This user may have left Wikipedia. Oore has not edited Wikipedia since 7 December 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Oore, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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! Joe 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted earlier today by Nat, for being "complete nonsense". If you think an image/page should be deleted, but aren't sure why, you can check the criteria for speedy deletion (speedy deletion = deletion of obviously bad articles/images, without needing a discussion in order to delete). Hope you find that helpful. · AndonicO ^Hail! 09:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help; if you need anything else feel free to ask me. · AndonicO ^Hail! 10:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... this is my first message... so sorry if i do it wrong way.

Well... I think so it would be better if an opportunity is provided to other side too, to express its comments. Its not fair to give one opinion and stop the other.

Its contrary to right to say. If one guy has that, why not others?

If one guy has created a page based on false things, then why give it protection?

And if given protection, why don't give the others a right to say in the similar way (you may give right only by saying that it is Muslims opionion and that non-Muslims).

Waiting for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umer87 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing to our Basic Books of beliefs is not a problem. I am a Muslim residing in a Muslim state and that thing I can do very easily. If edited with proves and references, would this page be edited / moved (in the manner as proposed)? Pls reply—Preceding unsigned comment added by Umer87 (talk • contribs)

Sorry because I was not able to reply at that time... It was too late night and I had to get early in the morning.

Well... I just only wanted to say that is there any way to show 2 seperate pages. one by Muslims and other by non-Muslims. So that it may be known to user that what's Muslims point of view.

I don't say that it is necessary to label 'by Muslims' and 'by non-Muslims'. It's just one way to achieve that. There may be different ways

The may reason behind this is that the matter there is totlally wrong. There it is done by saying that Shittes supports this. But you may see the opinion of the Shiite Muslims majority country, I mean Iran. As regard Sunni Muslims, It's mentioned there too, that it's not permitted. So, how can way say lie in the name of independence?

Would someone like someone else abusing Holocast in the name of independence of speach? Or what would be you opinion (I won't be doing this nor any Muslim, because Islam does not permits us) if some one starts saying bad about Prophet Christ? (I won't at all tolerate this).

If there's no independence there, so how can here be?

Here first of all its lie. And secondly, if it would have been permitted by Islam, we don't think, that the personality of our Prophet Muhammad (Sallalao Allaihi Wasalam) is as such to make pictures. We would have rather saved His real picture. Not let peoples, worth pennies, make Pictures.

Pls reply.

Umer87 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I say but to thank you for supporting our point of view. It's a pleasure that you although, due to some reasons, unable to help us, but still you support our point of view.

ThankyouUmer87 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I recently saw your anti-vandalism work and just thought that I would welcome you and direct you to Wp:Vand and WP:CVU as you seem to be interested. If you ever have any questions about being a recent changes partoller or anything to do with Wikipedia in general please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks --St.daniel ^Talk 01:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem--St.daniel ^Talk 01:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joturner has been indefinitely blocked.

• 02:38, 21 July 2006 Deckiller (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Joturner (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (user request; changed names)

--MZMcBride (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me reporting User talk:76.118.140.67 at the AIV. I'm glad to see people reverting at night. Keep it up.--RyRy5 (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Teda13 (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i was under the impression you had that ability from an entry under the Otto Eugene Adams portion of my talk page--Teda13 (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i must say what is wrong with delting a double article on the simpsons game ? whey 01

