate and discussion instead of just hauling off and accusing me of vandalism, which is a pretty harsh charge when I'm obviously citing and writing valid material, not adding JOHN SUCKS or something obviously stupid and worthless. Take time to at least read it.71.100.13.236 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I REMOVED my accusation of vandalism and asked a second opinion on your edits. I have no idea who is threating you but it is not I. Please remain civil. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

future reverts

Please read comments and or talk pages before reverts and comments in future, as to prevent unconstutive and unneccessary reverts. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

And I recommend you get a Username so that your massive reverts do not get mistaken for vandalism. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WD Mybook and Seagate Freeagent

Under which Wikipedia guideline/rule do my edits about external HDDs constitute vandalism? Clearly, vandalism is intentional destruction of articles in order to provide false information or offend someone. I could accuse you of vandalism myself because you removed vital information regarding those products.

I've had both those drives and they both completely failed within 7 months. If you would take your precious time to actually read user reviews of those drives on Amazon and other sites, you would see that the failure rate is extremely high, sometimes reaching 30 percent globally.

I don't know what makes WD fail, but Seagate fails because of faulty interface bridging controller.

If you revert my edits again, I will get registered and we can just keep reverting each other's edits accusing each other of vandalism, till this page gets locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.158.192 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your edit of Seagate FreeAgent ... this edit to be precise [1]

Please follow the Wikipedia policy of citing sources.... Wikipedia:Cite to make an accurate edit to the article. Simply stating... "...it has received lots of criticisms..." will not be allowed --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added reference to negative reviews as you had asked.

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For fast reverting and edit conflicting me so many times, I award you this barnstar :) AVand ^talk _contribs 14:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<Blinks> Wow... 2 in a 2 days... I thank you. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAF (your revert to my edit)

not calling the Red Army Faction a terrorist organisation is misleading and insulting to the people they've killed

i understand that you've reverted my change as a potential vandalism, (and respect it) but I see it as a mistake (sorry my bad english)

(btw members of RAF where charged as terrorist making RAF a terrorist organisation according by German law, and most language versions of wikipedia use the term terrorist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.192.137 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Edit

I appreciate the edits I made to the list of Minor Star Wars characters may look unconstructive, but I believe if you view the two together you'll see that I made the entry I edited readable. It also reads less like something a nine year old might have written. I believe words should be used to make life more beautiful, not more annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.212.238.169 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{ipvandal}} template

Hi, and my condolences to you for having put up with a huge amount of nonsense today on Thomas Fleckenstein. I have semi-protected it, because it seemed to attract a huge amount of vandalism from different IP-addresses.

When you report someone to AIV (and thanks for doing so), the parameter in the {{ipvandal}} template should contain only the IP address (numbers and dots), "User_talk:" should not be in it. Thanks for your hard work! Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I'll double check it. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Change to The IT Crowd page

Heh, sorry. I changed a single word ("cheerful" to "cheery") to reflect what I believe was the intended quotation (if you're familiar with the show, Richmond's line [season 1 episode 6] is that he's not his usual "cheery" self. It's nitpicking I know, but yeah). I need to get into the habit of giving edit summaries - thanks for calling me on this one :)

58.166.110.28 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to be called "cheery" LOL --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Unconstructive Edit"

I was in the process of fixing my mistake when two different people tried to fix it before I did so it ended up a big jumbled mess. A little bit of time and leeway would be appreciated in the future. Not all of us are editing masters. Fliry Vorru (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of us trying to get vandals.... we stumble over each other all the time... I lost count how many times I have made a mess ;-) So no worries and keep having fun stomping on vandals. ;-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new cassel edit

well maybe if you were a cop in nassau county and new cassel you wouldn't have changed my edit. so i will be putting it back, if you do not mind, and you can worry about editing the posts about the towns you more know about.

thank you

Parker (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

68.194.213.27 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you put it back without citation as per WP:Cite it will be reverted. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What??

