User talk:Black Butterfly

Stuff and Such

I am entirely suprised you do not have talkboxes. SPOONGOAT AND POPTART 4 LYFE. --Shinku Hisaki 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Words=

Thought I'd be the first to edit your talk page and say hello. After a few days of reading Wikipedia back in February, I finally registered too, for the same reason: to dang many little errors just begging to be edited. For example, my misuse of "to" in the previous sentence. --Birdhombre 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Nice to see you've decided to sign up! I hope you'll enjoy it hear as much as I have. Here are some pages you might find interesting:

• Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects - this is a great page to give you an idea of how to plug into a broader project. I find I'm much more motivated to contribute if I'm involved with a whole group of people working towards a specific goal. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting and [[1]] are to projects that I've contributed to that have reached their goals and/or made significant gains.
• Wikipedia:Village pump - a good way to get a sense of community life on wikipedia.
• Wikipedia:wikilove - page that attempts to sum up and define what motivates wikipedia users and brings them all together. Best line: "We love accumulating, ordering, structuring, and making freely available what knowledge we have in the form." Wikilove compltely caught me by surpise last year when I started contributing, but I've quickly become an enthusiast, if not an addict.
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense - a page of what not to post to wikipedia articles. Some are funny, some are not. The best ones have been turned into uncyclopedia.
• Wikistats for wikipedia - fascinating statistics which chart the run away growth of wikipedia, both in usage and participation in editing. This chart is pretty amazing too.

Uh, that welcome above was from me on 22:23, 5 February 2006, I just forgot to sign it. Thanks for your note! mennonot 09:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Tracked you down :¬) I haven't put much on here except for a very small & insignificant article for a small and mostly-insignificant charity i'm involved with, which i'm probably the only person who'll ever read anyway, but hello. Ceri the Duck 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Santo Precario!

Hey, check out Santo Precario!!! You'll love him!Harrypotter 22:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Anarchist People of Color Anarchism & Other Essays Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! Rhizome Collective Comision de Relaciones Anarquistas Workers Solidarity Movement Peter Maurin Institute for Anarchist Studies Moros Solidarity Federation Queer Fist Autonomous Action Acratas Anarchist Prisoners' Legal Aid Network First Satanic Church Catholic Worker Fighting for Our Lives Curious George Brigade Nail bomb

Cleanup Utopian anarchism Major conflicts within anarchist thought Red-baiting Merge Greek letters used in mathematics Flexible baton round Undercroft Add Sources Crust punk Love and Rage Network Anarcha-feminism Wikify Libertarian National Socialist Green Party Roman agriculture Ruby Ridge Expand Stowell Park Estate History of patent law Narhari Parikh

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

SPEAK Vandalism

Hi Black Butterfly. Thanks for reverting Julian's personal comments on the SPEAK (animals) article. One quick note. His comments weren't malicious or an attempt to disrupt the project, therefore they are not technically vandalism. I have found in cases like this, using the term "vandal" can tend to antagonize the individual to continue. Often a friendly explanation on their talkpage will be sufficient to make them understand that we cannot accept their personal feelings on an issue and they will stop. If they do continue, you can leave a could of sterner warnings, leading to a short block on their IP - for an hour or so. This will almost always do the trick, especially the individual appears to be a child. I just thought I would pass on that hint for future reference. Thanks again for your reversions. Rockpocket 20:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the difference between vandalism (deliberate, malicious) and accidental disruptive or otherwise unhelpful editing. however, I'm not convinced that this is the case here, as it's not unheard of for people to vandalise pages in the sense of being deliberately disruptive in ways that at first glance seem to be genuine mistakes. --Black Butterfly 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But without evidence to the contrary, we should always assume good faith. Rockpocket 00:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Antichrist

You reverted my contribution to Antichrist, and I'd like to know why? Bruce1333 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is so original why is the concept continually being brought up in the discussion page. How do you expect Wikipedia to GROW if all you use is what has been written by other men before. Why even have wikipedia if that is your notion?

Bruce1333 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Any Revert must be first discussed on the discussion page before doing so. Since I have already cleared the article you are doing it wrong according to wiki policy.

Bruce1333 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Wikipedia policy on original research. roughly: the whole point of Wikipedia is that it is built on what has been written by other men before. more specifically, its purpose is to bring together existing information rather than be a test house for every single person to carry out their research. information used in articles should be both verifiable (i.e. with an external source provided) and notable (i.e. that source must have in some way affected the subject being discussed, either directly or by affecting the way it is seen.)

Wikipedia is NOT the place for people to post their own personal essays.

Incidentally, not every revert has to be discussed on its talk page first. I'd like to know where you got that idea, to be honest. and what do you mean when you say you have "cleared" the article? --Black Butterfly 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

From God, apparently from the looks of the consensus he DOES get around contrary to populist belief. Why do you ask?

Cheers..

Bruce1333 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You've referenced "consensus" on the article talk page before IIRC. what do you mean? what consensus? all I've seen is revert conflicts between yourself and User:Master_of_Puppets. --Black Butterfly 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm refering to the subject of course which is "Antichrist" the general consensus on the board is that it is not only one man but could be any man. I was not the first to suggest it, all I did was support it with evidence to the same.

Cheers..

Bruce1333 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you inserted a lengthy, unsourced personal essay which happened to touch on that but was still original research. there is a difference.

and again: what do you mean when you say you "cleared" the article? --Black Butterfly 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you can't tell the difference between supporting an arguement and creating one. That is your problem not mine. Go check my discussion page to find out by what I mean when I say "cleared the article" You could maybe use your resources instead of ask me that is what they are for.

Thanks..

Bruce1333 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are supporting an argument by writing original research in favour of it, you are still using original research, which is not what wikipedia is for.

not acceptable: "I think X, based on A, B, and C"

acceptable: "Scholars such as Joe Bloggs, in The Book, supported X interpretation based on A, B, and C: QUOTE"

See the difference? This isn't somewhere for you to post up your own opinions, regardless of whether they're right or wrong. It's a place to bring together views from notable figures and present them in a way that's easy for the reader to understand, with pointers for further reading.

Simply presenting the facts is one thing. Your text, however, is almost entirely made up of your own assertions and analyses. I don't have any particular view on the validity or otherwise of these things - just that they don't belong on wikipedia.

And I don't see anything on your discussion page about clearing the article. --Black Butterfly 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That is YOUR POV on what is written, and discussing it is what the discussion page is for. So please do so, if you have any questions concerning it. Quit deleting it based purely on your POV.

Cheers..

Bruce1333 17:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How many times does this need explaining? I am not reverting because of my POV, I am reverting due to Wikipedia policy. please read and understand it. --Black Butterfly 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Huder34 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)huder34

what do have to say about the end of the world?

i dont mean to sound harsh but do you think you know about this so called end of time?

not particularly. I assume you're referring to the antichrist article. I'm familiar with the term as used in the New Testament and as commonly understood, hence my interest in the article. I'm also familiar enough with Wikipedia that I'd like to have the article improved in quality. --Black Butterfly (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)