Thank you for catching the typo. I should not have missed it as I made — and detected — the exact same mistake on the entry I created for Miranda Weese. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Although it looks like I should have kept a better watch on your page...but I see the vandal got blocked. Hope that's the end of it. Dreadstar † 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Did you delete my "The Falco Spartans" page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaji (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My self and some friends of mine agreed that a wikipedia page should be created about The Boar for a number of reasons. First, it is a new undergraduate organization at Yale that is increasingly being discussed and yet very few people know more than bits put together from various sources. In the true spirit of Wikipedia, an open source entry would enable people to bring different bits of knowledge together and paint an accurate picture of the organization. Moreover, it is a fact that it exists. The Yale Daily News is a highly reputable and well-respected publication that consistently wins awards every year... this is not some campus tabloid. Moreover, i personally find it absurd if the post were to be deleted because it is believed that the entry is not significant enough. It is significant for two reasons. First, people are aware of its existence, discussing it, and want to know more. In my mind, that is criteria enough. However, the organization itself sits amidst a much larger trend at yale regarding the prevalence of student-organized beer brewing. In this regard, the organization seems to speak to a larger shift in campus culture, one that interests people and one that is worthy of entry. The value of wikipedia is that it is something more than Encyclopedia Brittanica... that it allows individuals to determine significance, not just stodgy editors in some office building. Although i certainly understand the need to keep false posts out of wikipedia as well as to prevent people posting an individual biography, my post is intended to inform people about a real organization that exists, is growing in popularity, has sparked a genuine interest, and is part of a larger campus trend. That is more than enough for a college paper and, in my opinion, a wikipedia entry as well. Significance is not numerical, but inherently subjective, and the fact that i have taken the time to write the entry, and this response (when i actually should be doing real work) indicates that i believe it warrants an entry (as do numerous other people with whom i have discussed the organization and the creation of this page). Any deletion based on significance would be folly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcricthon (talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the welcome you left for User:Squantorox22, I noticed you included a link to the article that he created in the template. I ended up deleting that article because it was nonsense and some kind of joke edit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{db-vandalism}} you added to the article because it is not a vandalism article. It's not sourced and probably wrong, but that does not make it vandalism. I would recommend you either PROD or AfD the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: It's not obvious misinformation. Maybe it's true (though I doubt it), but the source is just lacking. I AGF'ed the original author, though his behavior post you tagging the article is not stellar. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Oh, I don't disagree that it's probably wrong. I just PROD'ed the article. Tomorrow, I'll delete the article, okay? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I had to look it up to be sure. ... discospinster _talk 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Effects That The Recent Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis has had on the US and Global Economics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Effects That The Recent Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis has had on the US and Global Economics. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Toddst1 (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noted you browsing the new pages to CSD any inappropriate ones, same as me. Thought i'd stop by and say hi! need any help or whatnot? Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Theres a certain number of days before a user can use a system such as Twinkle; they should extend that to article creation as well. I dont pretend to believe that it would help the lovely little users learn the do's and dont's of wikipedia, since they're only here to do the donts, but they might get bored and sod off. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I would like to try to correct the problems that led to my article deletion - could you restore to my userspace? Thanks. --Latienda (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added new information regarding the Shihabs origin in the article. This text is backed up by a credible source. The Shihabs were originally Sunni Muslims, not Druze. Therfore, i have also added them again to the former muslims category.

However, i just want you to know that even if they were originally Druze before conversion, they were still Muslims. The Druze are a syncretic Islamic sect with unorthodox beliefs and not a new religion. The Druze also consider themselves Muslim and are officially classified as Muslims. Various mainstream Muslim scholars dont consider them Muslim, but if they are to be used as a reliable source for anything, then we should also believe their opinion that Ahmadiyyas, Ismailis, Sufis, Shias, etc and every Muslim not of their particular sect are Non Muslim and therefore, classify them as such. Joyson Noel (talk)

Hi. I'll stop our discussion at the FFI-deletion-page. I said what I had to say, and I guess you did as well. Further discussions would only cause repetitions. I suggest we 'd better continue our discussion IF the FFI-page will not be deleted. Otherwise, please go on as editor, and and keep on making Wikipedia better! Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the constraints on the amount of sources relevant to the website, article improvement will likely be difficult. But should the article survive AfD, I certainly hope we can work together on it. By the way, I would hope you realize that I had no intention of making the article "worse" in any way. I've updated the article on several points, including its higher traffic rankings, found new links for many of previously dead source links, and have made it substantially more compliant with policy. Oore (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2010

