User talk:Dp76764

WP:UTM
WP:BLP
Image placeholders
Link Checker

Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.

Okay, I'll bite: why?

Why?

Violating TOU

You are violating TOU of Wikipedia. Please read them in future, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.24.130 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL, that's hilarious. DP76764 (Talk) 16:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait for the administration to find out that you are misusing your right to edit and violating Terms of Use. Fulfill your ego elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon s (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturalistic pantheism

I noticed you recently made an edit at page Naturalistic pantheism which I have nominated for deletion. Please share your thoughts about it if you have any. Thanks (Allisgod (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

Superbad

Thank you for clarifying why my section entitled 'Sequel' was deleted from Wikipedia. I know why it was deleted by you and another reason and I now know not to mistake that mistake in the future. Thegrillman (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Last Ounce of Courage Edits

I'm glad we're starting to work out the issues in the Last Ounce article. I have no interest in an edit war with you, or anyone else. However, I have had strong frustrations with Wikipedia, in terms of editing, which is why I have no editing account. Already in this dispute, we have two Admins come in threatening blocks...over what? One of those same Admins accused me of making "unhelpful/disruptive" edits...according to whom? Blocking is supposed to be the LAST resort, not the first. This makes me want to tear my hair out.

I have certainly had this sort of thing happen before. I don't mind being edited so much, but being reverted, is frankly not a joke. It's why Wikipedia has lost thousands of volunteer editors over the past two years. Too much wikilawyering and ownership.

In my experience, this is how editing Wikipedia goes. 1. You make the edit. 2. Someone reverts it in five minutes. 3. You revert it back. 4. They call it Vandalism and revert it without a word of explanation. 5. You point out that you have added relevant information and put it back in. 6. They call it NPOV, again with no explanation, and take it out. 7. You point out you added balance and put it back in. 8. They accuse you of OR, and take it out, then block you for 3RR. The whole thing feels like a waste of time.

I once tried editing the birthdate of an artist, which was incorrect on Wikipeda, but was correctly cited on the website of the artist AND his best friend. That was called OR. Well, good God, if reading things and adding them is OR, what isn't?

I once added that a famous writer was in a music video, that was labelled Vandalism, then OR, then I got 3RR'd. Guess who told me they were in the video? The writer HIMSELF. AND...he's visibly IN the video! How else would you know??

Once gave it a shot when a wiki article accused a politician of push-polling. I put in that the paper reporting that was owned by the opposing politician's wife! I confirmed it through the state voter checklist...more OR and blocking. I didn't even remove the accusation.

Another time, the wiki bio of a famous actress listed her death location incorrectly. I know this, because...I have her death certificate. Again, vandalism, followed by OR, followed by blocking.

It's amazing anyone not already granted Admin access bothers anymore. 66.87.4.30 (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I understand your frustration; there are some fundamental guidelines of this site that are not plainly intuitive. If it is of any encouragement, I personally found that once I'd wrapped my mind around them that editing became a lot more successful. For me, the biggest mind-bender was WP:V "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". When you think about that, it really is a challenge to suspend a desire to add "the truth" or "reality". This might be where you're encountering some of your hurdles; sadly, being told directly from the subject of an article, while likely true, isn't verifiable for anyone else. That's why there is so much emphasis on reliable sources, etc.

I'm gonna offer some personal perspective/advice now; hopefully this comes out as constrictive and you don't take any offense (for none is intended).

Frankly, you come off as a tad stubborn in your edits; some comments have felt like "compromise means the other person adopting my views". I've rarely seen anyone have much success when they appear unwilling to compromise on anything. In your example above, I think you're going wrong after step 2; if you took a different path at step 3, you'd probably wind up with a different result. I'm sure you've seen this before, but WP:BRD is worth a read. You've been bold, you've been reverted, you should discuss it next rather that re-revert. Stubborn behavior will also predispose other editors/admins to lean on the ban-button faster than other situations.

I think you might have more success if you dial down the stubbornness and take another whack at trying to see the guidelines in the way most other editors do. Not that I'm encouraging sheep-ness (there is room for some interpretation) but this seems to be another problem point.

