User talk:CJ DUB/CJ DUB ARCHIVE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

D2C Platform

Revisions to the page indicate that Ford considers D2C to be a new platform, which they do as indicated by the D2C designation, and that the D2C platform is loosely based upon the older DEW98 platform, which it is. Since both stamtements are factually accurate and critical to understanding the origin and placement of the platform in the current Ford Motor Company lineup clarification on how either is supposedly intended to detract from the other, a requirement for weasel words, would be appreciated before you revise my edits again.

As for the revision regarding the fuel tanks employed on D2C. Since these units are based upon the design previously used by DEW98 but are not a direct carryover citing this in the post would once again seem to serve to improve the article's accuracy.

(Syr74 18:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Syr74)



Castle

I have a more serious problem with that image. It's nonsense. A motte is an artificial construct. The huge boulder outcrops are unhistorical and grossly misleading. CJ DUB - I think you've been a little unfair. Giano has done a huge amount of restructuring work and his efforts shouldn't be derided. Any changes he makes that you're unhappy with can always be discussed at the talk page. It's not that hard to change them if there's consensus. However, the existing article is utterly dreadful and needs someone willing to take out a spade and do the hard work. If Giano's willing, I trust him to do an A1 job. cross-posted from Giano's talk page--Dweller 09:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it CJ DUB, this "so-called expert" is quite hapy to let you get on with it. Next time I stumble across and Article improvement drive I shall stay well away. I look forward to reading the page when you have finished it. Giano 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


LOL CJ DUB 16:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Worst user name ever?

Well, he rocks. I think everyone hates him because he's old, but who should care? That'd mean I'd say Gordie Howe sucks. I'm just the minority, I guess. It's his stlye of play and accolades that impress me the most. But I guess I'd like to meet tthose 3 guys you mentioned. First of all, hasek leads the legaue in GAA and 3rd in shutouts. It's not much the statistics, but how he can still have above-par stats at 42. I also wanted to see if anyone would say anything about it. But I've seen weirder usernames. Hasek is the best 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have any proof about that? I have no clue why people hate others because they're old, but he won't get injured...In fact if Martin Brodeur turns 40 I'll say he sucks _____ (you can fill in the blank, you're smart, aren't you?) So anyway, how could Buffalo fans say he sucks? Buffalo was a bad team, they had no all-star skaters (Hull, Lemieux, Messier, etc) but at least hasek impressed the crowds with last second saves and he attracted them to watch awesome and unbelievable saves. It's just your opinion anyway, because you look at his negatives which are nothing compared to his achievements. he's not a crybaby; he's happy because I never seen an interview where he lloked mad or sad (but that happens in every career, anyway) --Hasek is the best 20:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, have proof on that? But yeah about the coach thing, sometimes it could be a personal thing for the coach or Hasek, but that's no the worst thing in the world. And he's not a crybaby. Besides, everyone cries (sad) at least once in their career. Would you cry if you lost as (insert fav team) against the last place team 4 games to none in the finals? --Hasek is the best 21:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Pfft, he is awesome; he's the best since year 0; -1 year. Well, Buffalo did suck at scoring, that's why the games were so close. And everyone has a problem with somebody; again, it can be personal. Oh yeah, I also noticed you changed 45 to 65 on the hasek page, well SASwiki is a retarded parody site and is not an official and NPOV source of info. So see Chelios @ hockeydb for his birthdate; or you got 0% on math. Hasek is the best 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just going to say: we'll see what the future has in store. --Hasek is the best 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay enough nonsense already

Regarding this edit: please don't add jokes to articles. Regarding this comment: Talk pages for articles and users are for collaboration around articles and contributions, not for sports arguments. Save it for a forum or for IRC please. Thanks. --Wafulz 05:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, the SAS Wiki is full of jokes. It's like citing Uncyclopedia. Regardless of whether or not his name invites an argument, try to keep yourself restrained- after all, he is a 12-year-old, and he's been very helpful in finding sources for articles. Anyway, talk pages are not the place for arguments not related to articles. --Wafulz 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Consider this warning number 2 in regards to your unproductive comments at Talk:Ottawa Senators. Thanks. ccwaters 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're joking about the NHLPA thing. Also, in regards to your comments about the "utility" of Hasek is the best: Don't make personal attacks about his usefuless. I suggest you leave him alone and go argue about sports elsewhere- it's not remotely productive in helping to build articles. If you continue using talk pages as a forum for argument, you could end up being blocked. --Wafulz 21:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as you're still arguing and borderline trolling the user's talk page, consider this a final warning before I report you to an administrator for a block. Also, stop blanking the warnings on your talk page. --Wafulz 05:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Nissan Skyline

