User talk:PetePassword

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PetePassword. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please format that article and add a category. If it is copyrighted, it should not be on Wikipedia, let me know and I will delete it. --W.marsh 17:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelBowen entry

Hi I'm new to this so forgive me if I've not quite done it right. The piece was supplied by Michael Bowen for this use, and has full permission of the writer, so no copyright problem. Not sure what you mean by format the article. Can I put some pictures up with the article? Is there a limit on numbers/size? Regards Peter

Divide it into sections, add links to other articles, etc. Also it should really be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone, see WP:NPOV. --W.marsh 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why your last 2 edits were reverted

by me and one other editor. I'm guessing you haven't read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR, although the bit about scientists not being there makes me wonder if you might simply object to them. In any case, they are basic policy and you need to follow them. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even understand what you're talking about. If you mean 'do I object to scientists' no. My point is that there was no science when Native American stories originated, it's part of their culture. If by 'they are basic policy' you mean that without a study, or a science basis, nothing is accepted as legitimate. I find that racist if nothing else. The writer, if she/he knew dogs and wolves, would understand that dogs are very clearly the same species, give or take some manipulating of appearance and some habits. The mere fact there are wolf-dog hybrids proves this. If you know dogs that are closest to wolves [less messing], such as German and Belgian Shepherds and Huskies, you know their wolf characteristics. It's the difference between understanding and theoretically 'knowing'. As for editing, I don't think I'm cut out for it here as I find the whole thing too confusing, would take up far too much of my life just to read and understand everything I need to so as not to upset anyone, and I don't care enough to devote that much of my time. It strikes me as a pretty in-crowd thing, with people who more or less live on Wikipedia; everything turns into a social networking site eventually! But just to master all the codes necessary to use/edit/write is daunting, and the pages full of it along with text are totally confusing to a newbie. My problem remains that I can't read something I disagree with and not want to do something about it. Since my interets are extremely wide, this encompasses a good percentage of Wikipedia contents. So I must learn restraint. When I read that 'it's "thought" that wolf pups were stolen, and I know another scenario ... trouble with this subject is the villification wolves have been served up to justify humans killing them so thoroughly that they were extinct in many countries. From Little Red Riding Hood to the bullshit that comes from the mouths of American ranchers, the wolf isn't so much misunderstood as deliberately villified as a compulsive killer to suit man's real psychopathic nature. That's not in an acceptable encyclopaedic style either. Sorry, don't mean to sound unfriendly, ta for the cookies, mmm, but I'm tired and my brain hurts. Must be my age.

PetePassword (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I doubt you're older than me. Basically we try to be a place where readers can find what the major writers on a subject say about the issue - presenting all the major viewpoints and not hopefully trying to say which one is right (circumstances vary of course, we make it clear that aliens didn't build the pyramids - we aren't fringe-friendly). So our articles shouldn't be anything like essays where you do try to make an argument, and shouldn't reflect our own experiences because the reader should be able to verify what's in the article through books,journals, etc. I'm wolf-friendly by the way. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your friendly note. Makes a change here, many boss editors appear combative, aggressive, insulting, threatening as the comment below here where I'm attacked for 'pushing conspiracy theories' and destive editing of the term Eurabia, regarding its origin, and all I did was share my knowledge on a talk page, ‪ChiveFung appears to have a problem with that, perhaps no one is allowed to know more than him, and is now threatening me with being banned! I have such little patience left with dickheads that I may well just never log in to Wikipediua ever again. Nor defend it whenever I see someone dissing it as useless.

I'm 76, and still fighting the fight I began in the sixties. Can't say I'm impressed with recent generations. PetePassword (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Dog

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Dog article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to ASDA. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article? Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of ASDA and have never edited this ASDA page. I don't even have an interest in ASDA and have never sought the page to find out anything. I'm surprised that there even is a page and surprised by there being so much about a supermarket chain. Please sort out the technical bits so you don't accuse someone of something they didn't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetePassword (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Random bypasser here ... you actually did make the edit described to the Asda page. You probably didn't notice that this warning was left four years ago. Marianna251TALK 13:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything so have no idea what it could have been other than a minor grammatical correction which I assume to be OK any time and not subject to all this bureacracy! Since I know nothing about Asda and never have, I doubt it was anything other than a comma or similar, or perhaps the deletion of a repeated word. PetePassword (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Password, the article history shows quite clearly that you added the following content to the article in 2014, and then added your signature:

