Jump to content

User talk:Ugen64/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My talk page[edit]

Hello Ugen64. i'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. I am also currently in high school (age=17), and I live in Charlottesville, Virginia (very close to Fredericksburg, Virginia). You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Alexandros 17:03, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I was really looking forward seeing Middle name created. I didn't know I'd live to see it appearing! :-D Keep up the initiative! --Menchi 06:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

lol, I kinda had to fudge my way through some of it... good thing there's a posse of wikipediholics that followed in my wake and changed it all up :-) ugen64 01:08, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

I'm no fan of edit wars either. Sorry for almost getting into one. :)

  1. Columbia College and Columbia University are the same thing, but it didn't become a university until 1896.
  2. The left margin on the image I think we agree on already.
  3. This will be the second major thing I've found really iffy about the info on civilwarhome, I'm starting to not trust them so much. I originally got the date from Webster's American Biographies, and have so far verified it on [1], [2] and [3], who probably ought to know. - Hephaestos 22:06, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't think there's any set way of replying, it's usually up to the individual. I like this way because it gives the notification at the top (usually).
This is quite weird with the date; I could see there being some possible controversy between the first and second of June, since they're close together, but one would think the year at least would be unambiguous. I'm guessing it's an error that got copied down repeatedly, but I'm not sure how to tell which one's right. - Hephaestos 22:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I made some comments in Talk:Philip Kearny. And thank you for your additions, they're quite good. - Hephaestos 22:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dear Ugen64, Please, kindly, I beg you. Allow me to delete the green skinned opera. It is very repulsive. Both of us do not want to frighten people who never tried Opera with that strange look. I suggest you take another screenshot using Cocoa this time. :) BTW what do you think of my very unoriginal idea of taking screenshots of the Opera page instead of the earlier pics of Wikipedia home page. Ankur 2 Dec, 2003

Well... thank you for the change :-) btw do you use Linux? I mean whats that funny sort of greenish-brown border around Opera? (I will like the screenshot of the wiki-opera page, but its just fine) --Ankur 23:40, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In response to your question on the requests for adminship page: to find out how many edits you have, go to your user contributions page, and keep clicking "next 50" until you get to the end of them, then make a note of which page you're on (e.g. "#650-700") to get a count to within the nearest 50. Click on "hide minor edits" first if you want a count of only non-minor edits. --Delirium 20:09, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

I hope mav doesn't count his edits this way! If anyone runs Python I can send you a script that is as nice as it can be to the server. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, for military-theme articles like US 2nd Armored Division I generally use the dd-mm-yyyy style for dates because that is the US military standard, and that's what readers (US or otherwise) will expect to see. Pretty much the only audience for mm-dd-yyyy is US civilian topics. Stan 03:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No biggie, not every article is consistent on this point now. But there are hundreds of US military articles using dd-mm-yyyy, thought I'd save you thinking they needed to be changed. Stan 04:04, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, how did you replace the United States v. Eichman page so quickly? Had someone moved it? Tualha 02:10, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It was a substantial article and I didn't think someone could have written it so quickly; I thought it must have been restored. Thanks, Tualha 02:16, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Would you be interested in editing the HSE Wikibook?

*this is a biography that I almost completely wrote, unless otherwise noted

Why else would you put a * on the list? Ah well. r3m0t 09:38, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

By HSE, do you mean High School Extensions? And thanks for first admin day, and yes, I have no clue what else the asterisks could mean :-). ugen64 13:51, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Since you're 13 I thought you could help explain complex-ish mathematical concepts in simple langauge (not that you don't know complex language! ;) ) r3m0t 14:35, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Happy First Admin Day!! r3m0t 13:41, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes. I'm very happy that you are an admin! Congrats, and I wish you the best. Alexandros 13:59, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! ugen64 14:02, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)


Hi Ugen! I saw you contribute a lot to new battles. Once i suggest using standard links in every battle entry:History -- Military history -- List of battles When i left wikipedia, it seems that everyone abandoned that idea. But i would like to see that links in battles.. I hope you will either argue in wikiproject battles, or use it. Thank you! szopen


my bad spelling is usually more french than british in origin. Feel free to revisit all my edits :-) PomPom