Quote:

Hi, the recent edit you made to Mike Nolan (singer) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC) end quote[reply]

What is all this about? Why did you revert a page when I was in the process of writing it? I hadn't (and still haven't) logged in, but as re my comments on the discussion page. The Mike Nolan (singer) page was desperately in need of rewriting. The section you reverted was total nonsense as I had said. I deleted the whole section because it had little to do with the subject - and certainly not encyclopedic content. If you want to keep it then go ahead, but in future I'm certainly not going to waste my time improving an article on a subject I know quite a lot about if it's just going to get reverted.

If you know so much about Mike Nolan - and actually think that that section was important to his career, then perhaps it's not me who's in a 'land of make believe'. --82.0.207.86 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC) --Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC) (after logging in)[reply]

PS. I had left the page while looking for references. As you can see the references I have put in only cover the first half of the page, but what's the point in me putting in any more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuzapicabit (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted right away the article when I noticed the error, I just forgot to revert the warning from your page. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see that now. --82.0.207.86 (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License plate edits

I am removing inaccurate information and providing a link to a primary source. Most of the license plate articles are filled with bad information, so it is best to link to the various state DMV sites which has the latest and most accurate information. Yuck Flu By Road (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your work with vandal fighting today, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you this barnstar. Keep up the awesome work! --Sharkface^T/_C 20:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of Florida

Would prefer having inaccurate information on the Vehicle registration plates of Florida page? You seem to by putting back the inaccurate stuff. We put links to primary sources which refute the inaccurate stuff. Yuck Flu By Road (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, how did i vandalize her page?

Seriously, i was curious as to how i vandalized the pag Emma Watson when all i did was put in information according to the subject? Please respond ASAP, thanks Iamagenius_nolie —Preceding comment was added at 00:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your edit : Also, i feel i should add, a film was made by me on my Youtube account NJPictures and it was due to the fact that i falsely heard of Emma's decline of the last 2 films. I made the film and called "A tribute to Emma" but i had it deleted after i found out the truth, just thought i would put that out there. no lie Iamagenius seriously

The spelling is horrible, this is not an encyclopedic entry at all. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is unconstructive about editing info to Carrefour?

I tried expanding on the details of what happened and provided a link to site and referenced the source. Is there anything wrong with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.131.200.217 (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right I fixed it. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.131.200.217 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Lake Elsinore, California

I noticed you reverted to my last edit of Lake Elsinore, California. It seems that the edits by 67.52.121.266 were accurate (not me). Just wondering why the reversion. Thanks (Reverted edits by 67.52.121.226 (talk) to last version by DavidPickett)DavidPickett (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct... I fixed the error. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my so-called vandalism on "astrology"

It is sourced. Your own views about astrology should not have importance here. Read the Wikipedia text and click on the corresponding footnote (abstract). And you will see what the authors of this study say about their own work and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. Stop to insult me by using such qualifications as "abuse" and "vandalism" and by having recourse to threats and slanderous denouncement to my ISP. All these behaviors are perhaps in the Wikipedia regulations but they are also regarded as impropriety according to the rules of civility, and as offensive in terms of criminal law. You are misusing your position as a Wikipedia administrator.

This: (Moreover, this study may seem biased, for the personality traits it examines, such as intelligence, neuroticism or psychotism, are not those that astrology allows to suggest. ) is simply putting your opinion in the article which is not permitted as per WP: POV --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I am not vanderlizing it i am only updating what i have heard. And i know for a fact he has never been out with a Evalyn.

Ruby xxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.26.119 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok then.

Just wondering what a Canadian is doing on a Rugby League page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.145.113 (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Dilla

Thanks for standing up to that hateful person. I could use your support in my, unfortunately ongoing, struggle dealing with this person. Respectfully, Cosprings (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been banned for 48 hrs. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it standing up to me? Look at the edit you are protecting the page from. How do you figure it was "unconstructive"? Read the edit, I reverted back to what I had spent 10 minutes copy editing. That was quite constructive. Don't fall for Cosprings' lies. Now revert it back to what I edited. 72.66.80.133 (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What gives? The Atrium now accepts credit cards as forms of payment; why do you keep deleteing my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.135.2 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]