This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thrindel (talk | contribs) at 04:39, 24 July 2008 (→BIAS AGAINST PAKISTAN). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:39, 24 July 2008 by Thrindel (talk | contribs) (→BIAS AGAINST PAKISTAN)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Pronunciation
Not at all of any real importance, but is your username intended to be pronounced Thrindel, like "thimble", or Thrindel like the Spanish word "el"? GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Like 'thimble'--Thrindel (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Traffic
http://www.cad-forums.com/showpost.php?p=2670476&postcount=26 leads to a 404. I'm not going to revert right now, but I'm going to look into this after those forums come back up. Morzas Merix (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC )
- 404s are very likely where CAD forums are concerned. Buckley's reputation with his forums is not a good one. Even mild criticism tends to be met with bans or deletions. DarkAudit (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- You have some proof, I take it? And if the "criticism" that goes on on the forums is even remotely similar to the "criticism" I see people trying to the wiki article, I can't say I'd be at all surprised that people get themselves banned. And 404 errors are server-related. They appear to be doing maintenance on their forums.--Thrindel (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- There are screenshots floating around of diffs after the Zero Punctuation video hit the net, and leaked PMs of bannings on a whim. Not to mention reports of IPs linked to Buckley vandalizing the PvP page. The Halfpixel crowd is fiercely loyal to Kurtz and Straub, but some of the less-rabid posts tell stories of bannings simply for being a Halfpixel member. In any event, the page needs to be watched for vandalism from *both* camps. DarkAudit (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Don't forget that posting here or editing automatically gets your IP banned from the CAD forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.86.232 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Again, unless you have some sort of proof...--Thrindel (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I know full well the sourcing guidelines. The Rapscallions incident is well documented for starters. The current state of the CAD forums is all anecdotal evidence, though. What do you want, me to go in, get banned for posting on Halfpixel, and show you the screenshots? Buckley and Kurtz hate each other. That is undeniable. Anything further about this belongs on the CAD talk page. DarkAudit (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is a well known fact that Tim Buckley "takes care" of anyone he dislikes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.239.226.46 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think you should look up the definition of "fact".--Thrindel (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is more than enough anecdotal evidence of Tim Buckley banning people. True, we can't exactly source anything on wikipedia proof levels (though I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find a rant by Kurtz somewhere besides his forums), but I hardly think that you can just wave away the sheer consistency of all the allegations that have gone towards Tim Buckley, and the widespreadness of it.72.148.112.184 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Since this is Misplaced Pages, without proper sources we absolutely can "wave it away". I don't care what you choose to believe personally, that's not what we're on Misplaced Pages to discuss. Here, anecdotal evidence is nothing, and it's our charge as editors to present fact to the best of our ability. Consistency doesn't count for much, especially given the non-reliable way this information is circulated from what I've seen (forums and blogs) where nobody is held to any sort fact-finding responsibility. A group of people could be consistently wrong, if they choose to believe this stuff second-hand. I've seen so many different versions of the same story pass through here, I feel pretty confident when I assume most of these people are getting their "information" second or third hand, or worse at this point in time. I'm not trying to argue that there isn't criticism out there, what I'm arguing is that we have a responsibility to get the article right, and that means having facts.--Thrindel (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Who mentioned the article? I certianly didn't. All I'm saying is that you can't simply wave away all criticism of CAD or Tim on your talk page as untrue just because it doesn't meet wikipedia standards. If I wanted such criticism put in the article, then you might have a valid point. But I didn't argue that (and it certainly didn't seem like anybody else did, either). I was responding to where you said you need to "look up your definition of fact." Maybe we can't put it down as an encyclopedic, wikipedia standard fact that people who criticize Buckley get banned, but there is CERTAINLY enough anecdotal evidence to consider it a fact.
