User talk:Magore

Yep, this is my talk page. Probably the most interesting discussion on Wiki? ;-)

Ok, now I'm just confused

In answer to your message: I'm just trying to be useful. I was adding a link to the EAA page because folks who are looking at the issues involved may not look for EAA, but may benifit from what it offers. As you may know, folks in the US and around the world are struggling with these issues (eating disorders).

There is often a lot of material about the problem, but not much about getting help. The EAA site is not commercial and it is about HELPING people get better. It is similar to AA for alcoholics. Peace. Bluewidow 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair enough

Since you actualy bothered to come and tell me you'd reverted one of my comments, I suppose I should say something. I WAS going to say that you were wrong, but you're not. I think the vampire page should cover everything, but that's another battle to fight. Thanks for steering me straight :) -Litefantastic 01:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No...

Im pretty sure I fixed a spelling mistake..."navitgate" to "navigate" cartar

Well, you didn't.

/Magore 22:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Yes I did....how did I not? Cartar..

The revision history says you didn't. The revision history don't lie[1]. 216.46.129.159 is the IP# you used when you wrote your first message here. Enough about this. /Magore 20:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts

I assume that you were talking to User:211.30.212.33. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Ships

Hi. I just saw your edits. I wanted to know what references you had, because after deleting a referenced part, you failed to source what you wrote in. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 08:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My answer on user's talk page. /Magore 09:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headgear

Your claim about my blocking of schuminweb is completely untrue. I uphold WP policy, irrespective of whether I agree with it or not. Schuminweb unilaterally doctored the content of a project page to create the opposite impression to that created by its authors. He then proceeded to use his falsified version of the page to mass delete a template and replace it with the one he had pretended, through doctoring of the page, was the project template. No user can do that. He was repeatedly warned to stop. Other users asked him to stop. He ignored all calls to stop. As a result, in accordance with WP rules, after being warned he was blocked. That is standard procedure and is done by whichever admin finds it happening. No user is allowed to falsify contents of protect, naming convention or manual of style pages and then begin mass deletions on that basis. He was only blocked for 24 hours. Other users have in the past been blocked for such antics for far far longer. One some months ago was blocked indefinitely by another admin. Schuminweb was very lucky to have only got a short block for such a serious act. Falsing pages and mass deletions across pages invariably leads to a block. It sometimes leads to a request to the arbcom to ban a user from those pages. Please withdraw your totally untrue statement. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts - You are the administrator who blocked Schuminweb, and it was done during your dispute over the Headgear template. /Magore 09:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reedy_Boy#Your_edits_to_France

Thankyou for informing me. I wasn't looking for vandalism, just was checking edits by AutoWikiBrowser

Thanks for Re-adding my changes

Reedy Boy 16:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ghost Skepticism

Hello, I don't want to bring us up to the three revert rule, so I shall ask you here as well to discuss the matter. I only reverted the article twice in an attempt to prompt you to discuss the issue on the talk page as I stated in the summary.

See you on the talk page, --RadioElectric 14:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population density

I was just following the UN list. The UN considers the listed entities as "countries" whether sovereign or not. I have updated the intro of the article to reflect that. This is in line with List of countries by population. Polaron | Talk 19:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rankings for the countries (including dependent territories) was messed up. I am trying to standardize all these rank numbers. We can always get rid of rankings in the infoboxes and make these lists alphabetical instead. Polaron | Talk 20:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the list was messed up. Some were using CIA rankings, some were using the Wikipedia list, some were using some other source I don't know. There were multiple entries that were claiming to be Xth in rank. Also, I am not including just any territory. Only entities recognized as "countries" by the UN are in the list. Polaron | Talk

