User talk:OBloodyHell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, OBloodyHell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Andorian Incident, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Alastairward (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hialeah, Florida[edit]

Let me point out that the Hialeah Park Race Track is mentioned in the history section of the Hialeah article.--Jorfer (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It does mention that (before I edited it to include racetrack):

Hialeah Park Race Track also holds the dual distinction of being an Audubon Bird Sanctuary due to its famous pink flamingoes and being listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

--Jorfer (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Zuzana Drabinová[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Zuzana Drabinová, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuzana Drabinová. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, OBloodyHell-- Just a note: The people doing the deleting are the people who create the criteria. No chance of getting a sympathetic ear from them. Once they've deleted all the articles their newest change in criteria allows, they'll be up for another change and another round of deletions. Dekkappai (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it -- One reason why I've been working less and less on Wiki articles. It rewards people far too much for constant attention to changes that violate whatever dogma they adhere to. After a certain point of change-counter-change articles ought to require some form of mutual agreement to register changes. And as far as actual deletion of an article, that should take at least a month or more to get done.

Try and get anything changed on one of the cherished liberal viewpoints, for example, on McCarthyism or Global Warming, say. They have people who supervise these things constantly, and within minutes have them back to the official liberal view, regardless of facts presented or the lack of factual support for their own view. I have better things to do than watch a wiki article constantly for changes.

They also have some vaguely absurd notions of what constitutes "includable" information -- things about fictional universes, for example, aren't allowed to contain "unsourced" information (i.e. it qualifies as "original research"), but, of course, there are no "official sources" for most such information, no body where one might publish something to even get such a qualification in the first place. Hence the requirement makes no sense of any kind. It's a fictional flinkin' universe you nits.

The summary result, of course, is a less reliable, less useful wikipedia. I don't even bother to look at it for anything I consider a "cherished liberal position", as its inherent factual reliability approaches nil.
OBloodyHell (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

re Legion of Super-Heroes[edit]

Re your recent edit to this article:

  • It's interesting, useful, and almost certainly accurate.
  • We can't use it.

Because: we only use material that is sourced to a external third-party source. If John Q. Bigbrain had written something like this in The Journal of Comics and Society or whatever, then fine, you could include the material and cite the source. See WP:RS. That fact that it is (apparently) your own original thought doesn't make it one bit less true than if Bigbrain had written it. But, it being original thought, we can't use it. Because if we did, then we would also have to include original thought that wasn't true, because we are not equipped to differentiate between true and untrue original work, and if we tried to it would soon become a madhouse. So we only only allow material that has already been published in an external reliable source. I hope you understand, and I thank you for your contribution, and I look forward to your future contributions, and may your flight ring never fail. Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

StopComments like this [1] are a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and will get you blocked in the future. I care not if you're in the right or wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do (although his point that you could tone it down quite a bit is also correct). I'm not sure if I'm a useless idiot or a complete moron - or maybe both - but I know I'm not an asinine blathering halfwit, as I always either gabble or prattle but never blather. So hear me out.
It is true that something you write in a Wikipedia article might be correct, while something written in a book or whatever might be wrong. It is true that there's a lot of information in the Wikipedia which is allowed to stay in because it's sourced to (what we consider to be) a Wikipedia:Reliable source. If you are looking for a website which contains only true information and no false information, this ain't it. The Wikpedia is run by humans, and therefore it is imperfect.
But we try. And one of the ways we try is, we don't take the word of any random editor that what they have written is true. Can you see how it would be a problem if we did? We would have people writing "Magyars are natural thieves, I personally can attest this is true from my experience" and so forth. We do not, and never will have, the manpower to check out statements and determine if they are true or not.
So we say "Well, if it's been (let's say) published in an article by a respected professor who has spent a career studying the issue, in a respected journal where articles are reviewed for factual accuracy by other professors and which has a reputation for accuracy, then it is more likely that it is true than if just some random person wrote it on the Wikipedia."
Are you with me so far? Your point about using "some random web page" isn't generally true; WP:RS requires more than that, usually. We might use a blog, if it's written by a person who is known and respected in the field. But not usually.
Readers are welcome to "search for the original source and not bother with [our] collective regurgitation". And that's fine. But a lot of people do read the Wikipedia, for whatever reason. So the system is working reasonably well, I guess.
Your point about the left-liberal viewpoint is correct, and this is problem sometimes. (There are plenty of rightists on Wikipedia, but they are mostly libertarian or Ayn-Rand types rather than conventional (American) Republican types.) Our demographic is wildly skewed to (in American terms) the coastal elite types, I think. I don't know what can be done about this. But I don't think it's as bad a problem as you say. Most of our articles on political subjects are reasonably fair-minded I think.
Anyway, I don't image that Legion of Super-Heroes has a liberal bias. Does it?
Well, anyway. I hope that you continue to contribute - like Duo Damsel (they sure knew how to name heroes in the Silver Age, didn't they) we are only powerful inasmuch as we are not just single individuals. However, you will need to tone the invective way down, and will need to follow WP:RS for material. And if you aren't willing to do that, you might be happier contributing to another website. Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, OBloodyHell. You have new messages at Magog the Ogre's talk page.
Message added 23:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re fiction etc.[edit]

Well, no. Fiction can be covered in a reasonably encyclopedic manner. We don't throw up our hands and say all bets are off because its fiction.