I reverted one of his edits to that page where he had added links. They weren't vandalism as such, unlike his other entries, but minor characters should not be linked, because they lead to sub-stub entries that can never be more than a couple of lines. Delinking them encourages people to write about them on longer pages, where the characters are merged rather than individual pages. See Wikipedia:Check your fiction (the bit about lost in a maze of twisty little fiction stubs. Angela. 02:19, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's why I said may. I wasn't going to block him - but if a warning causes him to stop changing dates to be incorrect, we all benefit. RickK would possibly block him for that. Pakaran 02:22, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. I wouldn't - but one of the ways Michael got started was doing things like changing release dates, and it's better if we keep the newbies off that path in the first place. Pakaran 02:24, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and general policy is to block the Paul Levesque vandal out of hand. He's been warned more than enough times, and it's obviously a single person. Pakaran 02:29, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nope, the "reason" is because his IP block keeps timing out, and he keeps changing IPs. Pakaran 02:31, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It may be. Michael has a very distinctive writing style, but the references to homosexuality are similiar. On the other hand, Michael uses obscene edit summaries, and the Levesque vandal seems to leave them blank. Pakaran 02:35, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wow... everyone ignores me :( Nobody's said anything ont his page for over a month... wait... that's a good thing... it means that I'm awesome!

Well, does it, ugen?

Yes, it does...

Isn't this sad... ugen64 23:36, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Howdy. I noticed your edit to USA PATRIOT Act. I expect you didn't notice the page is protected (by me) - I do wish the damn interface made it clearer when one does that, as it's altogether too easy to do so by accident. I'm no policy-lawyer, so I dunno if the Wikipedia:Protection policy's "do not edit" clause really applies (and as your edit wasn't concerned with the editwar in progress, I'm not "asking you to stop"). Still, you might like to consider holding off any more edits, if possible, lest they be consumed by any resurgence of the editwar when the page is unprotected. Hey, I don't suppose you'd like to see if you can help the two parties concerned come to an understanding (as the protector, I should probably not express an opinion)? Thanks for your patience in this our time of petulance :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:46, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My bad, actually. I forgot to put on the "this page is protected" message. Anyway, it's unprotected now. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:02, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I have it protected to prevent vandalism. Helpful corrections are always welcome. thanks! Kingturtle 02:37, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


GNOME is a window manager. Its open source, so i think it would be better for screenshots in the wikipedia projects. Alexandros 01:31, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I do not use whom for subjects, nor who for objects, and yes that's backwards. I challenge you to show me even one case where I did that. Michael Hardy 21:45, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Aha! Thank ya! jengod 02:25, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

List of encyclopedia topics[edit]

Hi Ugen64, I once compiled a list of topics used in some other encyclopedias. Now I finally got around to remove those entries that we already cover, and put the remaining ones under Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics. There are many "bogus" ones, and ones that we already cover under a different title. The "alternate" titles should become REDIRECTs, and the bogus ones should be marked as such (dictionary-only entries etc.). The remaining ones, of course, should be covered in time :-)

Oh, Timwi answered already :-) --Magnus Manske 15:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John Wayne Bobbit[edit]

Er...,uh,...that article was actually pretty accurate. He is (unfortunately) somewhat of a media celebrity for his dismemberment. :) -- Decumanus 00:42, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Argh... would you like me to undelete it? The one time "he had his penis cut off by his wife" isn't vandalism, I delete it... ugen64 00:44, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
I personally don't care if its stays deleted for the time being. I'm sure he'll reappear, but until them I'm certainly not going to argue for undeletion. -- Decumanus 00:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Could have sworn that was you. Who is it I'm thinking of? Well, silly me. You're good and a trusted Wikipedian in my book, which is I guess the point, though where my mind was when the comment was made is beyond me. :-) A friendly suggestion--greet a newbie now and then. Good for the soul (if you believe in such things), or at least smile-inducing. Most especially keep up the excellent work! Jwrosenzweig 01:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like to watch for contributions in RC from people with red-linked talk pages. Another possibility is to watch Wikipedia:New user log, but they usually don't end up there until a welcomer tells them to post something there. I don't know how I'd use MySQL to do it....too technically advanced for me. :-) Jwrosenzweig 16:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
P.S., figured it out. One of the most active welcoming committee members is UtherSRG. Not that it's really much like ugen64 but....well....okay, I have no excuse and will leave it at that. :-) Jwrosenzweig 16:37, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Bravo! Just saw your name next to a large "N" and a user talk page -- gave me a big smile. Thanks for cheering my day a little. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I guess your question should be answered by now. :) It needs editing, of course, and the tag should be put into at least all the major figures. Maybe it will bring balance to the force. -SV(talk) 01:53, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) PS. sign your posts, please.

Thanks re IP adresses, I lost the plot there a bit I think. :) (82.whatever)


Congratulations! You're a bureaucrat. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats before making any new sysops. Angela. 16:02, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

24 hour bans for edit wars[edit]

Hi Ugen,

I've amended the proposal on 24 hour bans for edit wars. In short, the amendment calls for a quickpoll to take place before any such ban can be implemented. If you support this, I'd like you to add your vote in favor to the 24 hour ban vote, with the comment "with quickpolls".