FYI regarding User:Comanche cph

[2] but note that you are skirting 3RR there too... so do be careful (If I thought you'd actually transgressed I'd give you a block too, to be fair)... ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on other talk page /M.O (u) (t) 17:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored here)Well, there's no need to worry about that. I would never violate the 3RR (or any other policy or guideline on Wikipedia that I am aware of), regardless of circumstances. In my opinion, there is no such thing as skirting the 3RR, since that policy is quite clear and easy to understand, and leaves little room for personal interpretations - Either you stay within the accepted three reverts (or rather, three edits), or you don't, unless it is about fighting deliberate vandalism. But thanks for the advice, anyway. :-) /M.O (u) (t) 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nod, me too. NO worries then. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The position many admins takes towards warnings by editors is that they can be removed by the warned user. They aren't official and equal a tap on the shoulder rather than a ticket. Warning by admins though are official and are a ticket which must be taken as a serious warning. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's quite the sig you've got there! my position on warnings is a bit of a blend...if a user has a history of problems I tend to like to see the warnings left, rather than removed. Yes, they're there in the history but previously uninvolved admins then have to work harder to know what's going on. If a warning is removed with no comment, or with a denial, that tends to be less favorable to me than if it's removed with a "thanks I'll keep that in mind" in the edit summary. In this case the warning, in my view, was legit. But the next step was to get an admin involved to take a look... which didn't happen except that I happened to wander by, having seen this user in action before. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lar - Yes, you happened to stroll by at about the same time as I was about to write a last message before filing a formal complaint on the 3RR noticeboard. I usually don't take it to a noticeboard before having warned at least two or three time. Admin or not, if a warning is valid (ie the user in question have clearly violated one or more guidelines or policies), it shouldn't be taken lightly or removed right away. IMHO, intervention by an admin is a last resort, if someone refuse to listen to other editors. Ideally, any wikipedian editing in good faith should be aware of these policies and guidelines, and if something has slipped his or her mind, they should at least listen to what other editors have to tell them. /M.O (u) (t) 20:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit one - OK, from what I've heard and read so far, the whole warning system is a bit of a huge grayzone, except for that it should always be the first step, "the friendly tap on the shoulder", as you put it, and to assume good faith. When someone oversteps and/or violates the guidelines and policies, it is often by mistake. And mistakes can be made by anyone. But to remove warnings and continue is a step further. In most cases, I don't focus much on 3RR-issues, since it happens that I get involved in minor edit conflicts that usually ends with a mutual withdrawal, without anyone actually violating that rule. But the edit war in Scandinavia continued after I decided to pull out, that's why I put those warnings on the other editors talk page. And since he or she removed my original warning, I felt that another 3RR-warning wasn't appropriate, since it would most likely be removed as well, therefore I went the other way. /M.O (u) (t) 20:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. But may I suggest skipping the whole warning about removing warnings thing and go straight to an admin when they continue what you warned them about. If you look on my user page, you will see I am/was part of the anti-vandal unit. This is relevent in that I saw a few cases where people were wrongly blocked because we thought we had more power than we actually did and made a whole case over removal of warnings. Bad Mojo. The Remove Warning Warning should be reserved for admins. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

--Comanche cph 22:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Do note that he's reported you on the Administrators' Noticeboard over this issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will look into it. /M.O (u) (t) 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Comments like this is unacceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stockholm&diff=70481523&oldid=70480687 --Comanche cph 22:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

They are? Why? What is so uncivil about them? /M.O (u) (t) 22:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd skip "just suck it up" (as borderline incivil) when I was dealing with a user that has a history of civility issues and revert warring, as I would want to be scrupulously civil... just to be on the safe side. But that's just me. I try to bend over backwards to avoid appearance of issues. (not always successfully) ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might be borderline incivil, as you write... Maybe not. But I just realized that it might be easy to get it wrong, if you're not that used to speaking or writing english on a fairly regular basis. Maybe I should use more obvious phrases and expressions in the future, to avoid confusion. /M.O (u) (t) 09:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply from the Noticeboard

This seems to be a really silly argument. If your that mad Magore, you can take it to arbitration but really it seems as though Magore has a point. No, he doesn't have a very immature way to talk on and I agree with Magore; if you haven't settled a dispute you need to stop editing the pages. Both of you, I should say. Let other editors take care of it. I'm going to post this on both of your talkpages. ForestH2 t/c 03:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoes

Not sure why you reverted Horseshoes [3]. It seemed like the link you removed was perfectly legitimate, no? --JanesDaddy 16:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinfeldt

Regarding the Swedish Prime Minister, please see Swedish Wikipedia. -Vints 06:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was elected yesterday, yes, but he didn't come into office until today at noon, that's why I kept changing it. However, he is now in office, so this discussion is pretty irrelavant. --The monkeyhate 14:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire

Hi, I'm having a dispute with a newly registered user, Nihilum at vampire. He insists on inserting this in the article. I consider it to be either OR, or an addition without a reliable source (a XIXth century archaeologist referenced by notorious believer in vampires Montague Summers). Would you care to join the discussion? --194.145.161.227 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming template changes

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Daniel .Bryant 09:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ghost

Given you contributed alot early on to ghost, you may have an opirion on some proposed merges etc. Scroll down from Talk:Ghost#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]