User talk:Gvy

Welcome to Wikipedia! It appears that I have welcomed you before July 15, 2005, thus this message is no longer at this location. If you wish to see the full message, please redirect the template on your talk page to User:Ilyanep/Wel. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Linux AfD

An article that you created for a linux distribution has been included in the following AfD debate [1] your participation is welcome.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the purpose of your note was. This AFD was closed almost six months ago. I defend my stand on the notability as they were presented prior to the AFD. I'm glad that many wikipedians contributed their valuable input to the AFD and the result was a keep for all articles involved. Since that time those same wikipedians have contributed much time and effort improving the articles in question. Unless you have something of value to add to this specific topic, please refrain from using my talk page as means of presenting unwelcome and unjustified feedback. One of the pillars of this community is to assume good faith and without knowing me, my edit history, or my methods I would appreciate that you refrain from using blanket statements which are blatantly false to justify your particular position. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I just don't care for particular you who failed that very good faith assumption by annoying people for no real reason. Shouldn't have had in the first place.Gvy (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages not for speculation

Hello,
just a friendly note about using Talk:Stephen Elop as a forum. I know there is lots of speculation in the air, and many forums for that. However, let's try to focus the wiki article talk pages to how to improve the article. Cheers, hydrox (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah (alas I do know that), sorry but I'm really sorry/anxious for Nokia being a long time customer. Will have to move to HTC or Samsung if they continue with that disaster guy :-/ --Gvy (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Anti-Masonry. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please refrain from personal attacks as you did in these two edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Masonry&diff=prev&oldid=432234866 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Masonry&diff=prev&oldid=432235416 WegianWarrior (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your reply to this on WegianWarrior's talk page... I can only assume that the reason why he did not give a "symmetrical" warning to me was that he did not see my comments as being a personal attack, while he did see your comments as being such. In any case... all I can say is that I did not intend my comments as a personal attack. If they came across as such, I apologize. My intent was to comment on the claims being made, not on the people making them. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see.. you refereed to Blueboar as "a lier", "a bastard", "not intelligent" and "prejusticed" whatever that means - I'm assuming you mean "holds preconceived opinions" but since I am not familiar with that word (and neither is my spell checker) I'm not quite sure - all wich are personal attacks, none of which discusses the issue at hand. Blueboar on his side discusses the issue at hand.

So if you want symmetry, lay of the personal attacks :)

WegianWarrior (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC) / sorry for the late reply, I'm currently working for the UN in South Sudan[reply]

August 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing after looking at this talk page, and in particular this edit: [2].it's my opinion we don't really need or want you here. If you can convince another adminstrator you will change your behavior, then you will probably be unblocked.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gvy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There was a false claim used for this block. Gvy (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see what's false about an antisemitic rant posted from this account. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If any wikipedia admin still dares to think that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a leak and not a fraud (which seems wildly unpopular within certain circles enforcing their own vision of "NPOV" onto the world), then you're welcome to unblock this account: I claim that User:Dougweller misinterpreted referring to jehudons as a personal attack (it was an attack indeed but not designed as personal one, and it is more than deserved by those who *are* its target), and that "harrassment" might take place *if* the person did have the reasons to attribute that to themselves.
I acknowledge that I'm hard to deal with (there's a reason to this as I see what I talk about with my own eyes) but am also somewhat knowledgeable in considerable set of science and technology topics, and in particular was invited to Weizmann Institute for that matter (but declined the offer).

Just in case, I don't edit (or use) English wikipedia much (even if since ca. 2004), but if whoever feels like improving Tseng Labs article, then here's (almost: added a link and replaced "+" with " and higher") what I went to add to its talk page: Who remembers still, which of ETs had 2.25Mb variant, was it ET6000? That was a cool hack allowing for 1024x768@16bpp with less than 4Mb of expensive video RAM ;-) Also, ET4000/ET6000 were noted in SVGATextMode's docs for having decent chargen chip -- it could do 100x37@100Hz and higher textmodes. --Gvy (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]