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Nissan Skyline are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Not that you just infringed this rule, but you were never told when you did so. Thanks. Dread Specter 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

New York Islanders and Alexei Yashin

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Croctotheface 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Please see our policy on speedy deletion - your continual tagging of the Sabres season page does not meet any of those criteria. Please remove the tag and consider AfD, and please be aware of our speedy policy in the future. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Especially in light of your attempt to add a speedy deletion tag to the 2006-07 Buffalo Sabres season page on the grounds that "no other NHL team has a season page"... look at the template at the bottom of the page and you will discover that every NHL team has a season page. Don't tag articles recklessly, please. Skudrafan1 17:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. While you may have valid arguments against the articles existence, it clearly is NOT a speedy candidate. If you wish to pursue this matter, I would suggest looking at the AFD process. Please refrain from readding a speed tag. ccwaters 17:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy deletion tag. Do not readd it.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Ottawa Senators (original), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ccwaters 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ford Modular Engine

Every test of the 2000 Cobra R by all the major magazines (as well as Ford's own specs) say the car had an iron block. If you have proof to the contrary, I'd like to see it. --67.175.147.74 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ford GT Article

I fail to see how 2 anonymous editors constitute "popular assent" for your rationale in deleting the Clarkson section given 2 other anonymous editors noted it was either tongue in cheek or a plain old joke. Please bring some civility to the discussion on the talk page. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Yo bro, I totally agree with you on the prostitution thing, that article is ridiculous, it glamourises street prostitutes, which as you and me both know, is absurd. I've walked down east hastings, let me tell you it ain't glamourous.

Recent edits to Ford Mustang

Heya, I agree that the section needed some major attention, but I think you could have pulled some of the more useful information from the section, and removed the rather POV and informal stuff. Also, calling the writing style of good faith contributions "worthless" and good faith picture contributions "crappy" in the edit history is probably less than constructive. - superβεεcat  03:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear ya. Just sayin, don't wanna beat people up too bad for not being hugely talented writers. In any case, I'm glad to see another editor is interested in it-- I couldn't believe there wasn't a single word about interior. This is going to be my major project for a while- let's make it a great article again. Cheers! - superβεεcat  03:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The Article containing the LED Light was posted by me because (if you took the time to read the article) you would see that the section talks about add-ons and other custom jobs that can be added to the mustang! The pic that was there just showed a picture of a regular mustang this one demonstrates custom add-ons including rims and LED lights. *Last thing, problems with edits or choices of content on pages should be talked about on the talk page of the article not on other users talk pages* --Archer5054 23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