"Asda have also refused to sign up to and donate to the Rana Plaza Donors Trust Fund, to donate compensation to the families of workers in Bangladesh killed when their factory building in Rana Plaza collapsed in 2013. Campaigners believe Asda is unwilling to set a precedent on indemnity pay for large scale industrial accidents.^[1] PetePassword (talk)"

The lesson is that you should not add your signature to article content, and only use your signature on talk page comments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

There's no need for [[]] type nonsense on talk pages. Keep those thoughts to yourself.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? What disruptive editing? Who are you? What's your mental problem? So I 'may be blocked'l, what, by you? I assume you must be the author of this nonsense on Eurabia, and like every liberal who these days thinks he's in a binary war with the devil, you think it's fine to make threats to anyone who doesn't swallow your little creation, and who you assume our of ignorance you know what they think. What a sad little small-minded bigot. Perhaps I'll find out how to make a complaint about you for your immoderate and unjustified attack on someone who was suggesting IN TALK a perfectly valid suggestion [NOTE SUGGESTION NOT AN EDIT] from personal knowledge, which you clearly don't possess, since the whole piece is opinion and based on nothing much but your political position and bias. I suggest this is no place for someone like you pushing an agenda, or Wikipedia is going to deteriorate into an irrelevent politically biased opinion and unworthy of the term encyclopedia. If you had read what I wrote in entirety and understood it, you would have realised that not only am I not in any way pushing white genocide conspiracy theory [never having even heard of it previously] but was giving an origin for the term. I did not suggest the conspiracy theory usage of the term was in any way justified, in fact, I made no personal political points, I quoted the painter who, long before your claimed origination by someone else, named his painting Eurabia, and explained to me why he had done this and his 'realisation' at the time of shock. He wasn't a conspiracy theorist either, nor racist, and hadf lived and worked in many countries, was married to an Indian woman at one point, and was a totally open-minded, metropolitam American. His observation was objective and not tied in to your little conspiracy theory. Got it? Simple enough for you to understand? PetePassword (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. 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. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attacked for nothing other than supplying facts, by the author who jealously guards their little bit of power and claims I'm doing the attacking. My suggestion is that there are too many for whom Wikipedia is their only reason for being alive, and they feel possessivce and prtopriatorial about it to the3 point of rejecting all edits like spoiled brats taking their ball away. You need to grow up and get a life. I shqan't be bothering any more with this inaccurate hobby site where pretend editor guard their creations and resent anyone else having an opinion. All editors appear to be American, with arrogance one always finds in Americans, it is thus biased, occasionally plain wrong, and subject to the egos of people who need to get out more. I have always approached edits with humility, and would never change something unless completely certain I was right. For instance, the cannabis page is packed with second hand gossip with little actual science or expert knowledge, repeating the same old bias and suppositions, and crying out for someone who actually has experience and knowledge, not a book expert for whom it is all hearsay. It is thus of no use to anyone seeking facts. Eurabia was another, I actually showed I have first hand knowledge of who created this word, what it meant to him and why, years before you claim ownership for someone who used it. Ignorance doesn't come close to what I think of you. I'm tired of all this bullshit by people who spend all their lives obsessing about the bureaucraric niceties of Wikipedia, which to anyone else is a confused and confusing mass of regulations and nit picking. I'm now off to enjoy the few years left before climate change makes this and everything else hominids think important irrelevent as also homo sapiens, a nice try for intelligent species but not quite. PetePassword (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take your own advice, 'please stop your disruptive editing' I didn't. 'If you continue to vandalise' I didn't. I wrote only in Talk page, I suggested an edit as the given person supposed to have coined the word is not the first to use it. I offered proof, I in no way said anything that suggests I am a white supremicist, yet that is what you called me merely because it has been used in that way apparently, a fact I was previously unaware of. So don't shoot your gob off on no evidence, OK? You seem to annoy a lot of people, quite a few comments about your attacks and attitude. Perhaps pay attention to those and stop assuming you know everything and everyone who appears to contradict your ego is automatically an ignorant troll. It's your problem sunshine and I've made an official complaint about your manner and attitude. It's people like you who deter anyone from contributing. My submission is valid and proved, your suggestion of who created the word is about someone who USED it. You are conflating the original use by Bowen with a later use by others who may or may not be consiracy theorists, but I'm not and I object strongly to your insult. If you can't edit without being insulting and combative perhaps you should find another hobby.

^ http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-6a90-Rana-Plaza-One-year-on,-no-justice

[1] ttp://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-6a90-Rana-Plaza-One-year-on,-no-justice

[1]