The Sorrows of Young Werther is fiction. That doesn't mean that I, personally, can read it, decide on my own dime that (let's say) Werther's relationship with Albert has homosexual overtones, or that that Lotte shows signs of being originally written as two separate characters, or that Werther's recitation of "Ossian" actually represents a proto-Nazi approach to German racial nationhood in Goethe's thoughts, or whatever, and put that in the article. It'd be chaos if we allowed everyone who reads The Sorrows of Young Werther to decide on their own what it means and put that in the article. It'd be crazy.

If Professor Stuffypants at Columbia, who has made a lifetime study of Goethe, writes an article in the Oxford Review of German Romantic Literature saying any of these things and they decide to publish that, that's different.

Ah, you say, but there is no Professor Stuffypants for the Legion. There is no scholarly journal called The Harvard Review of DC Comics and there is no Chair of Silver-Age Comics at Berkley.

Well so what. That is not our problem. Right? There is no reliable source for most interpretations of the Legion of Super Heroes. Because, they are, at the end of the day, characters in a kid's comic book. So our coverage of them must therefore be limited. We can say things about the Legion that are obvious on their face ("Saturn Girl is a member", "Cosmic Boy has magnetic powers", etc.) or that can be verified by reliable sources ("The first story was published in 1958" etc.). And that is it.

This is not a failure of Wikipedia. It is a failure of the Legion. The Legion isn't Shakespeare, it's not intended to be and it's never going to be, so just live with that. If you want to get into interpretive analysis of characters and so forth, I would recommend letting go of the Legion moving on to more substantial literature. Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

-- Sorry, I lack your stuffy and, I would even say, "pretentiously arrogant" attitude towards comics in particular and fiction in general that "it's just kid stuff". The Legion and comic books overall have been striving, in the USA, for decades now, to be recognized as more than just "children's garbage". Further, anyone who has read Legion -- or many other comic books from about 1982 onward knows the typical reader isn't a child any more. Most of Europe AND Japan, and likely many other nations as well, have figured out long since that just because it uses graphic pictures doesn't mean it's crap only for children or generally unworthy of adult-level analysis and thought -- your rather sneering and arrogant attitude is exceptionally parochial.
Further, the complaints I discuss also cover issues with media fiction such as Star Trek. I similarly reject the assertion that Star Trek is "unworthy of thought, consideration, or mature discussion" as patently ludicrous. One need not be only a drooling fanboy to find interesting subject elements to be discussed among mature and intelligent company. Clearly, that latter doesn't apparently include you and your arrogantly dismissive attitude.
Wikipedia is inherently faulty in its inability to deal with the concept of verifiability except by the sole justification of external reference. A fact that can be clearly demonstrated with a reasonably short delineation of information is still a fact, regardless of whether or not some other venue has actually included it in its set of referable entries. Wikipedia, which purports itself to be a repository of fact -- after all, that's what an encyclopedia IS -- thus excludes from itself any possible consideration of the far larger mass of demonstrable fact about an entire class of "things of interest", like fictional works, which lack a standardized peer-review process.
I more than amply ack the notion that it's reasonable to not allow random assertions in the tome -- I simply state that the lack of any "reference medium" to extend the exceptionally limited and thus blatantly defective concept of "verifability" is a flaw in wiki. It's not a flaw in fiction, nor a flaw in anything else. It's quite clear that someone never thought this through adequately. There should be an associated wiki subsection for the introduction of reasonable assertions which can then be reviewed and argued by others, with the long-term goal of identifying if a claim is sufficiently factual to meet the intention behind the "verifiability" concept -- after which the claim can be asserted in wiki unless and until someone raises issues in the same venue which challenge that assertion to the satisfaction that it is no longer accepted. In effect, wiki is lacking a suitable venue for peer review for internal inclusions which do not have external peer review processes available to them. This, of course, is the nature of reason and science -- we often find a concept, decide it's valid, then, as new info comes to light, decide it is invalid. See phlogiston, ether physics, warm blooded dinosaurs.
Q.E.D. -- wikipedia has a substantial defect.
This is an issue Those In Charge should address, rather than adopting your own rather sneeringly offensive attitude, I quote: "I would recommend letting go of the Legion moving on to more substantial literature". This problem is not, and never has been, a "Legion" issue. That's just one of MANY places the DEFECT crops up in, which harms wikipedia in many ways.
--OBloodyHell (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

WP: UCF[edit]

University of Central Florida

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Central Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Central Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thank you and Go Knights!

--Nemesis63 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Abuse[edit]

I find your message to me in regards to Deteriorata as totally abusive. Not only did I revert your edits but you would have noticed that ClueBot NG also reverted that same edit. If you wish to contest an edit that I have done you will certainly not get a sympathetic hearing from me by going to my talk page and leaving an abusive message on it. You may wish to read No personal attacks in regards to all this.

Regards

Rocketrod1960 talk

Wikipedia policy[edit]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Rocketrod1960 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

"And I suggest you need to stop vandalizing pages to score points on the STiki leaderboard. Considering you cannot justify your initial bogusly claimed "reason" for the initial edit, that is clearly the only justifiable excuse for what you did."

To report vandals you can go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Rocketrod1960 (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect blanking[edit]

Hello. I see that you've blanked the redirect Chemda, apparently intending to delete it. Please be noted that blanking the redirect is not tantamount to a deletion. If you wish to delete the redirect, please bring it up at WP:RFD. I've restored the redirect for now. KJ Discuss? 04:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)