User talk:Gamahucheur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Gamahucheur, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  MosheZadka 11:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Red rain in Kerala 2 Edit summaries 3 3RR Ahmed Osman 4 User notice: temporary 3RR block on Ahmed_Osman 5 WP:WODS

[edit] Red rain in Kerala

Re this edit: I more than suspect you haven't fully understood the article or references. And it looks like you need a brief rundown on how things work here - if you think an article shouldn't exist, you can suggest it should be deleted. If you think an article can be improved, improve it. If you can't improve it but want someone else to improve it, explain yourself on the talk page. Be civil. Don't make personal attacks. And blanking talk pages is considered bad form so I restored what was here before. Worldtraveller 19:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Haha! I love the way that people such as you make personal attacks in the course of declaring that one shouldn't make personal attacks. You need a run-down of what politeness truly is, so that you understand that your original act was rude, and the response to that rudeness, while not nice, was not. And while you may have needed “elaboration”, my remarks on the discussion page were sufficiently transparent; all explanation must end somewhere. Blanking talk pages is perfectly appropriate when matters discussed are effectively closed. Gamahucheur 19:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Alas! I understand the point, yet I'd hate to have to 'splain every little clean-up. —Gamahucheur 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, it can be a bit of a pain — but "sp.", "typo", "fmt", "tidied", etc., will do — just to give other editors some idea of what's going on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Ahmed Osman

You have been warned about the three revert rule on the talk page for this article, but I am placing this warning here as well. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -- cmh 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block on Ahmed_Osman

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, those changes have been under extensive discussion on the Talk page; since I've replied to each substantive point, and the other side has then ignored each substantive issue, I'm not sure how I am to discuss my changes further, and mostly I've just been reverting the spiteful edits of one editor (who calls his actions “fun”). But, also, the fact is that it would have been better if I'd done fewer reverts; I'd just lost track before I'd read the cautions, and that spiteful editor seized his chance to report me. *shrug* —Gamahucheur 08:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly: the 'fun' was sarcasm, and your sock-puppet reverted the only edit that involved that word in the edit summary. You keep implicating yourself as the same person. Second, I am not the one who reported you. You have made more enemies with your rash behaviour than just me. Joey 16:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

First, that sarcasm is an expression of your malice. Second, the fact that I note that you call you malicious acts fun doesn't mean that I was the one who reverted the specific edit that you admitted was done maliciously. Can't you ever be logical? Third, yep, you've become my enemy. Your notion of truth has degenerated to one of winning and losing. That's why it's you who are rashly throwing around accusations and insults that you cannot back-up. Your behavior became amazingly ugly when you found that you couldn't logically make the case that I was wrong in the way that you originally claimed. —Gamahucheur 06:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, your claim that I “keep” implicating myself is a dishonest attempt to insinuate that there is some other act which is the sort of implication that you (illogically) claimed the reference to you malicious word-choice to be. Clearly, when you are dead sure that you're right (no matter how dead wrong you actually are), you will use ever cheap ploy that you can. —Gamahucheur 06:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WODS

Since you seem to opt for the use of diæretic spellings, you may be interested in the essay that I wrote at Wikipedia:Why opt for diæretic spellings. Feel free to edit and add to this essay, as well as passing comments on the associated talk page. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

People 'round here just get ugly about such things. I wish you luck. —Gamahucheur 00:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Two people (who are obviously more important that the single me) requested it moved, thus the essay now exists here (if you didn’t get the opportunity to read it before it was moved). Some day I’ll get round to rewriting the essay and trying to gather support at the village pump. Thanks for the positive sentiments. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)