User talk:Aoidh

April 25-28, 2011 tornado outbreak

I got a message on my talk page and immediately thought of you. See Talk:April 25-28, 2011 tornado outbreak and let's fight this off once more! The one who sent me the message thinks that I am for the renaming (don't know where he got that idea). Also, he has readded the "also known as the 2011 Super Outbreak" to the main page. I would appreciate your help. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I had seen the move discussion last night. I don't think there's anything to "fight" off, and it looks like there's already no chance of anything happening, but the page is on my watchlist so I'll see the discussion. - SudoGhost 17:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I realize that now, but you never know when they will get enough people together to get it moved. I guess it was a false alarm this time. United States Man (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, SudoGhost, for your kind message of welcome. I may be seven days late but I wanted to tell you that I appreciated it. ItaMatt (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions I'll be glad to help any way I can. - SudoGhost 20:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths

I am amazed that anyone could see, react, revert and then construct a Talk Page warning, all within the space of two minutes. You must be a real SudoSprite. Or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're referring to this? I did a quick google search for the name + spontaneous combustion, and nothing came up, so it was likely a middle schooler or someone who knew the individual placing the name there for laughs, which would make it a potential WP:BLP issue since it's possibly a living person. Regardless of the intent, it is very unlikely to be accurate. Reading the entry, it sounded extremely dubious that someone laughed at something while spontaneous combustion occured on the toilet to then be eaten by pigs. The talk page takes about ten seconds to do when using Twinkle. - SudoGhost

Yes, all totally fictitious, I'd guess. Twinkle certainly speeds things up. But now I am ever more impressed that you managed to get a Google search in, as well, in that two minutes! Middle schooler sounds about right. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Having two monitors is pretty useful, and thanks to a previous job I got pretty efficient with using Google on a second monitor while doing something else on the primary, since the more calls I was able to get in the better, and Google just happened to be the best way to quickly find the information. Plus having two monitors is useful when you're checking out a source on one while working on an article on the other, I'd definitely recommend it. - SudoGhost 22:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I can just about cope with (and see) one QUITE LARGE monitor, thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Windows 8". Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 24

Are we related by any chance? Drmies (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have a relative that lives in a city whose article needs a quality assessment *cough*, probably not. - SudoGhost 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm no. But congratulations on the fancy linguistic footwork--you outdanced me there. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Enlightenment (spiritual)

Hi SudoGhost. There's a discussion going on at Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual)#"Scientific consideration" and Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual)#Definitions about the inclusion of an obscure article with an "explanation" of the Buddha's enlightenment. The same article has been mentioned at Enlightenment (Buddhism); both additions have been removed because of the unreliability of the source.
All of a sudden, three new users, user:Lotus sutra81, User:Enterodoc9 and User:Raul7213, none of them having created a user-page, are contributing to the discussion, suporting the same pro-inclusion opinion. It makes me think of WP:SIMNAME, WP:XS and WP:OBSART. I've shared my impression with User talk:Lova Falk#Enlightenment; she's got the same impression. Could you have a look at it and say what's your impression of it? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the two newer accounts that were actually discussing it on the talk page. There are certainly syntactic similarities in the writing styles of the two accounts. Not to mention, the very first edit of the second account is to reply to Dominus Vobisdu that they "couldn't resist". Given the conversation the Ent account was replying to, it's odd that they would reply in place of the Lotus account. It's also odd that so many new accounts would know to come to the talk page and comment when there's nothing going on with the article that would alert them to this (no maintenance templates, no back and forth edit war). There's nothing so telling that I'm 100% positive that they are the same person, but I think it's likely. If not, given the timeliness I think it's likely that at the very least there's some sort of "meatpuppetry" going on. That's just my 2¢. I'd recommend opening an WP:SPI though; unless they are confirmed sockpuppets don't treat them like they are, because it's always possible they aren't and it's a coincidence. - SudoGhost 22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks again for your time :) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So I did start a SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raul7213 Blllh, this is getting on my nerves... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like all 5 named accounts were confirmed. Hopefully that will solve that issue. - SudoGhost 14:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So, that was a good guess. But there may be more: User talk:Dominus Vobisdu#Enlightenment. But maybe I'm seeing patterns which are not there... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Runemarks and Runelight

Hello, just a note to let you know I removed your prods from the above articles as I believe they meet the notability guidelines.

Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 21:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DADT

Please do not add homosexual. It is an offensive term, you wouldn't allow nigger or kike would you? CTF83! 10:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you stuck in the 1960s? Gay 99.99999% of the time referes to people of same sex attraction. CTF83! 10:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Weigh in CTF83! 10:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that Homosexuality is the title of Wikipedia's article on the subject, and reliable sources use the term, I disagree. "Gay" is an inprecise term with several meanings. There is not a single term used to describe the subject that nobody things is a pejorative, including "gay", so that's not a strong argument to use when the term you wish to introduce in the article is not only slang, but is more often considered a pejorative than homosexual. You're welcome to start a discussion on the talk page, but when several editors revert your edits, there's probably a good reason for it, and "it's offensive so I'm changing it no matter what" isn't one that holds any weight. - SudoGhost 10:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you American? Gay? Again the word homosexual is offensive as it has 1970s clinical connotations when it was considered a mental illness, in the same way nigger/negro is not offensive but wasn't in the 1800s CTF83! 10:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)