User talk:Darth Tacker

Did I defy consensus, make unconstructive edits, or do anything else that I should not have been doing?
I am not trying to disrupt, vandalize, or hurt Wikipedia in any way. I am only trying to protect the quality of this project. If I did something wrong, let me know, but remember that I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please keep your comments civil. Do not vandalize this page or use bad words in your messages. (see WP:NPA)

When posting, do not assume I know what you are talking about. If you leave a message saying just "Some of your edits appeared/were unconstructive" without specifying anything or clarifying on what was wrong, where I went wrong or how it is wrong, I will not know what you mean. If you want a response consisting of something other than where, what or how questions, please include links, diffs and/or the names of the articles or revisions you were concerned with in your messages.

Also, if you sign your post (by typing four tildes - ~~~~ - at the end of your message), it would be appreciated, and some Wikipedians will tend to be in a better mood, as unsigned comments may be a pet peeve for them.

Tip: If you are blocked from editing and cannot post here, and your talk page is still open for you to edit, you can request a review of your block by adding {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. (replace reason with why you think you should not be blocked) But remember that I am not an administrator, steward or bureaucrat, so I cannot help you deal with any sanctions you may deem as unjust, unreasonable or outrageous.

If I am making edits (check Special:Contributions/Darth Tacker) and I do not answer any of your messages, reminders or warnings soon, or you are considering giving me any kind of sanctions, remind me on my talk page. If I am not responding to your messages or complying to your demands soon, be patient, I may eventually read or respond to them soon. Or you can ping me by adding {{ping|Darth Truder}} to your messages. Don't email me; I never send, read or check my email, as I prefer to have my Wiki discussions public. My account isn't associated with any email address anyways.

Note: If you are concerned with me because most or many of my edits are being highlighted as potentially unconstructive by the ORES tool, my summary will usually describe what I did, if my summary isn't specific or clear, check the diffs and see what you think. Do you agree with the revision? I don't mind if you revert but I would recommend a reasonable summary and a polite explanation on my talk page. ORES is for detecting potentially flawed edits, not just definitely flawed edits, and it is still in beta anyways. It is almost certain that the ORES tool may have highlighted at least one, two or a few of your contributions as potentially unconstructive too. As attributed to Albert Einstein with much debate; "Computers are fast, accurate, and stupid; humans are slow, inaccurate, and brilliant. Together they are more powerful than [what is imaginable]." 

Reviewers: If you feel that a highlighted edit of mine really was damaging or disruptive, revert it. If you feel a highlighted edit of mine is an improvement, accept it. If you believe that they are neither damaging or improvements, you can just accept it if it isn't damaging or disruptive to you, or do nothing. 

Administrators: If you see me do something you think is wrong, I will not mind if you undo my actions. I would appreciate it if you let me know what I did wrong, so I can avoid doing it in the future.

I hold responsibility for all my contributions. I will try my best to help Wikipedia and get along with the community. If you have any problems regarding, involving, or having to do with me, just remind me on my talk page. I may take a moment or two or more to respond depending on the situation. I will make sure I don't dig deep holes, get mauled by angry mastodons, tortured by a ton of bricks, climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man or drink the consensus Kool-Aid.

Anyways, I have been getting ready to register on Wikipedia for a while, reading many of the policies, guidelines and essays, and figuring out how to interpret them, and teaching myself how to use Wiki templates, markup, linking and other things on the sandbox (I always previewed my testing, never saved them) before I registered. To help make Wikipedia great again, I will build a wall to keep all the trolls, vandals and wiki-anarchists out and then build a big door in the middle so they can come back without any trouble.(jk)

Jokes and humor aside, while I may know the policies and guidelines, that won't guarantee perfection, you shouldn't expect everything I do to be correct. Nobody is perfect. Making mistakes is a part of being human. If any edits of mine which may be mistakes seem bad enough to you to warrant reminders, warnings or sanctions, politely remind me on my talk page, and feel free to revert it if you think or feel that it may not help but hurt Wikipedia, and provide a reasonable edit summary to justify your revert if you can.

About me:

Please be nice and patient with this New Wikipedian.

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.

evenThis editor is an eventualist.

exoThis editor is an exopedian.

neutThis editor is a neutralist.

This user is a Fallibilist.

Everyone has points of view with inherent cultural biases - recognition is the first step to achieving NPOV.

This user believes that edits need
useful summaries.

IARThis user thinks the best rule on Wikipedia is Ignore All Rules.

This user may suffer from
Compulsive Wikipedia Editing Syndrome.
WikiProject Editor Retention can help

This user was an IP editor in the past.

This user uses the Vector skin, and likes it.

This user is proud to be a Wikipedian.

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

?This user wants to become an administrator, but doesn't have the courage to nominate himself.?

This user would find the admin tools useful in his wiki-work.

This user is not a Wikipedia administrator but would like to be one someday.

This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but even after a failed RFA, he still wants to become one.

This user is nowhere near being an Administrator.

User:December21st2012Freak/Bureaucrat someday

N PrnThis user wishes that he might censor Wikipedia for pornography, profanity, and everything else.

