User talk:WebHamster

Welcome to my talk page! Please sign your post with the four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Remember: New topics go at the bottom! To keep a topic intact I'll reply here.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #98

Botticelli's Venus... Gimped

Please note that if you leave a message here then I'll reply here.
Likewise if I leave a message on your talk page please reply there
as I'll be watching your page. Thanks.

Blocked

Following a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring I have blocked you for a period of 5 days for edit-warring at Anti-Americanism and for persistent incivility that is far below expected standards of behaviour. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

About fucking time, now I feel able to refer to the fuckwits here by their true descriptions. I'm sick to fucking death of twats wittering on pedantically about their own definitions of civility. Oh, and the same goes for you too. Fucking civility police! --WebHamster 21:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to fucking see the reply on WP:WQA before you say that. You were fine until you directed the incivility at someone. Now, well...we know what fucking happened. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. If you don't want to participate here, why not just hit "log out" and go do something else? How is it useful or rewarding to go on acting up, in apparent hopes of getting blocked indefinitely? If this is your goal, just save us all some time and log out. Friday (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What I want is to be left alone to do what I do here. What I don't want is pious twats coming to this talk page and lecturing me on what their values are. There are many people in this world who bimble around waiting to be offended and being disappointed when they can't blame someone for offending them and therefore awarding themselves higher morals than others. Whereas I bimble around not giving a fuck and then subsequently not being offended by anything. Today's twat didn't respond to a polite request to go away and trouble me no more with his lecturing. He didn't respond to that so I gave him the alternate version, which he was pre-warned about. The fuckwit kept on, so by his choice I gave him the 'in no doubt' version. So you tell me, he obviously, by his actions, wanted to hear the Anglo-Saxon translation. --WebHamster 21:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You have spent years blocking other people for no other reason than they may have offended you and now you are blocked. Do us all a favour and leave wikipedia alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.120.232 (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet another anonymous fuckwit who can't get things right. I'm not an admin, I never will be an admin and I don't ever want to be one, as such I do not have the ability to block anyone and have never had the ability and never want the ability. Now disappear back into whatever hole you came from (Basingstoke?). --WebHamster 10:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• WebHamster - the 3RR was what really crossed the line. Why would you do that? You would have to know that such things make it impossible to rationalize away the rest of the behavior. You have to stop with the reverting like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Ottava, don't hand out bullets. You know that 3RR is pretty much an automatic block, although it is good to see that your nemesis rightly got blocked as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because I really don't care any more. 3 is just an arbitrary number, pretty much the same as WP's definition of civility, i.e. an arbitrary and subjective viewpoint. As has been discussed before, it's not as if a block stings and it's really no skin off my nose. It's not as if it will stop me editing now will it ;) --WebHamster 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I was sorry to see you blocked for 5 days WH - but at least it drew me to your page to get a better feel for you! Personally I'm rather fond of the the occasional 'fuck off', and I think there was more than a bit of goading by S - which I hope was obvious to whoever looked at the blocking. I can see how some might take your style to heart - and 'tough shit' may be a reasonable response - but I'd much rather you didn't 3RR so you can keep contributing... just my couple of cent(iment)s for you. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mary Toft - verse formatting

@Malleus and or Parrot of Doom, try this (hopefully you're still watching this page).

<poem>
Most true it is, I dare to say,
E'er since the Days of Eve,
The weakest Woman sometimes may
The wisest Man deceive.
</poem>

Which will give this...

Most true it is, I dare to say,
E'er since the Days of Eve,
The weakest Woman sometimes may
The wisest Man deceive.

Or if you want to italicise it, use this...

<poem>
''Most true it is, I dare to say,
''E'er since the Days of ''Eve'',
''The weakest Woman sometimes may
''The wisest Man deceive.
</poem>

Which will give this...

Most true it is, I dare to say,
E'er since the Days of Eve,
The weakest Woman sometimes may
The wisest Man deceive.

--WebHamster 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we managed to sort it out. PoD just loves big images, and they were causing the white space. I've rearranged and resized them, so I think the article looks OK now. I think your five-day block was absolutely ridiculous, but I also know that there's nothing I can do about it, the civility police have all the guns. Enjoy your break and come reinvigorated. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help WebHamster, I'm sorry I don't watch this page but I've had similar issues with SlaterSteven, thankfully however we managed to resolve them amicably and since then he's been fine about it. I must admit I did laugh at the above argument, sometimes I feel like using the same language :) I too think your block was a pathetic move. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:RetroS1mone

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RetroS1mone (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RetroS1moneTemplate:Highrfc-loop]]. -- RobinHood70 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

POV issue in Asperger's article

I noticed your comment in Talk:Asperger's, that the current article is POV and sources exist which dispute Asperger's status as a disability.

You're wasting your time. Other editors have repeatedly presented such material - the entrenched editors systematically ignore them and refuse to enter into a balanced, competent discussion.

See, for instance, Asperger's not disorder.

The sources include the very founders of the diagnostic catergory like Simon Baron-Cohen.

But those editors 'parked' on that article (you will know them by their speedy replies in talk) refuse to even acknowledge that a debate exists (warranting a POV tag), much less are willing to represent that debate in a balanced way in the article.

A good many editors - upon learning how wikipedia is ruled by edit counts and not by its 'pillars', quit.

It's not that the entrenched editors are anti-Aspie. It's just that they are used to regurgitating DSM chapters into the form of articles. Asperger's is new, controversial and confusing. They don't like having their accustomed modus operandi challenged, and the article suffers as a result.

Waste of time, really.

(updated) CeilingCrash (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Hi WebHamster, medical articles in Wiki have good sources, WP:MEDRS, a good source is a review or medical textbook. Primary study is some times RS when it is many patients and randomized controlled (RCT). Study w 12 patients and not RCT is nonMEDRS. You are right it is a "factoid" and Wiki is not for trivia and review of minor literature in improtant medical articles. Pls ask when you have question about MEDRS. Thx RetroS1mone talk 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so bloody patronising, I have no questions to ask you, I know the rules round here having been around a lot longer than you. This isn't a paper encyclopaedia. If the prose is supported by a reliable source then it's fine to include it. It isn't "trivia", the sleep study demonstrates that sleep disorders are a factor in FM, there's no good reason to not include it, it's not as if we're going to run out of space any time soon. --WebHamster 14:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)