User talk:Wuhwuzdat

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friends and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM WuhWuzDat

---

---

---

PAGE RULES:

• 1) A new topic requires a new section.

• 2) New sections go at the bottom of this page.

• 3) New sections require titles.

• 4) New replies go underneath the post they are in reply to.

• 5) Sign your posts by typing ~~~~. (Sinebot doesn't work here)
  • (please sign at the END of your posts, not at the beginning!)

• 6) Posts must be coherent and civil.

I reserve the right to delete, without response, any and every posting from people unwilling or unable to obey these simple requests._{Per this guideline.}

If your post is in reference to an article, it would be greatly appreciated if you would provide a link to the article in question.

If you are here to tell me you changed or declined a speedy delete tag that you disagreed with, feel free to NOT leave me a note.

I respect your opinion, experience, and judgment on this matter.

I also irrevocably agreed to release my contributions under the GFDL, and that includes the speedy delete tags!

If you still feel that leaving a comment on one of these matter is truly necessary, I ask that you check the edit history of the article in question, and view the version of the page as it existed AT THE TIME I TAGGED IT, before leaving your comment. _{(Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I am not a psychic, and can not and will not be held responsible for actions that occurred after the fact).}

Birthdate template

Just curious, what's wrong with this edit (or the previous one, rather). Don't we use the template anymore? --Conti|✉ 11:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to undo if the edit is valid, as my issue is with the persistent (14 month spree) Banned sockmaster who made the edits. WuhWuzDat 11:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification. --Conti|✉ 11:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Transit Authority

I see that after reverting an edit and asking for talk, no response. If you weren't sincere about it, I'm going to reinstate it. --Busjack (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You and User:Lost on belmont, being the 2 parties in the edit war, should be the ones having the discussion. I was simply VERY disappointed in the so called "solution" you came up with, deleting material due to an alleged "Impossibility" to keep updated, when others were at least attempting to try. WuhWuzDat 14:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In that there is no verifiable way to do so (either in this instance or the people who were trying to track how many buses were left after each scrapping), I don't think it adds to the article, which is what I said on the talk page. If you have some way of doing it in a verifiable manner that doesn't spread misinformation, please inform us how to do so, instead of just reverting with a warning. Busjack (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As the "misinformation", and the fact that "You don't think it adds to the article", seem to be YOUR opinion only, and have caused an edit war, perhaps it may be time to step back away from the article for a while, and let cooler heads prevail. See also; Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, and WP:Consensus. WuhWuzDat 17:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you found a way not to answer the question. There would not have been this edit war if you had not taken it upon yourself to revert my change, when I gave a perfectly sound reason for it consistent with the so called principles of Wikipedia.Busjack (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Get your facts STRAIGHT. The edit war on this article ENDED (not STARTED) with my reversion of your edit, along with my warning in the edit summary of this same reversion to "get real, and DISCUSS this on the talkpage before ANY further edits! This means BOTH of you!". I was not a party to the edit war between you and Lost on Belmont, but I do have a desire to see it ended, with OUT damage to the article. I have seen no real attempt at rational discussion on this subject yet, simply angry angst filled rhetoric from you and you alone. No attempt at consensus building whatsoever, simply repeating that your way is the only way. Now either wait for the other party to respond and discuss with him, or Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, as consensus would seem to be against your edit at this time. WuhWuzDat 18:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I see you don't either want to deal with facts or answer the question (I said I was stopping the edit war, but you restarted it), good day to you, another self-proclaimed cop of the Wiki zoo. Busjack (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)