End of 2007

Boulogne Castle

Perhaps you could point out how the castles in Boulogne and in Fère-en-Tardenois are so similar, given that the latter has a keep and Boulogne does not. Emeraude 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I find your tone unnecessarily harsh and not what should be expected of a Wikipedian. I refer you to the link that you yourself placed on the Boulogne Castle page to the French wiki article fr:Fère-en-Tardenois where it clearly states "le donjon est un heptagone irrégulier flanqué de sept tours circulaires" (the KEEP is an irregular heptagon flanked by seven circular towers). I would suggest that if you cannot read French, you refrain from editing any pages to do with the country! Besides, looking at the picture, it is quite clear that Fère-en-Tardenois is built on a mound (unlike Boulogne) and is a stand alone castle (unlike Boulogne, which is contained within the town walls of Boulogne). I aked for architectural similarities - the number of towers does not do it. The use of the same builders is interesting (references?), but there wasn't exactly a large pool of castle builders was there? If you know as much about this castle as you claim beyond having located an interesting photo, why not write an article on it for English Wiki? So far, you have not upheld your claim that it has any similarity with Boulogne other than timescale and builders. Emeraude 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That page has donjon but its an obvious mistake made by a moron. Come on, there is other infos on the page that are wrong/poorly written. wiki ref, how hilarious. I speak/read french just fine. The Mesqui, 1997 ref is a french book. Sometimes french people call the whole castle a DONJON when it is not. Lemme give you another example. Tower of London: Is it a tower? Of course not! It has many towers but has been named that way after the original tower of the 1000s. Comprendez? Its just a name. You haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about in either respect Bolougne or Fere. Bolougne is located inside the town? Wow, how very unique!! I've been to Fere by the way, (and all over the French north): it is a castle, even though it is on a motte. On the large motte is the inner ward, which is not covered by roofs, there was a lower ward where the hotel is. There are in fact many extremely large and complex REAL donjons on top of mottes, Stafford Castle, Warkworth Castle, etc, but they are all very compact and roofed. This is not like that in the slightest. The only unroofed motte keeps are shell keeps of the 1000-1100s. Fere is a classic castle of enceinte of the 1200s. My Mesqui book calls the structure on the motte an "enceinte castrale", and states the original castle was there. Here are some other keepless ones: Mont Saint Jean, Montaiguillon, Moulineaux CJ DUB 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"I speak/read french just fine." Shame your English lets you down! Not to mention the way you think that debate has to involve insulting everyone. Firstly, it is not an obvious mistake. The picture you linked clearly shows what appears the remains of a keep. I confess I have not visited Fere, but the picture does seem to be ACCURATELY described in the French wiki article. Do not presume to lecture me on nomenclature. Of course the Toewer of London is not A tower, anymore than Balmoral Castle is a castle or Crystal Place was ever a palace. And of course Fere is a castle - I never questioned that. Incidentally, you might want to find a translation of 'castrale'. The important points are these: (1) How are Boulogne and Fere so similar that you have edited Boulogne to state so. They do not look similar, they have separate functions. (2) If they have the same builders, that is worth mentioning - please do say and name them with references. (3) Is the tower described as a keep at Fere a keep? (Or rather, was it when built. I can list dozens of French castles that do not have keep today because it has fallen down over the years - I was at Clermont l'Herault this week and you can't see a keep, but it had one!) I challenged you to write an English article on Fere and woild welcome this, but I suspect that your task is mor eto accuse editors in French and English of moronity, so I won't hold my breath. Meanwhile, I am reinstateing the 'sourced description of Boulogne from the Boulogne Museums service which you castigated as 'fancruft' Emeraude 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Bandwagon fan

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Yankees76 13:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your previous edits against me

On one comment, you said I know nothing about hockey. If you think so, then why did I join Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey? If you know more than me, surely you? (sarcastically). (I actually mean it.) And btw you haven't said anything about your username. "CJ DUB"? What kinda last name is that? And, I'd love to hear what your favourite team is...probably those teams that get about 60-70 point a year, such as the Phoenix Coyotes. Mine's the Ottawa Senators, and they did pretty darn good, eliminating the President's Trophy winning team, Buffalo Sabres.

I actually don't seem like a 12 year old do I? If I did, Id B talkin slang like dis but no, and I was born on January 8; so I'm just past a week of being in the seventh grade. And you know, there's other 12 year olds on Wikipedia too. I'm responding because of your very immature comments. And, mature people help Wikipedia by reverting vandalism, such as blanking pages. And apparantely, you seem to get a lot of notices on this page because of your controversial edits. I do have a list of reasons why Hasek rocks, but on a talk archive. Lastly I'd like to say: Hasek didn't get injured! Woo! And better yet, he re-signed! --Hasek is the best 21:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow. Welcome to 2 months ago. Just because you join a group on Wikipedia that seeks to improve ice hockey, DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT HOCKEY, or even know how to write an article. It just means you know how to push a button to join. Good for you. Don't EVER post on my discussion page again. CJ DUB 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine, be that way. --Hasek is the best 14:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Please remain civil toward other editors, especially in edit summaries, which remain a permanent part of the page history. This is important even if you believe another user is being difficult or provocative. Thank you for your cooperation. Newyorkbrad 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies vote

