User talk:Onorem/Archive 11: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:20, 23 April 2008

Hello. Please leave new comments at the bottom of the page, unless there is already a section related to your message.
Remember to sign your comments by adding --~~~~ at the end.
I will probably reply both here and on your talk page,
but sometimes I'm lazy...so keep an eye on this page if my reply is important or urgent. ♠

I prefer to keep my talk page history as intact as possible.

Unless there is a BLP violation or personal attack on someone other than myself, please do not remove comments left here by other users.

IP talk page blanking and BLP censorship of article talk

User:Rjd0060

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#new_admin_User:Rjd0060stalks.5Cblocks_2_keep_his_edit_saved
Pls weigh in. Thx. 70.108.103.64 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really something that needs to be escalated? There currently doesn't appear to be a consensus on IP talk page blanking. Was it really that big of a deal that you needed to edit war over it until your page got locked? I've made my opinion clear on the Village Pump and AN/I. I'm not going to participate in a third discussion unless some sort of consensus emerges from one of the other two. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I'm not sure the COI/N noticeboard is really the appropriate place to bring the matter. As it says at the top of the page there, issues with administrators may be more suited to requests for comment on administrator conduct. I'd recommend trying that...or maybe adding a subsection to the AN/I thread if this is really something you feel the need to pursue. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want escalation. I wanted clarification. Ill post to administrator conduct page. Thx. 70.108.103.64 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA re this change, it's because it's a blocked user reverting several users. He got caught out and isn't happy about it TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's trolling no matter where it is, but someone else reverted the IP who reverted me. Not sure if you got reverted again. I just thought that since it was a blocked IP removing it, it s hould be reverted. Actually when I first saw it on my watchlist I thought it was pure IP vandalism TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Talk:Cassie (singer)

Your edits to Talk:Cassie (singer) are very likely to lead to another quick block. I think you should consider reverting yourself and instead starting a discussion about why you feel certain parts should not be blanked (including reliable sources for each one of them in the discussion) --Onorem ♠Dil 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Ill revert. Where is the proper place 4 discussion on sensoring disc pages? 70.108.103.64 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your changes have already been reverted, but the Talk:Cassie (singer) page is where I would recommend you attempt to discuss your thoughts. WP:BLP is a very important policy, and it's perhaps enforced too strictly sometimes, but you have to be careful about what information you put on any page here. Don't add anything that is potentially contentious, even to a talk page, unless you can explicitly attribute it to a reliable source. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. I put a {{help me}}. Microchip
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACassie_%28singer%29&diff=202334102&oldid=202315113 said]
to try to discuss it with editors but that didnt help. Theditors just kept saying WP:BLP but not saying specificcally where, as that is a long page. A sensored disc page make no sense. 70.108.103.64 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what consensus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A70.108.103.64&diff=202577048&oldid=202575856

What consensus. Hello_Control cant site where in wp:blp does it state sensoring disc pages is the way 2 go but wants ti follow me in wiki world? No thx. 70.108.103.64 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to all pages. If there is unsourced contentious material, it should be removed. It's the entire point of the policy. Every discussion I've seen regarding IP talk pages has been an argument over whether or not warnings are allowed to be removed. Never have I seen an argument that the schoolIP or ISP tags should be removed. That's the part where it not being your talk page comes into play. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where specifically inwp:blp does it say to edit discussion pages. Isnt it better for discussion pages to have the questions than for them to be added to the article? If you looks @ the disc pages info on her voice being a soubrette is sensored, info on her risque original "Me&U" mus vid is sensored. This info is true and not libellous, so I dont see why it should be sensored. Isnt it better for the info to be there also as a deterrant for future editors to not add it? But if all future editors see is Cassie is a [sensor] who [censor] when she [sensor] they wont understand. 70.108.103.64 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments from the very top of the page -- some emphasis added

"Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page."

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

There you go. It says to remove them without discussion. If you want to discuss replacing them, I don't see that being a problem...but you're going to need sources even just to discuss them. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AHHHHHH finally! Thank You!
Now how do we proceed? If the words\phrases cant be put in, how r they 2 be examined?70.108.103.64 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is soubrette not allowed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A70.108.103.64&diff=202585695&oldid=202585410
Now he\she is sensoring my discussion page. Is that allowed? Is soubrette banned from wiki ? 70.108.133.81 (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to walk away from my desk, and don't have a moment to look into all the possible definitions of the word. If it is potentially contentious, then you can't call her soubrette without providing a reliable source. I do know that continuing to edit war over it will only lead to more blocks. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt disruptive. So he\she can insult me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.108.103.64&diff=cur w no repercussion but I have to be nice?

