User talk:OleMaster

Welcome!

Hello, OleMaster, 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:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Do not sign your edits, please. Nobody "owns" their edits on Wikipedia pages. The only appropriate place to sign a contribution is on a "Talk" page. Hu 14:15, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Answer From OleMaster[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, OleMaster, 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:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Do not sign your edits, please. Nobody "owns" their edits on Wikipedia pages. The only appropriate place to sign a contribution is on a "Talk" page. Hu 14:15, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Jahwohl, ast thou wilst, Master Hu, but 'ron't you be push'n me aroun' and givst me orders, fer I don't pay any homeage to any arrogance! Arr! Everyone knows it's me anyknowhows. --OleMurder 15:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Holy Hand Grenade[edit]

(Added Worms Armageddon, of course, for FUCKS SAKE!)

Swearing at an article in the edit summary just makes you look silly. Swearing at an article for not including a piece of information that it did, in fact, already include, really makes you look silly. --Paul A 04:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OH MY GOD! THAT CASE NEEDS THE UTHERMOST ATTENTION! Are you hurt? Physically? Do you need a doctor? Sorry. I didn't know it were included. I were in a rush - Hah. --OleMurder 23:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jesus christ, you're an idiot.--KKvistad 21:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know, I where just lookin' for stuff to help on and I became a bit stressed, heh.--OleMurder 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

[1], [2], [3] Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is all but in the eye of the beholder, and not for one man to judge. continue your "evidence gathering", wannabe-investigator.--OleMurder 17:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deadpan[edit]

Is calling an editor a dolt really necessary in an edit summary? From WP:NPA: "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded."

I mean, especially when there is no such thing as comedy-stub right now, and you didn't bother to create it or request its creation, people need to use what's available to them. --Jemiller226 06:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then create a stub called for "comedy" - I hadn't time to check if it existed or not a so-called stub - I just edit wikipedia sometimes when I have free time and it is not MUCH free time so I can fill up some empty "holes" in my day. I have called no-one dolts yet.....dolt ;) It was meant humorously, o'course, and yet again, who decides what are "abusive"?----OleMurder 22:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Hi OleMaster,

Please refrain from inappropriate edit summaries, like the following from Template:Communism,

Yeah, yeah, OKAY, get off my dick already, Sheesh, SORRY FOR THE TROUBLE *sighs*

I apologize if my previous edit summary was terse, but there's no need to respond in this manner. I see above on your talk page that others have commented similarly on other edit summaries of yours. You ought to consider re-reading Wikipedia:Civility--it is official Wikipedia policy. Thanks. —thames 19:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight[edit]

As a member of WikiProject Comics, I thought you might be interested in the Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight we have set up. Please feel free to vote on the articles listed, although bear in mind that a vote for a particular article means you are pledging to help improve the article. The goal of the collaboration is to improve articles to Featured Article status, as we feel Comics is under-represented in that area. Thanks for your help.--Steve block, talk 15:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note.--OleMurder 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitilization and pluralization[edit]

Please note that in the English language pluralization occurs by adding an 's' without apostrophe. So for instance, the word "user" becomes "users" and not "user's"

Also, please note that capitilization does not occur with the word following a semicolon, or usually inside parantheses. Otherwise, thanks for your contributions and happy editing.--Charles (Kznf) 17:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Throat[edit]

Hello, I just had to revert your edit to Deep Throat (film); every single of your changes introduced a typo of some sort. Please don't capitalize words after commas or semicolons. Also, the period is the 1970s, not the 1970's. Cheers.--AxelBoldt 00:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I kinda get used to this kind of replies, although this wasn't as negative. Meh! But fully reverting the edit? I think you overlooked some other things I did. It's possible to fix thing's, 'know, I meant to do it like, appearing "1970's" but going to the "1970s", since it seems more right. And I'm used to captializatize words of ol'habit. P.S., it's also my favourite past decade, heheh.--OleMurder 14:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

You're weird.--Sam Spade 00:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, thanks for the reminder, but don't sweat it. I might be odd.... ....but I don't lower the word "discussion"-page to personal attacks. One RAVEN flew over a cuckoo's nest, but I kept goin' on.......--OleMurder 23:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I ment it in a nice way :) Sam Spade 22:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is that even POSSIBLE, ye re-vitalized school-wise street-smart net-gangsta' bully?--OleMurder 14:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization[edit]

