User talk:Mikkel17570

Well if it isn't my favorite ex-EDS member ;) If you have questions, you know where to find me. &mdash; Gares 10:06, 12 January 2007 (CST)


 * Why hello there, Gares. :) I finally had the will to force myself to make one of these user pages. If I'm doing anything wrong, let me know! mikkel 10:31, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Now you have no red link. :D Yay for me. AqueneMosi 03:57, 10 March 2007 (CST)

Peremptory Mikkel
Your description made me laugh. A lot. Thank you.

The giant gold nipples on that armor definitely contribute a lot to the sexual ambiguity. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Neutered
The verb "neuter" means to castrate.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:09, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Among other things. - Also, please don't re-revert. mikkel 13:11, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Please consider my intervention administrative action, since someone complained that you had re-reverted.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:28, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Then please go through the history of the page. I posted, someone altered, I reverted, you re-reverted. mikkel 13:32, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * You added information about Shiro. Dr Ishmael reverted your use of the word neutered. You re-reverted his revert. Dr Ishmael then correctly took this to the talk page, and also asked for an admin's assistance. I posted on the talk page that the use of "neutered" was incorrect, and I also told you here. If you believe my understanding is flawed then I recommend you ask another admin to double check, and if they disagree I will apologise for my misunderstanding.


 * In any case, your use of the word is incorrect, and I can only presume that you are not a native English speaker, since the use of the word neutered is very common. I am going to correct the word again. Please consider this a formal warning. If you revert without gaining consensus on the talk page I will temporarily block you, in accordance with GW:1RV.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:43, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Actually I've decided not to revert. While I do believe the usage of the word is incorrect, and that my intervention is acceptable, I'm not sure that my understanding of events is accurate with GW:1RV, and so I would like to seek some agreement with another admin.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:49, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I am sorry, but you are simply incorrect here.


 * Firstly, Dr Ishmael did not take this to the talk page until after I had reverted his change to my initial information. You can check by the times and dates. I checked the talk page for any comment from him before reverting his change. None was there, so I proceeded. Absolutely according to policy and proper etiquette.


 * Secondly, before you make any assumptions about my linguistic capabilities, perhaps you should examine it further. I provided to you a link to the Cambridge Dictionary definition of the word, which by any standard must be considered an authoritative source, supporting my use of the word.


 * Now, while we're on the subject of definitions, I would seriously advise you to look up the definition of "revert". To revert something means to change it back to its previous state. This necessitates a previous different state of the word in question. Considering that the entire paragraph containing the word that is at the centre of this dispute was entered by me, and that the word "neutered" was the first and 'only' state, Dr Ishmael's change can by definition and logic not be considered a "revert". What he did was change the original word under the inaccurate assumption that it was incorrectly used.


 * I then reverted the paragraph back to its initial state. What you did, "administratively" or not, was a breach of the policy that you're accusing me of breaking. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but please don't insult me by questioning me in the face of indisputable evidence supporting my case. mikkel 13:59, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Regarding the order of events, I do not think I suggested an order of events that was inaccurate.


 * While I don't doubt the Cambridge dictionary's correctness (I checked the word in another dictionary before taking any action) I still feel that the word "neutered" is less suitable than "neutralized".


 * I was not meaning to imply that you cannot speak English; many non-native English speakers have just as good an understanding as native speakers, but they occasionally use words that have a different common meaning. I must admit that it was not my place to make judgements as to your level of English speaking, and I did not mean any offence by it. I believe if you were to ask most native English speakers what "neuter" means they would answer that it means to castrate, regardless of the definition listed in the Cambridge dictionary.


 * The reason I did not alter the article again is because I, too, had considered that my understanding may be flawed (as I explained, quite vaguely, in my comment above). This is why I would like another admin to verify whether or not 1RV was broken.


 * If I have acted unfairly then I do apologise, I acted as I thought was correct, but I can see that it may have been rash of me.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:19, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I fully appreciate that the first definition of "neuter" that springs to mind for most would be castration. That's the first thing I think of myself. I do however find "neuter" both correct, and to be a more appropriate word, notwithstanding the common association. "Neutralise" connotes incapacitation to most, and while Shiro most definitely is easier to defeat when his melee attacks deal low damage, he is far from "neutral". "Neutered", however, in the context that I am using it in connotes diminished capacity, and I felt that it more appropriately described the effect caused by using the tactic described in the paragraph. It might not fall in everyone's taste, but I believe that it falls firmly in the same realm as "neutralised" vs. "neutralized" in terms of importance, and that it is solely a matter of preference that should be accepted as a consequence of having an open project like this. All in all, no harm, no foul. Thanks for looking into things, though. mikkel 14:30, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

mikkel broke rv1 &mdash; Skuld 13:56, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Refer to above comment. I didn't break RV1, as I made the first revert. A revert is changing something back to its previous state. Dr Ishmael changed the word to a new word to suit his preference, and that by definition does not constitute a "revert". mikkel 14:01, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Your first reversion of neutralized->neutered did not break 1RV, no. However, I could not revert it back without breaking 1RV myself, so I asked an admin to take a look.  I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought you had already broken the rules.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 15:45, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I've been asked to look into this.


 * User:mikkel added the paragraph. User:Dr_ishmael edited that paragraph. mikkel then reverted that paragraph to its previous state, which is acceptable by GW:1RV. Dr Ishmael then posted on the article's talk page, again as specified by 1RV. User:LordBiro then re-reverted the article, violating GW:1RV. He claimed this was an administrative edit, but since the content in question is technically correct both ways, I think he overstepped his bounds. However, mikkel then re-re-reverted Biro's revert, which also violates GW:1RV, so both editors are equally at fault.


 * As an editor, I believe the word "neuter" provides an unnecessary sexual connotation to the advice offered, so I've rewritten it in hopefully a more neutral manner. One could revert this change, but I don't think you can provide a meaningful reason to do so that the rest of this article's editors will support.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 16:00, 11 April 2007 (CDT)