The word is not being used correctly. 70.108.103.xxx thinks it has to do with the quality of one's singing voice (in an uncomplimentary way) but a quick check of both Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com show that is not the case. The word is being used in a pejorative manner and is unsourced, in any case. I've never heard anything by the artist in question so I don't know how good of a singer she is, but "soubrette" clearly does not apply. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re User talk:130.63.210.55

I have blocked the above (citing talkpage for ease of reference) for 31 hours for attempted harassment.

I should like to make a general comment about an aspect of trolling that I find slightly disturbing - the reaction to being called gay. While I realise that it is said with intent to cause distress, I find it personally distasteful that recipients do find it worrisome. As a straight man with many gay (men and women) friends I don't find being referred to as gay as bothersome, just inaccurate on the part of the other party. They stupid - I me! By reacting negatively to the tag, rather than being concerned by being trolled, is indicative of a negative attitude toward certain sexualities - and is of course going to be picked up upon by the next troll. Anti-homophobism is not "only" politically correct, it is also a useful anti troll weapon.

Um... thanks for letting me gently rant - it certainly is not your "fault" that I felt the above needed saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I react negatively to vandalism...and in instances where I revert someone making a comment calling someone gay, I generally have no doubt about their motivations. I have no strong reaction to being called gay myself, but I'm not going to avoid labeling vandalism as vandalism just because there are people that do... I'm far more disturbed that you felt I needed this message than I was about being called gay. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing big - having gay friends means I generally become a little too militant once in a while, and as an AIV regular I get just a little tired of having kids vandalise WP with the "oh so funny" comment that so and so is gay... I mean - hilarious, and what therefore is funnier that beating up the queers? When I saw your comment regarding the only post warning contrib I guess I just flipped slightly.

Anyhow, I apologise for suggesting that there was the inference of a misunderstanding of the improper suggestion that you were homophobic yourself, and would like to make that very clear. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO FWIEND

hi? r u a admin! bcoz i am

lolz not reel e

<3 titso14

Impressive. --Onorem ♠Dil 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esai Morales Article

I cited the transcript from the Bill Maher episode when he made those statements. I believe that it is important to know this information about this person. He says he is an activist and these are important views that explain who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.30.197 (talk)

I've removed the information again after reading the transcript. Including the war on terror in a list of fake wars is different than saying 9/11 is a conspiracy. He mentions American Drug War, but I'm not sure how that makes it notable enough to mention in his biography. If you want to add information about his views, please use direct quotes from reliable sources. Don't determine for yourself what a living person may or may not have been insinuating. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 9/11 comment

Hey, the 9/11 insinuation wasn't in that transcript. It was said in the Bill Maher Overtime segment that is aired after the show on HBO.com. Sorry I didn't check I should have been more thorough . Here is a link to the 4/4/08 Overtime on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZoBioG8ks

This IS an extremely notable opinion for an activist. Please take the time to watch the segment it is only 10 minutes. It is towards the last minutes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.30.197 (talk)

I haven't had time to watch the segment yet, and probably won't be able to for several hours. That it is an extremely notable opinion is your opinion (...that's not to say that I disagree). You still need to provide a reliable source that agrees. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript

Ok this is getting a bit too obsessive, but I want to follow this up because it is important to me and I think to others. When a social activists goes on a show and insinuates that 9/11 was an inside job by the US Government it is notable. Imagine if Bill Gates another social activist/philantopist said this or a senator or anyone else. This is quite notable.

Below is the transcript and you can watch the video of the conversation from the YouTube link I sent to you earlier. Note: The people he is talking about that Bill Maher "went after" were 9/11 truthers, audience members that went to Bill's show and started shouting 9//1 was an inside job and Bill Maher, himself, went into the audience and kicked them out of his show.