O well, we'll see what the wise men of wikipedia will decide about the article. And for the rest: I believe your edits were made with the best intentions, but altogether they appeared worse than they were meant to. So far for FFI. I guess I'll look what else cann be done around here. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To comply with Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY. Images should be integrated into the article where possible, only where it is contributory to what is being explained. --Biatch (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rushed it and I very sorry. My English not very good. I will use correct terms next time Kingtehmann (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oore. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Powerhouse (club), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Between the article and the talk page there's enough for A7. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  16:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the editor has been adding outside sources, I'll wait and see if additional sources are added so that it meets the notability guidelines. Oore (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do know what Schutzstaffel is better known as, don't you? Were you aware that one of the participants of the Schutzstaffel Gaming Clan refers to themselves as SS Juden Jagaer? Have you any fucking idea what that translates as? I have indef blocked the arsehole who created the SGC article, and have salted the title so no other nazi glorifying bastards can place their shit on this project (unless supported by rock hard reliable third party sources). I would be very grateful if you would apply a little bit more clue to your actions, such as removing a valid AIV report; some actions are so disruptive as to not require even a single warning, and it is best to allow administrators to make that judgement - if you wish to make a comment then you may do so, but allow others to check the validity of your thoughts. I am AGF'ing your intentions, otherwise this would be an indef block notice, on the basis that you have been a contributor since 2007, but be a bit more careful in future and AGF the concerns of more recent contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to get so heated. The editor who speedied the page has very rapidly reported one other editor for vandalism (i.e. User:Redsmatt), and has speedied other articles with incorrect speedy criteria, as he states above on my talk page. As a result, I thought he had done the same on the gaming clan's page. I did not fail to assume good faith, but merely wanted him to slow down. No, I'm not familiar with individuals that form the gaming clan in question. Oore (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask whether you knew any of them, I asked whether you had checked the article - in between it being deleted, which is a bit of a clue that the creator was possibly not a good faith contributer - to see that one of the "members" of the "clan" stylised themselves as, translated, SS Jew Hunter - belonging to a group that referenced the nazi SS. You might be fucking sanguine about such matters, but some other editors and readers most certainly will not be and if you are busy correcting another editors errors then it behoves you to ensure that you do not introduce your own. Lastly, I would repeat, please do not remove AIV reports; the admins are able to determine if there is no basis for action. We all of us make mistakes, but some of us learn from them - and that process usually starts by recognising that one has been made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand German, so I was not able take in that "clue." My actions were based on some of User:ChinaEditor's other problematic edits. In this case, however, I've already realized I was wrong. I'm always looking for areas in which I can improve, and if you look at my edit history you'll see that I have always corrected my errors. But you shouldn't expect apologies or remorse from other users when you can't address them with even a modicum of respect. Surely, your position as administrator and over-sighter doesn't entitle you to belittle others at whim? This conversation would have been quite different had you begun it more congenially. Oore (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a blind spot when it comes to removing nazi/fascist content (unless, as I mentioned, included in strict compliance with WP standards) and perhaps I am not as polite as might be preferred with regard to such issues - and there is my confession to non perfection. I might not have written to you at all if you had not made incorrect assumptions on the actions of another editor, when you were reviewing their contributions. You might be a bit upset over the manner in which I addressed you, and for which I apologise, but I was so angry I walked away from the internet for a couple of hours... If you have taken some lessons from this matter then it is perhaps not been wasted effort, and if I can control my temper a little more successfully when dealing with obnoxious content then all the better. If you wish, you can have the last word. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting a very hostile response to my last post, but instead you disarmed me. I hope this helps to reframe our discussion a little bit as I had a suspicious gut feeling about that user, particularly since he jumped to using Twinkle so quickly. You and I have the same interests, i.e. improving the encyclopedia, but I promise to be a bit more careful around articles with German in them future and will consider that I might be dealing with sensitive topic areas. Stepping into your shoes, I realize that it may be stressful to deal with persistent trolls as an administrator. Oore (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well - at least they did a little good before getting closed down. As for us, all we can do is our best. Cheers, and see you around. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit by User:Firexgodx980 because he introduced incorrect information. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It's probably a vandalism-only account. Oore (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a vandalism-only account. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he'll come around. Oore (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history of Zack Spencer, but I didn't see anything that seemed like it was an attack page. Error? bibliomaniac15 21:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I thought I was looking at new pages; I saw the page after this edit occured. My bad. I already reverted myself. Oore (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]