User talk:Andrew81446

Welcome!

Hello, Andrew81446, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Seraphim ^Whipp 01:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk page guidelines

Hey andrew, thanks for your contribs to Hacker. I noticed you reacted defensively when another editor suggested you keep comments short on talk pages at Talk:Hacker, but I would also request the same -- and based on widely accepted guidelines for talk pages. Check out wikipedia:talk_page_guidelines , specifically: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice , which states, Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.. For the sake of all those interested in following the discussions behind the articles, try to keep comments short! The rest of the talk page guidelines as well as Wikipedia:Civility are well worth the read if you plan to stick around. We're all on the same team here... believe it. Feel free to drop any questions my way, and again -- welcome. ∴ here…♠ 03:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote simply to welcome and confirm that you'd seen the talk page guidelines. Thanks also for the policy links, it is good to see that you've read through those pages as well. Best of luck sticking around... Feel free to drop any questions my way! ∴ here…♠ 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

civility (2nd)

Andrew, a look at your contributions shows singular dedication to the Hacker subject. I'm sure that your efforts will be more readily accepted once you have a bit more experience -- and choose to follow the accepted discussion guidelines. (keep your comments short!). Please try your hand contributing to a different article for experience, and re-read Wikipedia:Civility. ∴ here…♠ 08:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring over this article; I am well aware that you're not technically breaching WP:3RR, but you are nevertheless attempting to own a page and are edit warring any changes out via brute force. I'm phrasing this as a polite request, but I should clarify that I am acting as an administrator in this context, and I am prepared to protect pages and block editors as needed to calm this situation down. Please make appropriate use of the dispute resolution process -- if your preferred version is truly superior, feel free to build consensus that it is so; brute force does not demonstrate or override consensus. Thank you for your time and effort. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's sunk more reverts into the page than you, feel free to point them out and I'll leave them a similar note. It's true that you're not the only person reverting, but from a glance it looks like the bulk of reverts are coming from you; if you can provide some evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to review it. I'm enforcing WP:EW here, and that's pretty much it -- Wikipedia's reputation also relies on our ability to work out disputes via some mechanism more diplomatic than "those who shout loudest and longest win." – Luna Santin (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to bring your complaints to the admin noticeboard for review. As much as you're welcome to rail on about how "disappointed" you are that you're being "hunted down" and how "racist" I'm being if I don't immediately roll over and agree with everything you say, I'm not sure where you're getting all this; I'm just looking to enforce WP:EW. Again, if there's someone, anyone else in particular you feel I should be speaking with regarding the dispute resolution process, feel free to point them out. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm being terribly abusive and a major discredit to the system and all that. The mantra's getting old. At this point I've made my message heard -- you have an open avenue of wider appeal if you feel you can demonstrate any abuse on my part, you have the capability to point out anyone else you feel I should have a word with, and you're either going to edit war over the page or not. Pending new developments, it's clear by now that we're chasing each other in circles. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I suppose that qualifies as a new development worth replying to. So I'm terribly and arrogantly abusing my power by carrying on a conversation with you, where I kinda sorta mentioned "hey could you please stop edit warring," and here you're talking about summoning a mob of millions of people at will to do your personal bidding and totally destroy Wikipedia based on... what, exactly? The terrible injustice of being talked to, replied to? Of being pointed in a slightly different direction? The evil of being asked to resolve disputes without too much edit warring? The couched threat is so premature and overblown that I'm not sure whether I should even take you seriously, at this point. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I don't know what's funnier. Your insane and wild accusations and threats, or Luna's calm responses to them. I don't think you're serious, because no one could be this out of control. Right? Right? Enigmaman (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left Rtc a message about the particular post you quoted on my talk page; thanks for pointing that out. As for the rest of your message, I'll simply reiterate my goal was to convince you to stop edit warring on the article. You seem to have done so (or slowed down quite a bit, at any rate), and I appreciate that. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rtc/quote/superiority complexes

Hello Andrew81446. Just a quick reply to your comment on my talk page: Err... Did you actually read the quote you dumped on my talk page fully?

"As already said, this would be the answer using your style of thinking. Not the style of thinking that I prefer."

rtc is not saying that that's his view, only that that is is the view using your style of thinking.