You edited the Bollywood article and Capitalized many things that should not have been capitalized. If your grammar and spelling are shaky, please don't edit articles for grammar and spelling!--Zora 01:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, from a certaint point of view. However: From "shaky" depends where you stand. It seems "straight" to me, if you choose to call it so. Or would you prefer your subjective grammar over my subjective spelling? Is it practically out of the question? Of course, from the person writing it, how am I supposed to know if I'm doing something 'wrong', if I have always walked around thinking it is right? You can't blame me. If it IS shaky, I must obviously be misunderstanding. Or if it is shaky and I still know it and edit articles - Are you suggesting I do it on purpose, to vandalize? And is it then impossible for me to contribute. I don't like accusations, explain yourself. I only hope you changed and not reverted the edit...in it, there might still be something I have done correctly, in the beholder's eye. Capitalization, Schmalitalization. I think it's better, that's what matter.-OleMurder 18:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny that there is such a thing as standard written English? People have informed you that your capitalization is non-standard. You cannot claim ignorance. Edits that introduce errors without even any redeeming addition in substance are no help at all. It takes more time to correct them than to revert the edits. Yyou have have been placed on notice about this fact, so continuing to make such edits evinces a disregard for the work of others and the project as a whole that cannot be described as other than intentional. Amcfreely 01:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious sex?[edit]

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Curtis Clark 20:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense"? This is totally harmless, no need to be agressive in a polite form. Surely I would stop doing so, if I were knowingly doing so. Which I weren't: So it would be impossible for me to "stop" doing something I don't do deliberately, so I'm sorry for this misunderstanding, but I were having the best intentions, no matter how hard you repeat to me - and yourself - that this is an act of Vandalism. I won't insist on foricng it to become the way I wnat it, I don't know from what authority you can claim this accusation, but I know I based my "claim" that it MIGHT be interpreted as an "Religious sex", was because of (Oh, I don't know?) the cross, a clearly church-symbol. If you like to degrade people's ability or meaning to do good, why don't YOU go to the Sandbox and experiment. This was opening for a highly probable theory, that should definately be added and thought about, and giving me a 'warning' is almost as punishment for speculating on a symbol's purpose. So - Can you give me an argument AGAINST that, I'd like to see it, or do you think you're above reason? If you can't, then I suggest you retract this foolish and harm-suggesting warning/accusation. It's not supported by the rules.

My pleasure.--OleMurder 18:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Venus symbol, and indeed the tau cross, precede Christianity by thousands of years. Hence "nonsense".--Curtis Clark 18:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as "speculating on a symbol's purpose", please read the rules about original research.--Curtis Clark 19:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization[edit]

Several people have written to you before about this, including me. Please don't capitalize words in parentheses or after semicolons. Also, it's the 1970s, not the 1970's. Please don't cause unnecessary work for others who have to clean up after your edits. Thanks, AxelBoldt 16:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly sorry, sir...for your unnessecarry reaction. It's perhaps in my instinct, but I'd like you to not that it's not the only thing I've beein' doin' is "creating trouble" (On the article with the "1970's"-example, I f.eg., moved Linda Lovelace to the top as main actor, I'm sure you didn't care and reverted it all over some silly grammar, tidely checkin' stuff) ...As if it was with "PURPOSE". Nope; it's more of an accident in the editing process..and I don't understand how grammatics is an issue. I've been "warned" of this before, but I have only ONE thing to tell, and that I only change the APPEARANCE of the word. NOT the link. It's a wasted effort to "clean up" my edits wholefully since it serves as little purpose as, yes, me writing it so. But as I do other things with articles that DO help, why bother? Why not just leave it alone? It's not like the link's are being destroyed. The "unnessecarry work" is only in the eye of pointdexters who INSIST. I don't go back INSISTING it should be so, unless, of course, I'll run over the article again and decide to edit.

Plus: In paranthesis is considered a new sentence in a sentence, so capitalization is correct. I might cease the "semicolon"-thang, 'tho, but don't expect miracles. But let's assume a crazy idea: This is an enclycopedia, made for READERS. Do READERS care about punctation? Editors might...but...very seldomly readers. Show me one, and I might change. So far, only people who go aroun' bossin' is caring...