Dude, you don't vote on changing wikipedia policy at the article level, because the core principles are not changed by vote within an article. I've pointed the way to three areas you can posit your interpretations on real-world synthesis, and you can get real-time feedback from your fellow editors and maybe a few admins will check in, as well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

then do the smart thing and take it to the OR page, or AN/I. There, you can express your views on synthesis, and have a wider field of folk express their interest in your opinion. It doesn't change within the article. I am saving you from wasting an enormous amount of time by pointing you to the people who will help you realize that synthesis actually is. My interpretation of synthesis is backed up by some pretty solid experience applying it and seeing it applied correctly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

William, Count of Poitou

I noticed you changed the cathedral name. I added this name to the box. Then I noticed this cathedral was build in 1215 but this chap died in 1164. perhaps the old name was right. Any ideas?Obina 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Castles and Mottes

Thank you kindly for reinstating my motte. But it wasn't that I was objecting to (really, thousands wouldn't believe me on this but I know you will); TWO photos of sturdy Irish mottes (only one of which was mine) were removed to make way for a pic of a BMX track in England and the roof of a house. While neither of the Irish pics are classics in the photographic sense, surely we can find a castle-ona-motte that isn't taken from someone's bedroom window? (Sarah777 22:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Please note, the article Motte-and-bailey is about the Norman method of fortification, wherever found, it is not about "Motte-and-bailey's in Britain". You might also note that Ireland is not in Britain. Thanks. (Sarah777 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC))
No more country specific cats please. This isn't Wikipedia Ireland, its wikipedia english and should have the world view. However adding it to the history cat of all counties that have mottes is futile. As are the other categories. The present cats are much better. And History of Ireland IS part of the History of Britain. You may have forgot it was British until 1949 CJ DUB 03:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"No more country specific cats please. This isn't Wikipedia Ireland". Indeed, nor is it Wikipedia Britain. Ireland was fully part of (in the sense of being occupied by) "Britain" from some time in the 1600s (pick your date) until 1918 when independence was endorsed in an election. That's 300 years out of 8,000 years. To repeat:

  • the article Motte-and-bailey is about the Norman method of fortification, wherever found, it is not about "Motte-and-bailey's in Britain".
  • Ireland is not, and only ever was for a historically short period of time, part of a country called "Britain".
  • You are manifestly wrong on the categorisation; I checked; the article History of Ireland is categorised under "Europe", not "Britain".

(Sarah777 09:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

As regards Ireland as part of Britain

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_Britain
  • Republic of Ireland "The state known today as Ireland came into being when 26 of the counties of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (UK) in 1922. The remaining six counties remained within the UK as Northern Ireland. This action, known as the Partition of Ireland, came about because of complex constitutional developments in the early twentieth century." also "On 21 December 1948, the Republic of Ireland Act declared a republic, with the functions previously given to the Governor-General acting on the behalf of the King given instead to the President of Ireland. The Irish state had remained a member of the then-British Commonwealth after independence until the declaration of a republic on 18 April 1949."

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland#Union_with_Great_Britain: 1801-1922

Maybe I missed something, but unless Ireland spontaneously appeared in the Irish Sea in 1922, it was previously part of Britain, and Northern Ireland (the bit at the top there) is STILL part of Britain CJ DUB 12:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said - Ireland is not part of Britain. Was occupied for a few centuries. You ain't saying anything different that I can see. Ireland didn't spontaneously appeared in the Irish Sea in 1922; it was there long before "Britain" ever existed. (Sarah777 19:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC))
Britain is an Island. Ireland is not part of Britain - FACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_BritainSennen goroshi (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

York Castle

Careful. :-) In reverting my edits you got rid of my inadvertent incorrect edit (the 3rd century one), but also the two deliberate edits, one of which is unarguably correct.Acad Ronin 18:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

the next step is a report filed on the admin's noticeboard and you being blocked. Don't use terms such as "BS" when talking about another user's edits.Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)