Okay here is the transcript:

--Start Transcript-- Esai: 3,000 people die and two days later the administration has everything figured out. It just seems a little too quick too convenient now we have a blank check to go into any country that "harbors terrorists."

Bill: You don't think it was Osama Bin Laden who was behind 9/11?

Esai: You know I don't want to get into this with you because I saw how you went after those people who came to your show. I'm a lover not a fighter. The problem is we self censor, we don't consider conspiracy theories...

Bill: You really don't think it was Osama Bin Laden?

Esai: I really don't know and I don't care.

Bill: You don't care?

Esai: The fact of the matter is hundred of thousands of people died every year through medical problems.

Bill: What the hell does that have do with anything?!

Esai: Cause we don't go after them.

Bill: That's another issue and another problem. --End Transcript--

This is the line that says it all, "You know I don't want to get into this with you because I saw how you went after those people who came to your show." With this and that conspiracy video that he was promoting.

I hope to see his public views acknowledged on his page. This is a fair citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.253.178 (talk)

I still haven't reviewed the link, but I stand by my opinion that it doesn't belong in the article if that's all there is to it. Not unless a reliable source decides that it's a story worth mentioning. My opinion would be exactly the same if Bill Gates or some senator made the comment and it went ignored by everyone other than bloggers. I have no more authority than anyone else over the article though, so I can't just keep removing it because I don't like it...although we both have to abide by the three revert rule. I'm not sure we're in need of dispute resolution yet, but the talk page for the Esai Morales article doesn't see much traffic, so it might be best to start by looking for a third opinion. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a third source

Tonight, Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor reported directly on Morales' Bush and Reagan comments on Real Time with Bill Maher.

The Factor repeats again at 11:00PM and I think 3:00 or 4:00AM Eastern on The Fox News Channel. It is the "pinhead" part of the "Pinheads and Patriots" segment, which airs just a few minutes before the end of the program.

Also, tonight's "Pinheads and Patriots" segment will be posted on Foxnews.com tomorrow under The O'Reilly Factor videos.

If you cannot catch the repeats on TV I will send you a link to the Foxnews.com page tomorrow.

Now that a major news corporation has reported on Morales' conspiracy beliefs I expect no problem with adding his comments to Morales' page with citations to the transcript of Real Time with Bill Maher and report from Foxnews.com, but I will wait until you can review the video and give me confirmation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.253.178 (talk)

Just caught the segment on O'Reilly. I still think it's fairly trivial and a non-issue at this point. It also didn't cover any part of the 9/11 conspiracy comments. But like I said above, I have no more control over the article than anyone else here. I'm against any of it being added, but I'm guessing you probably could find sources to add that he mentioned the YouTube documentary and how they show Bush/Reagan's involvement in introducing crack to the world. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in explaining to the editor

Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Man

I think what I and the other user saying the same meant is that we expect a certain type of communication on wikipedia. Yes it might not be always what you'd say to your mum or nan, but still.:) Where you draw the line depends on personality, age etc but most people of an average age would think that if they go on someone's page and it is flashing "metal in the a*s, that's a bit full-on. However...the editor concerned is only 15 or 16- and he was talking about a Metallica album:) There's lots of other stuff on one of the editor's userpages that's, well, a bit young and spirited for most people. But I do share his love of Skins.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 02:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia! Nothing is too lame lol, Ryan and I got told off just for sigs that blinked. Also I would perhaps think twice to chatting to someone who says on his page "Metal in your a*s." I see your point though, especially given their age, people could have explained to them politely how it might look to some others, rather than told them off on their talk page, and removed it without talking to them about it first.special, random, Merkinsmum 02:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

í щįĻĻ ќїΓΓ Ŷοџ

í щįĻĻ ќїΓΓ Ŷοџ ₳Ṇ₯ €₳Ṭ ΎόŲŖ ฿₳฿ì€Ş — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulture0 (talk • contribs)

í Ћοþ€ Ŷοџ ₯ṆṬ ģ€Ṭ ђ€ДṜṬ฿ÙѓИ ƒΓΔṃ ṃγ ฿₳฿ì€Ş. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:RC-0722

