02:1402:14, 13 August 2021diffhist+2,216
User talk:198.53.108.48
i am not going to dispute the reason given by highinbc, but people are making such a fuss about the username thing. my thing is this: give me the username i want. i showed the 'play on words' is not racist if people want to interpret negatively.
02:0002:00, 13 August 2021diffhist+2,038
User talk:198.53.108.48
now i have seen it all. instead of rebutting the claim with evidence, a threat of an indefinite ban looms for demonstrating wigger is not racist. not a good look, if you ask me.
01:1601:16, 13 August 2021diffhist+339
Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations
it seems some users want to make large claims about a term being racist, which i demonstrated was provably false, then run away from their own argument. it is undeniably low intelligence to start off sourcing an argument and then remove others' better sources because you've been defeated.
00:1800:18, 13 August 2021diffhist+149
Talk:Wigger
just expressing my shock and awe at whatever mental discourse was exercised by the intervenor prior to their unjustified, unfounded and rude statements.Tag: Reverted
23:2423:24, 12 August 2021diffhist+195
Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations
letting this foolish person know that his claim there are "many more available" sources means nothing, and that providing two does not make his/her case. go make your argument on the
wigger talk page and have it changed, then i'll concede. cheapskate
23:1923:19, 12 August 2021diffhist+318
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
just stating i'd like robert mcclenon to act as a judge if necessary. otherwise it's off to the "court of appeal wannabes" aka arbitration committee. their
WP:ANI discussions are so funny lol. calm down guys, you aren't the second highest court of last resort lol
18:4518:45, 7 August 2021diffhist+2,632
Bob Rae
remove bland sentence describing scattish bob's radical shift from 1991-1993, providing an a brief+fair of the genesis for his social contract, which, as i understand it, was caused by a davos visit. i welcome improved placement of the text, since page fragments the temporal organisation by categorising events by policy. there's no doubt this text deserves to be here.
01:2701:27, 7 August 2021diffhist+234
Product Red
torn, fkn
number 2. i hate you. but i love you. but then i hate you. but then i realised you could have died and i would have cried, so i can't hate you. but i do. what do i do. arse
19:5419:54, 5 August 2021diffhist+3,173
Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
i think you're missing the point here. the only way for the competitors to voice this concern, if i understand correctly, was through the RFP complaint process. there was no other official avenue to lodge this concern. anyway i've put this to DRTags: UndoReverted
19:4419:44, 5 August 2021diffhist+342
Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
just making it abundantly clear that, from what i understand, you cannot launch a complaint to nasa in response to an RFP. this is the whole point of the GAO: to investigate the complaint.
18:0118:01, 5 August 2021diffhist+265
Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
add gao report ref. fix typo and spacing. this fits perfectly now since it's temporally consistent and should rightly be the "first point of concern" when discussing the disaster, especially when concerns about multiple aspects of the design.Tag: Reverted
17:5717:57, 5 August 2021diffhist+2,908
Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
re-introduce text discussing the contested SRB RFP that was investigated by the GAO. this time with the requested evidence that another company voiced concern over the O-ring design in 1973 during the process, ultimately establishing the causative element requested by two editors on the talk page.Tag: Reverted
17:5617:56, 5 August 2021diffhist+2,030
Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
per PRI-21-182 from the GAO, apparently they have no documents on file for B-173677. found another source from the nytimes that states exactly what is needed anyways. notifying about insertion.
00:2900:29, 5 August 2021diffhist+3,075
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
respond to vquakr and then make a ping to acroterion. vacuous invocations of a warning are a violation. how is that not a threat? even if it is not "actionable" in the sense of sanction, it must be discouraged. oh look quakr, i wasn't banned. stop acting like you know everythingTag: Reverted
4 August 2021
23:5723:57, 4 August 2021diffhist+963
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
my unease, with respect to the erratic user's sudden participation, has subsided. though i do find their contributions contributions equally erratic and puzzling, but that is neither here nor there. sorry for that little interruption.
23:1323:13, 4 August 2021diffhist−1,480
User talk:198.53.108.48
telling someone to lighten up is not a personal attack, nor is it a basis to warn someone and inflate the warning count. in my view, this should be interpreted as a threat by weaponising wikipedia policy, something it seems you have frequently done in the past.Tag: Manual revert
20:5520:55, 4 August 2021diffhist−25
Dimitri Bertsekas
remove the COI tag. yes dr bertsekas probably did edit this article under 'bdpmit' in 2013, 2015, and far less under dpbert (last edit 2019). either way the article is very brief, accurate, does not use flowery language and probably underemphasises his influence in the listed areas.Tag: COI template removed
20:0520:05, 4 August 2021diffhist+692
Talk:Probability theory
just providing people the actual diff that has been used on multiple pages, usually in the history section, to support a flawed and inaccurate POV. this should be used by other editors to keep a keen eye on the problem. it may happen again.
20:0020:00, 4 August 2021diffhist−426
Timeline of scientific discoveries
remove spurious citations that are derived from a flawed basis that originated from the 20 april 2019 edit on the cryptography page that perverted the Kahn citation and used the inaccurate/grandiose broemeling citation to bolster the unsubstantiated claim.Tag: section blanking