User talk:Tomservo3000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Tomservo3000, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 02:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Tomservo3000 02:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC) hey, thanks for the welcome.

[edit] Chuck Norris Facts

May I ask why you reverted my edits? Please note that I discussed them at length with Pattersonc at his talk page. All my reasons for the edit are there. So would you please reconsider your revert? Also what do you mean "false description"? — flamingspinach | (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

false description because a) "random fact generator" is not the "original" place of the facts, the SomethingAwful forums is. Second, you stated chucknorrisfacts.com was nonfunctional. this is also not true. Tomservo3000 08:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I was mistaken about the original location. I stated this on the talk page of the article, along with other reasons. I still don't see what your issue with my edit is though. Also chucknorrisfacts.com, when queried from my computer, gives me a HTTP 403 Forbidden error. If you say that it works for you, fine. However I don't see why you are reverting my entire edit. In your last reversion you also managed to delete an addition that Kieff had put into the article, for no good reason. Could you maybe edit my version of the article by hand and remove whatever part of it is offensive to you rather than just scrapping the entire edit? Thank you. — flamingspinach | (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Also I resent "rvv" - my intent is certainly not to vandalise. — flamingspinach | (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry, extra 'v' was mistake made in haste. Not meant to insult. I'm not sure what's causing your 403, but it could be something along the lines of a Websense content blocker, if you're browsing at work or from a non-residential terminal. Thank you for your responses. I appreciate the dialogue on all of this, most people are not as willing to discuss as yourself. I look forward to crossing paths in the future. Tomservo3000 08:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. I can assure you it is not a problem with my own internet connection - unless it is some sort of blanket policy on the part of my Internet Service Provider, Comcast, which I doubt. (This is a residential cable internet connection, no intermediary gateway software.) Probably their web server is just screwed up in some fashion. As for discussion, well, I have never in my approx. one year of editing Wikipedia been reverted without any apparent reason (as far as I can see), nor have I been accused of vandalism (heck I'm a member of the WP:CVU :P) so I'm taking a special interest in this page.

so does "rv" just stand for revert, or does it stand for something else to some people? I don't take it with a negative meaning. Tomservo3000 08:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this comment. "rv" stands for revert, and "rvv" stands for revert vandalism. Either way, it's considered rude and immature to revert anything without talking about it first. Of course, if it's PLAINLY vandalism (like adding something like "FURTHERMORE I SUCK" to an article or something) then you're pretty safe doing that. I, however, am not a vandal - I've been a member of Wikipedia for about a year. I understand how my original edit could be taken as vandalism (when I just changed chucknorrisfacts.com to 4q.cc/chuck/ ) but my later-on edit was more carefully thought out and obviously not vandalism. If it's just an edit that you disagree with and not vandalism, it's rude to revert it. Instead you should talk to whoever made the edit. Which is what I did with you, and User:Pattersonc, and User:Hamilton_burr. — flamingspinach | (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay so you re-added Kieff's contribution. Do you have a problem with my renaming of the links to "List of Chuck Norris facts" and "Database of Chuck Norris facts"? And my capitalization fixing? How about with my creation of a link to Saturday Night Live? Anything wrong with those? — flamingspinach | (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no issues with those...

Excellent; in that case, I would ask you to restore the changes that I mentioned, since WP:3RR makes me not want to do it myself. — flamingspinach | (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best. don't take offense if i make a mistake. Tomservo3000 08:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'm within my rights to make a corrective edit to something that was statedly an attempt to edit in my own previous edit. :) Thanks for talking this through. I know it's not terribly important what sites are linked from Chuck Norris Facts but... :/ Thanks anyway :) — flamingspinach | (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arstechnica article

If you have the chance, I would love for you to stop by the Arstechnica article and look at some of the changes. I ask that you not revert at this time, as a little stability has been gained through additional references to back up criticisms. However, the users Tsetna and Clintology have been waging an edit war, through which they had been whitewashing the article. You can see some of the content in the Talk page, and some in the Administrator page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:216.227.82.35.2FUser:205.231.31.238_reported_by_User:Tsetna

Tsetna tried to get me admonished at the least for breaking the "three-revert rule", of which I had not previously been aware. Because he had two users doing his reverts, he was not technically in violation, while obviously to me attempting to lead me into doing it myself. This falls in line with many of his other quotes of "guideline violations", most of which seem unfounded.

In any case, I believe it would be helpful to have even more accurate citations regarding the criticisms, so that other editors can see that the criticisms are not just trolling. Please add these whenever you can.

I will be sending this same message to other editors who have expressed an interest in providing a balanced, neutral point of view in the Arstechnica article. If you know anyone else, who has not previously edited who would like to help, please pass this on.

For reference, I have found Google to be much faster than ArsTechnica's built-in search. Phrasing searches in the format: "search term 1" "search term 2" site:episteme.arstechnica.com has saved me loads of time.

Thanks for your time --216.227.82.35 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother, but Tsetna keeps reverting to a whitewash, claiming consensus (which he obv. doesn't have). I would appreciate any extra eyes on the article.--216.227.122.185 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert without discussing on the talk page. Simply reverting the article back and forth is not productive. --Ideogram 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(I see that Ideogram -just- beat me to this, but...) Regarding this, please don't characterise legitimate content disputes as being "vandalism". This is per Wikipedia:Vandalism, which is very clear in stating that Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.; I'm not particularily interested in getting involved with the Criticism debate on the Ars Technica article, but we owe it to the betterment of the encyclopedia to assume good faith, and I hope you agree with this. Also emember to use the article's talk page to discuss contentious changes. Thanks. -/- Warren 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)