Please also participate in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls.—Eloquence 22:16, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Master Editor - Artificial Consciousness[edit]

Please see Village pump for an update. Thanks. Ataturk 02:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I read through a good bit of the ongoing debate at Talk:Artificial_consciousness; I thought it might help to get a new editor's perspective on the argument. I'm writing to you here because you are apparently the admin who froze the page, and because I don't want to write anywhere more conspicuous where I might attract unwanted attention. My opinion on the edit war is that user tkorrovi is either a troll or very misguided. From my experiences on UseNet, I would say his behavior is very trollish and would most likely be dismissed as such if the argument were happening on UseNet. He:
  1. Has only ever contributed to this one topic
  2. Has added links to his own external articles (these first two very reminiscent of UseNet advertisers posting ostensible third-party endorsements for their own products...)
  3. Claims to be acting reasonably, but shamelessly reverts other people's edits (pehaps because he suspects new editors to be aliases of the person who originally pissed him off, but still). Also a common troll tactic; try to claim you are being reasonable despite all appearances to keep people on your side as long as possible. Similarly, he demands apologies from people who have not intentionally offended him.
  4. Vandalizes the talk page of his opponent
Another difficulty with his posts is that his English is below the general standard of Wikipedia, yet he often insists on having his wordings preserved exactly, regardless of whether the edit is a semantic difference or merely correction of grammar, spelling, style, etc..
Anyway, this is my outside perspective and I hope it will be useful in deciding what to do. I don't really care what happens to Artificial consciousness as I think this is the kind of topic that is always going to be controversial and difficult to maintain in a wikipedia. But I do feel that tkorrovi's behavior merits a temporary ban, or at least a clear, strict warning. I don't mean to be offensive if he is really genuinely trying to be constructive, but if so he seems to have badly misunderstood the way things are supposed to work (as understood by me, but note that I am fairly new to wikipedia myself). You can check my record and it should be clear that:
  1. I have no direct interest in the article at hand as I have not made any edits myself (as I assert above, I have no intention of involving myself with this unfortunate subject)
  2. I am not any of the combatants in disguise; my existing edits are quite clearly from a different knowledge base and personality compared to the people involved in the edit war.
As my conclusion is that tkorrovi is a troll, I prefer not to make myself overly conspicuous; I fear I could get vandalism at my own user page. Please check the history to determine my identity and please don't post my identity if these comments are moved to some of the more visible forums for the current argument.

Ugen64, please ban me now, and permanently, I want end of this pain. Then I could at least say that I couldn't do anything to protect the content. Tkorrovi 16 Mar 2004

Tkorrovi has reverted your series of welcome and careful edits to artificial consciousness. My instinct is to immediately revert his reversion but you have asked me not to. Nevertheless, we are back where we started: Tkorrovi is seemingly claiming some kind of Master Editor status and reverting back constructive edits. I know nothing of the "agreement" he invokes in his reversion comment. Paul Beardsell 02:37, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reversion policy and Artificial Consciousness[edit]

But what is one supposed to do in the following hypothetical(!) situation? An improvement is made to an article; it is then seemingly(!) unreasonably reverted. If the article is left at that point then contributions to the article are discouraged, few will be willing to contribute to an article where reversions of new content are the norm and the consequence of that is an article becomes one person's fiefdom. Or are you suggesting another strategy exists? You refer to policy: Do you mean one that has only evolved informally or is it written down? If so, a link to that would be great, thanks.

As it happens a strategy evolved in this case which seems quite effective albeit unconventional. The consciousness (artificial) article is, I think all would agree, an improvement on the frozen version and all previous versions of artificial consciousness. It has demonstrated that there was no need to "protect" current content, and that the AC article would have continued to improve incrementally over time if allowed to, like other Wikipedia articles. I would be interested in your comments on all this. In particular, how do we go forward from here?

Paul Beardsell 23:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My Responce[edit]

Thank you, for that friendly article Mr.Ugen. However there have attempts by many administrators to purge my writings from wiki, a blatant violation of the first amendment (if your english freedom of speech is guaranteed as well). I understand you don't trust me but the reason why i vandalized was because im manic drepressive, and vandalizing relaxed me, I decided to stop and I wish to help you. How I want to do this is by becoming an administrators, I wish for you to consider the matter, thank you and god bless--Plato 05:02, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My Answer to you[edit]

I'm well aware that an independant project (i.e. Wikipedia), doesn't follow government guidelines like the first Amendment. What I was merely trying to state was thank independant projects should adhere to feedom of speech (execpt if it's vandalism, or violates wiki's pov policies). That's all God bless --Plato 05:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Thanks, ugen! Considering how often I see them... having soothing pages is a Good Thing. +sj+

AMA Election[edit]