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my page. I didn't notice it until now. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

city and state of Obama's parents

Thanks for your comments about the names of Obama's parents' appearing later in the article. Is it appropriate to include the city and state of where Obama's parent's were from. thanks, It is me i think (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert if you want to expand the Early life and career section, but the lead doesn't need to get into that level of detail. I have no idea if there's been discussion about city and state info on the talk page. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the "see also" section. Do you think mentioning where Obama's parent's are from could be perceived as controversial. Obama clearly does think so (at least that's my perception)? thanks very much It is me i think (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued vandalism on Bill Ayers

New user, Blist14, continues to deleted biography, references, external links, and categories from Bill Ayers wikipedia page, user has not other wiki history other than deleting items from Bill Ayers article, please assist and advise. It is me i think (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Can we get the page protected? It is me i think (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I have never seen such crazy vandalism, as with the Bill Ayers article. It is me i think (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My User Page

Thanks for the revert. It's nice to know fellow wikipedians have my back covered. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Ok then, its settled. I really don't know why it should not be in the Clinton article, its certainly notable. Rk Or To N 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We must have a different definition of notable. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

While I don't like to override other users when it comes to warning people, I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked Gipsplug (talk · contribs). There was no way the spam could be considered good faith, given its blatant nature, very public posting, and the fact that the spammer created the account immediately prior to posting.

Just giving you a courtesy heads up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get no complaints from this end. Thanks for the note. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vis á vis Talk:Main Page

Sorry, this computer isn't quite as fast as I'd like. Apologies. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies back to you. I didn't even think about your name being shown in the edit summary with me calling it nonsense. I didn't think you'd done it intentionally. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, just thought I'd explain, if you looked back wondering. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comments

Onorem - I respect your opinion regarding AJUK's comments, but to his credit, they are on topic if the topic is "should this article be featured in the way that it is?" That's why I restored them. HokieRNB (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already replaced them into the relevant section...because I figured it wasn't worth fighting over. I stand behind my removal. If a discussion is to be had about what should or should not be a featured article, that's a topic for another talk page. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Why not then move the entire section to that page? HokieRNB (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

It appears that the Toast article was vandalized, and apparently by myself. I did nothing of the sort, so, through that logic, I must have left my computer open or something else, while browsing Wikipedia. Sorry again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertytastic (talk • contribs)

Not a problem. It's probably a good idea to double check that you've logged out when using public computers. Happy editing. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

umm no offence...

but I can verify the information if you want me to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will not eat, clown sleeps (talk • contribs)

If you can verify it with reliable sources, please do. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My friend told me about it and i checked it myself, it's true. On track three if you play a part backwards (I used my computer) you can hear something about Satan). I have the best evidence because I found it out MYSELF not by some poopy source. --Will not eat, clown sleeps (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's OR, mate. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message from 58.8.28.118

Fuck off and mind your own business, homo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.28.118 (talk)

You should really consider finding something more productive to do. --Onorem ♠Dil 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie radke

I have reverted Ronnieradke back to your version, but I'm going out now so I'll leave you to count whether he gets up to 3RR. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 Wheel Drive

Hi Onorem, you have nominated 3 Wheel Drive for an AfD discussion. I thought you should know this page has already been speedily deleted from Wikipedia and it's author has been warned about re-creating it, see here. I would think this page still meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks TheProf - T / C 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 13:19, 23 April 2008 edit TheProf07 (talk \| contribs) 2,892 edits note on 3 Wheel Drive ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:20, 23 April 2008 edit undo TheProf07 (talk \| contribs) 2,892 edits →‎3 Wheel Drive: added link Next edit →
Line 211:		Line 211:
	==3 Wheel Drive==		==3 Wheel Drive==

	Hi Onorem, you have nominated [[3 Wheel Drive]] for an AfD discussion. I thought you should know this page has already been speedily deleted from Wikipedia and it's author has been warned about re-creating it. I would think this page still meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks '''[[User:TheProf07\|TheProf]]''' - '''[[User talk:TheProf07\|T]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/TheProf07\|C]]''' 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)		Hi Onorem, you have nominated [[3 Wheel Drive]] for an AfD discussion. I thought you should know this page has already been speedily deleted from Wikipedia and it's author has been warned about re-creating it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nckack&oldid=207360224 see here]. I would think this page still meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks '''[[User:TheProf07\|TheProf]]''' - '''[[User talk:TheProf07\|T]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/TheProf07\|C]]''' 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)