User talk:Johnny Squeaky: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m ←Replaced content with 'Nothing to see...' |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Nothing to see... |
|||
Go away. |
|||
== 3O == |
|||
I've added the content dispute about [[40/40 Club]] to [[WP:3O]]. An uninvolved editor will make a judgment on [[Talk:40/40 Club|the talk page]] at some point. [[User:I Jethrobot|<font color="green" face="Candara"><b>I, Jethrobot</b></font>]][[User talk:I Jethrobot| <sup>drop me a line</sup>]] <small>(note: not a [[WP:BOT|bot]]!)</small> 08:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Northrop F-5]]== |
|||
If you do not use the talk page, the continuous revisions are considered [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious]]. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 00:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC). |
|||
== [[West Virginia State Penitentiary]] == |
|||
Per [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections]], random groups of miscellaneous facts should be avoided. However, the section you have renamed deals specifically with references of the prison in popular culture, not completely random. Can you please provide a rationale for your edit? It would seem to run counter to Wikipedia's guidelines. If this section is trivia, as you contend, there will be a recommendation to delete it completely.--[[User:Bark|Bark]] ([[User talk:Bark|talk]]) 15:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:(Posted on Bark's Talk Page) Trivia is trivia. If you don't like the title than REMOVE the trivia. "In Cultural Whatever..." is just a "wiki politically correct" name for, yes, TRIVIA. My point is ...Call it what it is, or delete it. If Wikipedia "discourages" trivia, than don't include trivia. But if you *DO* include trivia, quit playing word games, call it what it is. If you object to the title "Trivia" than why do you accept... TRIVIA ... in the article? Remove it or accept the true and accurate name. Thanks, I enjoy polite and constructive discussion, and you have been polite and constructive. =//= [[User:Johnny Squeaky|Johnny Squeaky]] 01:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::I have a watch on this page, so if it's easier to respond directly to me, you can do so here or at the article itself. I have removed the offending section and opened a new section on the article's talk page detailing what happened with it. Like I said there, I view the information as interesting but not really needed.--[[User:Bark|Bark]] ([[User talk:Bark|talk]]) 17:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not against "trivia". Wikipedia collectively decided that the TITLE "Trivia" led to people not taking Wikipedia "seriously" as a source of valuable information. So they "outlawed" the *name* "Trivia" but kept including it as "In Cultural Whatever". This is disingenuous, and really quite silly. Call it what it is. As I said, I'm not against "trivia", I find it interesting information that is indeed sometimes valubel. But call it what it is... Thanks for yout time and input. =//= [[User:Johnny Squeaky|Johnny Squeaky]] 17:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::I apologize if I put words in your mouth, but in your first post you said to call it what it is or delete it, especially if Wikipedia discourages it. Wikipedia does discourage it, so I deleted it. Are you taking issue with the deletion?--[[User:Bark|Bark]] ([[User talk:Bark|talk]]) 18:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes and no. No, I don't think it should "trivia" deleted. BUT if Wikipedia says "trivia" undesirable, than I say "don't include it under false name". So, against the way I think it SHOULD be, yes, "trivia" must be deleted. But as well, it must not be called something esle just to include it. *FACTS* must therefore be worked into the main article. =//= [[User:Johnny Squeaky|Johnny Squeaky]] 01:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Mossad == |
|||
What is your rationale for removing sourced content from this article? [[User:Little_green_rosetta|<font color="blue">little</font> <font color="green">green rosetta</font>]]{{SubSup||[[Special:Contributions/Little_green_rosetta|central scrutinizer]]|[[User talk:Little green rosetta|(talk)]]}} 18:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:POV Bias in the wording. It is an editorial. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. However, I'm perfectly willing to let someone else delete it again after you "undo", I'm not going to get into a farting war with a POV editor. =//= [[User:Johnny Squeaky|Johnny Squeaky]] 18:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::I simply undid an edit that was marked as potential vandalism, because there was no explanation on the summary. I personally have no opinion on the matter. Your lack of good faith is appalling. [[User:Little_green_rosetta|<font color="blue">little</font> <font color="green">green rosetta</font>]]{{SubSup||[[Special:Contributions/Little_green_rosetta|central scrutinizer]]|[[User talk:Little green rosetta|(talk)]]}} 18:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: ''"Your lack of good faith is appalling."'' Wow, yet another Wikipedia "editor" who has exactly zero "people" skills. '''''Surprise'''''. What's next? Some type of hollow threat to have me banned or something? Typical. =//= [[User:Johnny Squeaky|Johnny Squeaky]] 20:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::This coming from an editor whose talk page welcomes people with the phrase "go away". That's mighty fine advice Lou. [[User:Little_green_rosetta|<font color="blue">little</font> <font color="green">green rosetta</font>]]{{SubSup||[[Special:Contributions/Little_green_rosetta|central scrutinizer]]|[[User talk:Little green rosetta|(talk)]]}} 21:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, it says "go away" and yet you continue to post drival on my talk page, which I will certainly delete later. Get a life please. =//= [[User:Johnny Squeaky|Johnny Squeaky]] 23:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:19, 12 December 2012
Nothing to see...