So, my pleasure.--OleMurder 21:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very, very mistaken about capitalization in parenthentical phrases. The initial word is not capitalized. If you make a bunch of edits, most of which are incorrect, you cannot expect other editors to spend a whole bunch of time sifting through to undo all of your mistakes and save the eidts that are okay. We don't have time for that. You can expect that editors will simply revert the whole mess, as I've done at Prime Minister of Canada. It will take you a lot more time to make an article a mess than it will be for someone like me to clean it up. And if you continue to refuse to play nice, you'll get yourself banned. Sorry, bud, but that's the way things work here. We're trying to build an properly written and punctuated encyclopedia that easy for people to read. This isn't the place for someone who can't be bothered with grammar, punctuation and spelling. Ground Zero | t 03:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you rant above about the "poindexters" who go around correcting your grammar (and that readers don't care), and then insist that the initial words in parentheses must be capitalized because it is "correct"? Either you care about grammar or you don't. Please consult any style guide about capitalization. You will see that you are wrong, and the rest of Wikipedia is right in not capitalizing. (Unless, of course, the parenthetical comment is a stand-alone sentence, like this one.) Here is a chance for you to learn. Please take it. Ground Zero | t 13:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization vandalism[edit]

Please stop randomly changing capitalizations in Wikipedia articles! You're breaking links left and right, including interwiki links — not to mention English grammar and spelling rules. For example, I just fixed your vandalism of Small caps that had broken the interwiki links to no:Kapitél (typografi) and sv:Kapitäl (typografi). Don't do it again, please. --Quuxplusone 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to avoid doin' it, it's how I got thought in my grade school to do, and know that I'm tryin' to unlearn my learnings, will you STOP accusing me of Vandalism! It's NOT on purpose, you diptwit, if you ever say that again I'll go to yer friggin' userpage and rant about yer faults, 'cuz ye're not perfect eitha', are ye? It's an ERROR, not a VANDALISM. Get it? I'm sorry, that I fuck up! Okay!? HAPPY NOW!? I've improved since then.--OleMurder 14:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge of a certain result merges into the intent to produce it. Nobody is perfect. But you consistently make the same mistakes over and over again despite being patiently corrected. Do you not care that you are messing up articles that other people have spent a lot of time working on? You must be aware that it takes time and effort to correct the errors that you introduce. This is not a "rant" about your faults. I am simply trying to make you aware of the difficulties you cause and to encourage you to try harder in the future to conform your additions to the rules of English grammar and spelling. Please proofread and proofread again. Amcfreely 05:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:OleMurder.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:OleMurder.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.--Stan 13:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to do all that bullshit... Because...THE PICTURE...IS...OF ME! GET OFF MY CASE WITH YOUR ACCUSATIONS! It was originally uploaded at http://www.geocities.com/OleMurder/OleMurder.jpg/ OKAY!? I didn't write it, BECAUSE, it was goddamn obvious! It stood in the picture and OleMaster is just another "version" of me. Stop going all robot and use your BRAIN. IT IS ME. I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING. UNLESS SOMEONE WHO IS THE OWNER (Who is me!) GETS A PROBLEM, THEY CAN SIT BACK AND ENJOY A DRY MARTINI, BECAUSE, IT's NOT YOUR PROBLEM.

Tired of this shit...now I have to reupload because of your "paladin"-rescue of rules and principles. I hope you're satisfied, now dry that smile of your face! MY PLEASURE!--OleMurder 22:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have ANY accusation of Vandalism to me[edit]

PLEASE CHECK IF I DIDN'T MAKE AN ERROR, CORRECT IT, TELL ME HOW TO DO IT RIGHT, AND MOVE ON. JUST BECAUSE IT TURNED OUT WRONG DOESN'T MEAN I MEANT TO CRUSH THE ENTIRE WIKIPEDIA SERVER AND BE AN EVIL VILLAIN.