Regards, DP76764 (Talk) 04:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

See thats kind of the problem...banning is not supposed to be a punishment, to be invoked as an ego trip. Its supposed to be to prevent vandalism. You might have missed in that example about the writer, I linked to the video itself AS the source. I know how to verify. Somebody, either you or Ckatz, at first reverted my edit in the opener, where it said that the Revere character was fighting "the separation of church and state". My entire edit, every word, got reverted. That's where the stubborn starts.

Go read the talk page. One editor/admin said I should have been banned for REVERTING once. Everyone on Wikipedia is supposed to be able to edit, not just the enlightened masters. My point in the example was that I've had editors say.."sorry, that's vandalism..oh, its not, well, than it must be POV...oh, wait, its adding a different point of view? OH, then it must be original research...you're banned, thanks for coming" Any excuse. 66.87.7.227 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what other peoples behavior is, that doesn't mean you should stoop to a lower level and edit war. There's a simple way to not get banned for 3RR, for example: DON'T DO IT. Regardless of how "right" you are. And you just gotta let go of the hurt feelings at being reverted; get over it, it happens all the time.

If I was at a site and continually met with resistance and frustration, I'd start asking myself what *I* was doing wrong, instead of trying to blame the system and everyone else on the site. DP76764 (Talk) 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, thanks. I blame the other people I'm dealing with. I know what words mean, I know what rules are. If you're not getting what I'm saying, you're missing my point. The Admins I've had issues with don't discuss, they don't debate or argue on the merits of their position, they make things up and pull out the banhammer. I feel no remorse or guilt for that whatsoever. I am not edit-warring and I don't appriciate that characterization. Assume good faith. I am making factual corrections to an article based on verifiability.

I do this sort of thing for a living, actually, and it isn't just Wikipedians that pull the stunt of simply dismissing and denying factual information and failing to observe rules of good conduct, so no, I don't ask myself what I'm doing wrong much, because I think it out before I do it. 66.87.4.197 (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your points aren't "missed", they're just usually wrong. And assuming good faith only goes so far; once someone has established a pattern of poor/contentious behavior, that good faith pool dries up mighty fast. You also can't keep claiming it for your benefit while at the same time you make accusations of bad faith against other editors. If you've been blocked multiple times for 3RR (strongly implied above), then you ARE an edit warrior. If you do truly understand the rules (which I doubt) and are thinking things out before editing, then I have to conclude that you're just trolling this site for fun. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 15:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Diablo III dispute resolution

Hey dp,

The Diablo III amazon/metacritic issue was posted to DRN, giving you have a headsup: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Diablo_III. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Blazing Saddles

A number of the trivia items you whacked are demonstrably true. The problem is where to draw the line, as listing all the overt gags and subtleties in the movie would run for pages. My Jewish friend took one look at the Indian headband in the movie's well-known poster and said "Kosher for Passover!" The "We don't need no stinking badges!" is absolutely taken straight from Treasure of the Sierra Madre.[1] There's even an article on it: Stinking badges. And there's no question that Lili von Shtup is a parody of Merlene Dietrich. However, some of the details in the trivia section, e.g. claims of what other movies are inspirations for certain things in this one, are too obscure to be taken at face value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm definitely not married to those items. A select few might be worthwhile keeping. I'll take a look at it later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Terraria#See Also, Why is Mine craft not suitable?

• Terraria is noted for its similarity to Minecraft and classic exploration-adventure titles...
• ...as opposed to the often-compared game, Minecraft, in which one must...
• Another reviewer praised Terraria's integration of some of Minecraft's concepts into two-dimensions...

Does this not validate its position in the See Also section? 4DHS (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's already covered well enough in the article text ("As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body"). DP76764 (Talk) 06:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Diablo III / RS on permaban

I dropped a talk section over at WP:VG/RS as well. That user seems to be adding the site to multiple articles. -- ferret (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn

Absolutely ridiculous that you removed the YouTube links. I suggest YOU take a look at the Wiki guidelines. Video clips CAN be used as sources, and Comedy Central does not air, nor distribute, TCWCQ episodes AT ALL. The fact that you completely removed the links, without even discussing it, or finding other links to replace them, is outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebluenun (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the TCWCQ talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebluenun (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Adult Swim programs

What you said on the Adult Swim talk page is exactly the point I was trying to tell the other person. The edit that I made was the original page, and I keep trying to restore it, though he is always changing it to his version of the article, which is low on information. This war actually began in December, and I am merely trying to keep the page in it's original form.