User talk:DragonflySixtyseven: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:58, 13 September 2011

IMPORTANT NOTE: ADD YOUR MESSAGES AT THE BOTTOM, NOT THE TOP. OTHERWISE I MIGHT NOT SEE THEM. Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Blocking of a user

I see you recently blocked user Jayhater because the name "advocates hatred". Might he not in real life be called "Jay Hater"[1] and would this have made any difference in your mind? Was the matter discussed, can you let me know, or did you immediately block and inform the user? His edits look perfectly all right to me. Thincat (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scalpelpen/Philip_S._Chua

So I talked with Philip__ at #wikipeda-en-help. It turns out he's just an old grandpa type person getting used to these here intertubes. :-) With a bit of patience, he'll be looking up some reliable 3rd party quotes. Seems edge of notability, but if a paper writes about you, that's usually a good start :-). the stuff he typed so far actually does seem to imply some level notability. There's 2 or 3 3rd party sources in there. He just hasn't actually quoted from them. yet! --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:ALACDE2011

Can you delete User:ALACDE2011 for "the usual" or "overly promotional" please. Thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Frisbeer?

I noticed that you deleted the Frisbeer page. This is one of the fastest growing backyard games and I believe it deserves a page. Can you please add it back or at least send me the deleted content. Much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianhoulihan (talk • contribs) 22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with this article is that there is no evidence of notability. To be included in Wikipedia, there must be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". While you say it is fast-growing sport, there is no evidence of this in reliable sources. Furthermore, I'll be happy to e-mail you the deleted content if you wish. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 76.31.236.91

The reason these IP editors are being blocked on sight is explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC/Archive. Please see my links there to the forum posts where meat puppets are actively coordinating their attack on Wikipedia articles. It is abusive, as their intent is to insert poorly sourced contentious material in the articles The Dating Guy, Least I Could Do, and (probably soon) Ryan Sohmer. Our efforts to contain the damage has been met with derision, verbal abuse, personal attacks and attempted WP:OUTING from the various editors involved. Please reconsider your unblock. Elizium23 (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse you? I didn't come from any forum, I saw something on Wikipedia that didn't look right so I followed WP:BOLD and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and fixed it. Then when you reverted I tried to follow WP:BRD and avoid WP:EDITWARRING by asking you to take it to the talk page. You claimed there was previous discussion, which neither Dragonfly6-7 nor I can find anywhere. I shall avoid calling you an outright liar, but again I ask you (as you failed to respond the first time): where is this mythical prior discussion? The only evidence I can find of one is your copy/paste boilerplate response to me on the talkpage for Least I Could Do, which you pasted in as an abstract wall of text rather than providing a meaningful response that can be logically and carefully debated.

You are accusing me of attempted "Outing", of "verbal abuse", "personal attacks", and derision. So far I have provided none of these to you, but the response I have received from you and your friends Toddst1 and Edjohnston has definitely met the definition of abuse that can be had from any rational human being. Your response to me has not been as one fellow editor to another trying to work out differences, but as a "I'm right and you're wrong so die" analogue that I find very offensive and completely contradictory to the tenets of WP:CIVIL discourse. Please remember that WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and to treat other editors with respect. If as you claim, there have been personal attacks and other negative behavior directed towards you, I fully believe that your own behavior is at least partly to blame for causing people to be angry at your obstructionist behavior. If you have deliberately had people banned in some attempt to exhibit control of an article, as I feel happened to me, then that is even worse.

I am going to speak extremely honestly for a moment: the fact that you are here now, actively campaigning to have me reblocked, deliberately accusing me of things that you must know I did not do, is highly insulting and I consider it a deliberate act of provocation designed to try to goad me into some act of anger. I shall not do so, but I feel I must let you know that I am, in the vernacular, "on to you." 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly, the meaty quacking here is pretty deafening. Please reconsider the wisdom of your unblock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't care about this subject very much, but after a lengthy conversation with the IP editor, I have concluded that he at least deserves to have his say on the talk page. If this subject has already been discussed, I am ... <epiphany!> Aha! I was about to say, I am unaware of where it took place, because it certainly wasn't on the talk page for the LICD webcomic. But as I just realized, the (quite lengthy) discussion was on the talk page for 'The Dating Guy' -- and when that article got deleted, the talk page went with it. Therefore, when the IP editor -- who, I genuinely believe, is more likely than not to be a separate LICD fan acting independently -- came along, he found no previous discussion of the issue, and thereby concluded that the issue had not been discussed previously... and thus he threw himself into a mess where everyone else involved was already familiar, and fed up, with the arguments he was using. The similarity of those arguments is not (in my opinion) a result of collusion; rather, I feel it is the result of multiple LICD fans relying on the same primary source. THAT SAID, I have little-to-no opinion on the controversy itself. DS (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium23

I have posted inline responses to each of Elizium23's points. He has obviously been arguing this SOMEWHERE as I was able to google his copy/paste boilerplate response and he has an area under his user space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elizium23/The_Dating_Guy) where he seems to keep it around. It's almost completely irrelevant: he's arguing that merely including the fact that Sohmer made the allegations somehow violates NPOV or "verifiability", he deems the Kickstarter page to be verifiable enough for status of the animated series but not for whether Sohmer made the statements, he says Sohmer's own webpage/forum posts aren't "reliable" to verify whether the Kickstarter page is Sohmer's or something like that... essentially he threw a big-ass wall of text which feels obstructionist.

I don't get it.

If he is looking for a Teletoon response to Sohmer's allegations, I was able to find one here: http://webcomicoverlook.com/2011/05/25/teletoon-responds-to-the-licd-discussion/

For NPOV reasons, it seems that should be included as a "Teletoon disputes the allegations." Assuming that this can be used as a source.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 Dragonfly, the meaty quacking here is pretty deafening. Please reconsider the wisdom of your unblock. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 13:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
+:I honestly don't care about this subject very much, but after a lengthy conversation with the IP editor, I have concluded that he ''at least'' deserves to have his say ''on the talk page''. If this subject has already been discussed, I am ... <epiphany!> Aha! I was ''about'' to say, I am unaware of where it took place, because it certainly wasn't on the talk page for the LICD webcomic. But as I just realized, the (quite lengthy) discussion was on the talk page for 'The Dating Guy' -- and when that article got deleted, '''the talk page went with it'''. Therefore, when the IP editor -- who, I genuinely believe, is more likely than not to be a separate LICD fan acting independently -- came along, he found no previous discussion of the issue, and thereby concluded that the issue had not ''been'' discussed previously... and thus he threw himself into a mess where everyone else involved was already familiar, and fed up, with the arguments he was using. The similarity of those arguments is not (in my opinion) a result of collusion; rather, I feel it is the result of multiple LICD fans relying on the same primary source. '''THAT SAID''', I have little-to-no opinion on the controversy itself. [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven#top|talk]]) 13:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 == Elizium23 ==