(Oh, and I'm very happy in the communities/world I'm in thanks ;) Kirrus (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "rtc" wanted to reply in "my style of thinking", then the only proper response was to answer the questions that had been posed to them in the manner that had been requested. The questions and requested answer format was my style of thinking. "rtc" was asked to reply only "yes" or "no". Instead, he/she chose a racist rant. The response had no relevance to the discussion and had no relevance to the questions either. "rtc" wasn't asked to write that response; he/she consciously volunteered it. Therefore, that response is their thoughts and their style of thinking alone and has no connection with me.

As for your comment, supporting (or attempting to cover up) what might actually turn out to be a serious prejudice harboured against another member of Wikipedia (or against people of other nationalities in general) is foolish and does you no credit in discussions. Regardless of whether you know "rtc" in person (which may enable you to be sure of the kind of person you are supporting), I am in no positon to determine anything about this user other than that which is written in their responses. I don't know you except through your responses, and seeing has you have attempted to pass of a racist rant by saying "the author wrote it but it was not actually the author's own words/style of thinking", I shall be taking all your future comments with regard to all discussions with this fact in mind.

Andrew81446 (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... accusing me of assisting or covering up racist comments is not a way to make me like you very much. The comment was in no way racist, and from what I can infer, rtc was just annoyed at you. That does not mean I condone or agree with his statement, just that I understand the context in which it was made, a context that you destroyed when you dumped the quote on my talk page. Please do not make inferences on my character when you do not know me, have never met me, not spoken to me in person. I do not like it and I imagine nor would you, if I began responding the same way you are currently towards me. At this point, sufficient to say I'm annoyed. I'm not going to respond again to any of your comments, here or on my talk page, for fear that I will flame you, and I do not wish to do so.

On a lighter note, for your locating the respondents in the hacker discussion, my blogs' url should give my location away, .co.uk :) Kirrus (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, an English lesson: Racist. Yes, and antagonism comes under the definition of racism. Don't tell me how to interpret a dictionary as "rtc"'s response was not an answer to my questions (yes, read the context!) and therefore its mere presence was unwarranted and antagonistic.

Secondly, as I clearly stated, people can only make inferences about a person's character from the information that a person portrays about themselves through their comments. I didn't say you were racist, but you were supporting "rtc" otherwise you wouldn't have got off your arse to come here and rib me about it. I simply issued you with a warning about coming out in favour of someone else's remarks when those remarks were of a nationalist nature and made without provocation or request. I'm not asking you to like me, although I try very hard to make sure that I treat everybody in the same, fair manner and so I'm asking you to be fair. If you don't respond to my comments ever again then that's fine by me as that's one less person with I have to deal with and I can't say I'm unhappy as I have enough going on as it is. It would be a shame, but so be it.

As for your location, I didn't check your domain as that doesn't say anything if you moved to the UK from the US a year ago or you decide that you want to lease a UK domain from abroad (lots of people grab multiple domains). My guess at of your location was done from a comprehensive grammar and vocabulary analysis of the language you used in your posts, the only neutral and reliable way to assess a person's origin, and seeing as the vocabulary and grammar you used didn't show any obvious regional traits, I put that your country was not determinable. I shall update it (or you can update it) to say "Non United States".

Andrew81446 (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I have officially called for arbitration"

Hi. I just wanted to drop you a friendly note since, in your last message on Talk:Hacker, you seem to be confused.

You said "I have officially called for arbitration." Unfortunately, you have not. Should you wish to file an arbitration case, I recommend reviewing the material here; look especially at the pink box under the "Requesting arbitration" heading. That outlines the steps you'll need to undertake to file an arbcom case.

Now, if you asked for my advice -- which you didn't -- I'd tell you that I think you would be better served by learning to be concise (which generally means "make your point in 100 words or less"), by avoiding dishonest tactics such as using sockpuppets to try to create a false sense of support for yourself, and to treat others with more respect than you thus far have. But if you're determined to try to bring a matter like this to arbitration, I certainly won't stand in your way.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do, Nandesuka (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Claims take a long time to write and I am submitting it now. These things take time.

Andrew81446 (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the dispute about?

I came across this by chance. What is the dispute about? Is it that hacker means cracker in the UK? If so, I agree entirely! Mike0001 (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is.

In fact, generally speaking, because it's about "hacker just means hacker outside of IT, outside of the US, and inside the US in non-IT."

The UK definitely falls inside this general description.

Feel free to lend your voice to the actual talk page Talk:Hacker.

Andrew81446 (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename article Hacker

I am proposing to rename the article currently titled Hacker. If you're interested in the discussion, you can find it at Talk:Hacker. Army1987 (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]