- Since this is Misplaced Pages, without proper sources we absolutely can "wave it away". I don't care what you choose to believe personally, that's not what we're on Misplaced Pages to discuss. Here, anecdotal evidence is nothing, and it's our charge as editors to present fact to the best of our ability. Consistency doesn't count for much, especially given the non-reliable way this information is circulated from what I've seen (forums and blogs) where nobody is held to any sort fact-finding responsibility. A group of people could be consistently wrong, if they choose to believe this stuff second-hand. I've seen so many different versions of the same story pass through here, I feel pretty confident when I assume most of these people are getting their "information" second or third hand, or worse at this point in time. I'm not trying to argue that there isn't criticism out there, what I'm arguing is that we have a responsibility to get the article right, and that means having facts.--Thrindel (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is more than enough anecdotal evidence of Tim Buckley banning people. True, we can't exactly source anything on wikipedia proof levels (though I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find a rant by Kurtz somewhere besides his forums), but I hardly think that you can just wave away the sheer consistency of all the allegations that have gone towards Tim Buckley, and the widespreadness of it.72.148.112.184 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think you should look up the definition of "fact".--Thrindel (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is a well known fact that Tim Buckley "takes care" of anyone he dislikes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.239.226.46 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I know full well the sourcing guidelines. The Rapscallions incident is well documented for starters. The current state of the CAD forums is all anecdotal evidence, though. What do you want, me to go in, get banned for posting on Halfpixel, and show you the screenshots? Buckley and Kurtz hate each other. That is undeniable. Anything further about this belongs on the CAD talk page. DarkAudit (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Again, unless you have some sort of proof...--Thrindel (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Don't forget that posting here or editing automatically gets your IP banned from the CAD forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.86.232 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- There are screenshots floating around of diffs after the Zero Punctuation video hit the net, and leaked PMs of bannings on a whim. Not to mention reports of IPs linked to Buckley vandalizing the PvP page. The Halfpixel crowd is fiercely loyal to Kurtz and Straub, but some of the less-rabid posts tell stories of bannings simply for being a Halfpixel member. In any event, the page needs to be watched for vandalism from *both* camps. DarkAudit (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- You have some proof, I take it? And if the "criticism" that goes on on the forums is even remotely similar to the "criticism" I see people trying to the wiki article, I can't say I'd be at all surprised that people get themselves banned. And 404 errors are server-related. They appear to be doing maintenance on their forums.--Thrindel (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, even if you were arguing about the article the whole time, I can't see any justification for it, considering nobody else mentioned it.72.148.112.184 (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- "but there is CERTAINLY enough anecdotal evidence to consider it a fact" If you wish consider it so, then by all means. I personally prefer more than just someone's word. It's why I don't read supermarket tabloids. But really, let's not waste our time arguing each other's opinions.--Thrindel (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer more than somebodies word too. That's why I make sure there are multiple reports of it that confirm each other, which I have found. And isn't it a little odd how you say to not argue people's opinions when that seems to be the essence of what you were doing in the first place?72.148.112.184 (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- "but there is CERTAINLY enough anecdotal evidence to consider it a fact" If you wish consider it so, then by all means. I personally prefer more than just someone's word. It's why I don't read supermarket tabloids. But really, let's not waste our time arguing each other's opinions.--Thrindel (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, even if you were arguing about the article the whole time, I can't see any justification for it, considering nobody else mentioned it.72.148.112.184 (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ctrl+Alt+Del
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ctrl+Alt+Del. 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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have made three reverts to the article now. I recommend you stop. Artichoker 02:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, I will seek third part arbitration to prevent this from escalating further.--Thrindel (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Good Work
Well I don't know how many people you are pleasing, but I'm very happy that you keep an eye on Ctrl+Alt+Del, keep up the good work, and don't listen to anyone on the internet who has figured out the "scoop" on "who you really are" they clearly only have one track vandal minds. Edits are fleeting, bans are forever. Knowledgeum (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
BIAS AGAINST PAKISTAN
Is it islamophobia which drives editors against pakistan or just pro indian bias stop deleting pakistani history unfairly india was born in 1947 just like pakistan get that into your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.129.53 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with "anti-Pakistani" this or "pro-Indian" that, it's about presenting straight facts in an encyclopedic article. Based on your edit summaries and edits, it seems more like you're the one with the cultural chip on your shoulder. I was simply undoing a removal of information that several other editors on the article seem to support. "To hell with India" does not sound like unbiased editing to me. Taxila may be Pakistani now, but if it was once Indian (as my cursory research and sources already cited in the article suggests), that should be mentioned in the article as well, regardless of your feelings on India or your pride for Pakistan.--Thrindel (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)