Ugen64, I've taken the liberty of adding links at Wikipedia:Announcements and Wikipedia:Goings-on that the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates is searching for a Coordinator and I have started a new page dealing with the election. See: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election. You editing, comments and participation as an AMA member would be appreciated. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 20:35, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


You appear to have edited Wikipedia:Requests for adminship while logged out? It's signed as an anonymous IP which claims to be your router? I hope you'll fix it if it's you. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Anthony Diperro has been vandalising the page for admins vote by messing with convo timing and deleting my contributions please stop him.GrazingshipIV 03:02, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism redux[edit]

Altering other users' comments can be a bannable offense. Just thought you might like to know. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:38, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm assuming that your summarization on said talk page involved either:
  • Summaries that were obviously summaries based on the context of the remarks
  • Summaries that were clearly marked as such
I'm also assuming that your summarization did NOT involve:
  • Signed comments that had specific words changed which would make most users believe that the signed user had written different words than he/she actually had.
I'm also assuming you know the difference between summarizing a discussion and simply changing a few words in someone else's comment.
I'm also assuming that you realize that I have to assume an awful lot because the link you left me on my talk page is red and does not link to any useful content.
But hey, those are a whole lot of assumptions.
--Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:58, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the welcome!


Sorry about posting in the wrong place!



As if to prove your point.... "the Columbine shootings or the Peterson trials, although the latter is probably too publicized to be a good support" - I've heard of the former, but not the latter. Do we have an article about however/whatever the Peterson trials refers to? (A quick search for Peterson didn't bring up anything obvious to my untrained eye).  :) fabiform | talk 02:07, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Hcheney so you can make an informed decision on my Request for Adminship --Hcheney 17:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

re: grazingship[edit]

Hcheney has come clean with some truths regarding GrazingshipIV. You may want to reconsider your Quickpoll vote. Kingturtle 23:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Wow, you're 13! Forget Mark {Raul), I feel old! --MerovingianTalk 13:58, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)


A user known as thebam is attempting to discredit and smear me on wikipedia this user was created after my exchange with rickk which MAY be a coincidence eitherway I do beleive he is a sockpuppet created by someone who wants to discredit me as he has no other contributions other than trying to pretend I "struck" a deal to get aat rickk to make myself an admin. Please intervene in this matter. GrazingshipIV 17:29, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)


Thank you for your quoted passage. I am learning that socialism is likely not as broad as I once thought. I had assumed I was a socialist for years, but at the same time I am intensely opposed to egalitarianism, communism, excesive govt. regulation of small business, and other attempts to stifle entreprenuership. I just happen to believe that govt. $ should be used to provide the minimum of health, education, housing, and social structure (career counseling, etc..) and I assumed for whatever reason that I was therefore a socialist. Recent debates on socialism related pages have strongly suggested to me that socialism is by no means an appropriate lable for myself, and that rather it is a fine lable for my opposition on the left. Unfortunately I don't have a new lable to replace it with, and am left again naked politically :S. I guess its back to being a radical moderate/populist for me... Sam Spade 21:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

left-liberal eh? I'll have to look into that. Wish there were a wiki article on it (hint, hint..). ;) Cheers, Sam Spade 22:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I assumed you 2 were the same. Thats wacky. Sam Spade 23:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Not a stub any more! You're right - it's astonishing how fast stuff gets added once you make a stub! Thanks, Mark Richards 21:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What "grammar" is and isn't[edit]

I see that you edited my new article Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives to impose the enormously popular and utterly absurd convention of spaces after punctuation marks.You are far from alone in that.However,I am rather annoyed by your characterization of this edit as "grammar".Grammar is a matter of sentence structure,word tenses,and so forth;orthographic and punctuational styles are another matter entirely.The people who perform this byte-wasting redo of my articles usually enter "(spaces)" or something like that as their comment line.I regard that as more in touch with the facts.What makes you call it "grammar"?--Louis E./

You answered this on my talk page and I answered briefly there.My basic principle is that one should separate words by spaces OR punctuation marks.Beyond that,I don't see a rule adhered to in typography as pertaining to language itself.

On another subject...I see you're doing a list of British field marshals,some time ago I compiled a nearly complete list of Admirals of the Fleet,would that be of interest?--L.E.

I don't have any problem with you, but this site is dominated by some people I don't want to argue with anymore. They aren't dedicated to making this site better. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Well, if anyone disagrees with you -- feel free to sign my name in the vote as agreeing with you. I delegate my authority to you. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hello Ugen64 I just feel that I out to point out, that what lir is suggesting is not in any way policy. Any votes you make on behalf of anyone else are likely to be ignored, as the vote lir made for irismeister will be. theresa knott 00:35, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uh oh![edit]

I created external links for the denominations of U.S. currency, announcing not to interpret as vandalism, but you interpreted as vandalism. Why?? 22:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)