THAT GOES ESPECIALLY TO YOU SMART-ASSES WHO HURRY TO CORRECT MY ERROR BEFORE I DO SO YOU CAN SAY YOU SAVED IT FROM MY "VILE ATTACKS" (YEAH I KNOW ABOUT THAT CAPITALIZATION-THING BUT HEY, HOW THE HELL COULD I KNOW IT COULD DO THAT OR ANY DAMAGE, MAN? TALK ABOUT SENSITIVE LINKS.) AND THEN SMACK A BIG WARNING ON ME...DO THE WORLD A FAVOR, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET ON ABOUT YOUR BUISNESS.

WE DON'T ALWAYS NEED ANOTHER "HERO".--OleMurder 22:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that you are vandalising pages, usually by messing up capitalisation inside brackets and breaking links, meaning of course that people have to go back and revert the errors. Why can't you just not make the "errors" in the first place? It's not like you've not been informed about the capitalisation thing already. 80.41.206.119 17:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from vandalising Wikipedia articles. Clearly, whether you are meaning to do this or not, it continues happening. If you don't understand standard English or grammar, please only contribute your ideas on the Talk pages. Wikipedia has standards, and you do not meet them. Vancar 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism etc.[edit]

Please stop messing up grammar and adding wikilinks to other-language versions that don't even exist yet, as you did with Occam's razor. It just means that other people have to keep reverting your edits. 80.41.214.213 18:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop working on the english wikipedia[edit]

Your English is awful. Your grammar is a disaster. You take any and all criticism in the worst possible way. In short you are the worst wikipedia editor I have ever had the displeasure to come across. Please, just stop. If you don't stop, please please for the love of God stop capitalizing the first word inside a parenthesis. It's wrong. Lots of people have told you it's wrong and you still do it. The "content" additions that you make are completely useless. You act like wikipedia is your own personal webpage where your thoughts and opinions on matters are of interest to people. They're not. You've been messing up every page you've edited for months. It would be charitable to call you a stupid and ignorant person. I'd sooner suspect that you're a vandal and a troll. Again, stop editing wiki pages. Please. Charles (Kznf) 22:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Nihilism article[edit]

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Nihilism. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

There is increasingly good reason to think that your edits are just a complex, deceptive form of vandalism. WP:RFI may be appropriate. Amcfreely 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This has been going on for too long now.--80.41.250.222 00:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. As if there's anything such as "complex, deceptive form of vandalism". Sounds more like you want to include more vague form's of edit's into'rê big box of "vandalism", as if to have anythin' technically labelled as 'vandalism', in a complex, deceptive form. It seldomly is compatible, because vandalism is simple and straight-forward, like, removing the entire page or inserting subjective stuff like "He/she was an idiot". Also, if it's complex and/or depective, it must also incide that there's some sort of "cover" or non-vandalistic part of it, i.e. settin' doubt to yer argument - and leaving myself in the grey-zone. IF I am to decieve someone, it must means it includes cunning around the rules (Yeah, uh, my grammar is like, total deception...) and someone trusting me..apparantly not, also, you talk rather diffuse and not firm, like not naming any rule, just calling me things.

Secondly, you show no examples of this, such as me trying to write a sentence appearing good but is bad. The problem is that text is all but appearances, so it really can't have bad "back-side", like f.eg email's who have good text but a bad attachment (Virus), if my text appears good it can't be bad, because if it's appearing to be good, as text should, there's no problem. And it can't be anything trickery about it except if it's a link to some popup-site or whatever! What's your ARGUMENT? And how do you define "Nonsense", especially in a nihilist sense where little matter's. I suppose there's a commitee with it's own subjective opinion's that decides this, and giving me a warning for having this "going on too long" is the same as reprimanding me for having a different P.O.W...which is what philosophy is all about, even when -TRYING- to be objective, it's all really just attempts to define it.--84.202.43.13 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (Signed, OleMaster Anarchoson.)[reply]

Response from Wikipedia:Request for Investigation (WP:RFI)[edit]

Hello, OleMaster! I have come to your userspace because of a report submitted to WP:RFI by User:Kznf concerning your recent edits, particularly ones in which you have incorrectly introduced grammatical errors into articles. I thank you for your contributions in good faith, but I would like to direct you over to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style which outlines the style and formatting we aim for in Wikipedia articles. If you have any questions about the style manual, the process or result of this investigation, or anything else about Wikipedia, please contact me via my user talk page, accessible by clicking the "Talk" link in my signature. Thanks, Zsinj^Talk 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]