I just thought it made more sense to use a drug like alcohol where the pattern of tolerance is well established. Things are not so clear with cocaine. A discussion of tolerance with cocaine use seems more suited to the cocaine page where the relevant research can be discussed. As you said, there are many drugs that make good examples, benzodiazepines for example. Anyways, those are just my opinions. You are, of course, encouraged to edit the page and improve it.
Enjoy you're time here! Osmodiar 07:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I just disagreed with your statement that tolerance did not develop with cocaine. I made another response that there should be some definitions of these terms (dependence, addiction, physical, psychological, tolerance), as their meanings seem to vary widely. I haven't wanted to make too many major edits to pages as I think other people are much better writers than I, I'd rather just talk in the discussions for those pages.--Skrewler 21:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused. Trollaxor is "notable and encyclopedic" while a whole bunch of other personal websites are not? How do you figure? Friday(talk) 19:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Among the many recent AFD nominations that you've put up, they've been several that are renominations (ie. the articles in question had been AFD'd before). I've noticed that you've moved several original AFDs to a new page (usually of the form WP:AFD/Article2), and placed the new nomination in the original page. May I ask why you're doing this? The customary Wikipedia practice when renominating an article for deletion is to open the new nom at a new page, usually of the form WP:AFD/Article (2nd nomination). This way the chronology of nominations is immediately apparent to users, both now and in future. I hope you will observe this practice henceforth.
If the problem is that you're unsure how to make an AFD renomination, simply do the following:
In step 2, in place of PageName write Name of Article (2nd nomination) (where Name of Article is the title of the page you're renominating) I'm sorry, that's wrong; can't imagine why I wrote that. In step 1, use {{AfDx}} instead. For example, if it's the 2nd nomination, write {{subst:afdx|2nd}}. Then follow steps 2 and 3 in the usual way.
Kind regards encephalon 04:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - some people get really worked up over things, don't they? Your hijinx have made a few people have absolute COWS. If you're interested in a longer-term answer to blog/pod/etc flotsam and jetsam, please check out the ongoing discussions at WP:WEB. Cheers, brenneman(t)(c) 05:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - you voted to keep Trollaxor, and there was no concensus to delete, so you may be interested in what is going on on that page. Yours, Trollderella 22:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask that you stop nominating everything blog-related for deletion, and focus only on the entries that do not add to the general body of knowledge? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - you voted to keep Trollaxor, and there was no concensus to delete, so you may be interested in what is going on here. Yours, Trollderella 21:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the AfD vote was to keep, the vandals User:The Literate Engineer and User:Voice of All(MTG) deleted it anyways (though it was still in the history). I've written a long letter pointing out their bogus plan, revealing them for the frauds they are. I've taken the bold move of reverting the list to BEFORE they started their hack job on it (Nov 15). If you want that list retained, you better get over there and help with the reversion war that is likely to result. I can't do it alone. Bend over 17:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had seen your nomination to delete so I could have responded. But even though what's done is done, let me assure you this was not a vanity posting, nor an advertisement. St. Blog's Parish grew organically as Catholic bloggers started growing in numbers, and eventually became a small community. It is small, sure, but it is unique and has meaning to those in it, and most likely for the others who may have found it in Wikipedia. It also continues to grow, both in members and in numbers of aggregate readership. That was an unfortunate call. No hard feelings, just disagreement.
When making accusations against another editor as you did here[1] it is very important to provide evidence. Simply stating something is obvious does not make it so. Without some sort of reasoning behind the statement that the admin blocked a user due to racial profiling then that statement could be seen as uncivil. Permanent blocks are difficult situations and while you are welcome to contest them, please ask for someone's reasoning before making assumptions on those reasonings. Accusations of racism can be particularly rude. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using term such as wikipedos as you did here[2] is a blatant violation of WP:CIVILITY, which is not a guideline but a policy. You have been uncivil in the past, and have already been warned. If you are uncivil again, you will be blocked for period of time. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just like to clear a few things up. I know when WWII started, I just don't see how it is in anyway related to the converstation at hand, which is why I asked Haizum what he meant. Why do you think WWII has anything to do with Timecop's block?
As for me going easy on the pipe, I don't use a pipe. Can I ask how that is relevent to Timecop's block? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please describe why you think my actions toward Timecop constitute a temper tantrum or a Personal crusde as you said here[3]?
You say much about me and other admins but it would be alot better if you explained what you meant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, how's it going, I noticed that you just changed to "delete" on the Sigma Alpha Mu debate. Don't you think this frat is obviously notable? Look at google, there's one on a lot of campuses. Sure, the article sucks, but this is the poorest of reasons to advocate for deletion, as anyone can improve it. --Tractorkingsfan 10:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All frats, no. This frat, with chapters at so many major universities, yes. I don't think precedent is really the issue, so much as notability, which can be decided on a frat by frat basis. I just fail to see why it can't be improved. I guess I should just work on it myself (but I'm tired as hell right now). Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 11:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey what's up, I noticed you deleted the history paragraph. I did the exact same thing and agree that it is essentially worthless, probably a major reason people want to delete the article. Just to let you know, though, User:Cfred reverted my attempt to delete it, so he may do the same again. He thinks it can be edited into shape; I have my doubts, but respected his decision. Maybe the three of us will end up having to try and work it into shape together. Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you.Edivorce 23:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Quadratic (Position), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
Unable to source. Simply a definition. WP:V, WP:DICDEF.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 66.57.4.17 (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Benzodiazepine drug misuse. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Benzodiazepine drug misuse. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For your information user Skrewler, I made 2 reverts, my so called 3rd revert was me just making a mistake by reverting to the wrong reversion as explained in the edit summary.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, to mark your edit on Adam Gontier as minor when you are actually proposing the article for deletion is both sneaky and under-handed. That is all I will remark on that. Nonetheless, is your reasoning for the lack of notability due to the fact that he alone is not notable and only the band is? As for the sources, there are multiple and reliable third-party sources which contain information and/or interviws on Adam Gontier. I just haven't had the oppurtunity to overhaul that article yet. Daniel Musto (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tags on your account regarding sockpuppets as after investigation it was shown that my suspicions regarding your account to be incorrect. I apologise for any upset this may have caused you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain your large-scale removal of stuff from various pages for various reasons (POV, source reliability, etc)? J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, nevermind. Since you've participating at the Octoshape AFD, this is now unncessary. Ignore my post above. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 15:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Skrewler. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Hello, Skrewler. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Hello, Skrewler. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Benzodiazepine drug misuse. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Benzodiazepine drug misuse. ������������������ talk 22:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Benzodiazepine drug misuse. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