This user respects copyright and other intellectual property rights, but sometimes they can be a major pain.

This user believes that articles are boring without images.

Darth Tacker believes
there is no cabal.
And actively opposes it.

This user is very lazy. Please feel free to do his work for him.

"It is awfully hard to be b-b-brave, when you are a very small user."

This user knows civility is policy on Wikipedia and tries always to operate within behavioral guidelines.

This user tries not to behave like an angry mastodon.

Rule Number One: If you need to whine about unfair Wikipedia policies, make it pitiable.

This user knows that replacing one bias with another is not cleanup.

This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.

NPOVThis user gets quite annoyed when they see POV in the mainspace.

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

This user thinks that peacocks and weasels should be extinct in Wikipedia.

This user does not allow personal bias to interfere in any way with their actions within the encyclopedia.

This user believes that all editors have bias when seeking WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia should attempt to achieve neutrality,
Not advance the bias of sources.

This user feels that deletions subject to a popularity contest rather than a verifiability test damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could.

WP:RS

This user believes in using Reliable Sources.

This user does not insult vandals.

This user thinks that Wikipedia is the best thing since sliced bread. ±

This user doesn't trust Wikipedia as far as he can throw it... but, nonetheless uses it daily.

This user is a Wikipediholic but somehow survived the Wikipedia blackout

This User is too busy editing and improving Wikipedia to create/maintain a user page.

★This user believes it's more important to appropriately give Barnstars than to seek them.

This user isn't looking to receive any barnstars. This user doesn't in fact even own a barn.

Because of real life, this user will be editing on and off.

This user is interested in, but does not believe in, conspiracy theories.

This user declines to state a party affiliation.

NonPThis user is not affiliated with a party.

This user is a lifelong resident citizen of the United States of America.

This user is a native of the U.S. State of Arkansas.

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

It is approximately 8:19 AM where this user lives (Arkansas). []

This user is autistic.

de-0Dieser Benutzer hat keine Deutschkenntnisse.

fr-0Cet utilisateur ne comprend pas le français ou seulement avec des difficultés notables.

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.

Regional vocabularies of American English

Hello, Darth Tacker. You recently changed Regional vocabularies of American English, noting that potentially offensive material should only be included if its omission is problematic. The material you removed is a regional vocabulary item, which includes a religious word some people find offensive when used in non-religious contexts. Since the article is about vocabulary, however, changing the word actually makes the article inaccurate and less reliable. I have therefore restored the original wording. The inclusion is not a deliberate attempt to offend, but if the vocabulary item is to be treated, I think it needs to be treated accurately. Cnilep (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I just thought about it, and I was going to say that the list includes the word "yankee" but not that other word. If that word really is part of Southern vocabulary, then I wonder why the word isn't included in the list as its own entry, unless you're assuming the use of the adjective is an add-on to the term "yankee". --Darth Tacker (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcoming new users

Please try to be welcoming to new editors, Darth Tacker, even if you don't view their edits as particularly constructive. Many editors start out making not-ideal edits, but biting them for it is a sure fire way to lose a potential new contributor. This comment at the Teahouse did not really add anything to the previous two answers that user had already been given, and could be interpreted as "piling on" them. Following that up with two messages on the user's talk page that describe her (good faith) contributions as "nonsense" is certainly not very welcoming.

You mention on your user page that you are also relatively new to Wikipedia. The best advice comes from experience (in my experience!), so perhaps consider holding off on answering questions at the Teahouse or counselling new editors until you have a bit more editing experience to draw on. Joe Roe (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. People usually put userboxes on their user page rather than their talk. Nothing wrong with it, of course, just a bit jarring. Joe Roe (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I know that I should follow examples of policies, but that I shouldn't set or be examples or role models for other users to follow.

But I am aware that there are editors who start accounts up to a few years after they begin editing Wikipedia or reading Wikipedia policies.

Now I'm starting to question how editors behave towards other editors who goof off on Wikipedia in the name of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Apparently I thought that just because someone was accused of making promotional edits on their user page could justify a lecturing of them.

Maybe whoever deleted her user page just for being too promotional of a NYC artist she knows might have bitten her.

Maybe I'm reading too many user talk pages where the user gets bitten or attacked for making too many unconstructive or disruptive edits or other violations/breaches of policies and guidelines that it probably impaired the way I behaved.

I think it's better to remind the deleter rather than join the deleter's "her user page should not exist because it is too promotional because A11" bandwagon. --Darth Tacker (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Darth Tacker! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 12:37, Saturday, September 24, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Spaces following terminal punctuation

Please note MOS:PUNCTSPACE. Double spacing between sentences is perfectly valid, and not something to be fixed. Many of us were taught decades ago that it is correct style, going back to the days of typewriters, teletypes, and monospaced computer printers. People are still taught today that it is correct style, although it is a matter of debate (which is unlikely to ever be fully resolved). It is actually very useful when viewing article source in a monospace font, as it improves readability. It has no impact on the rendered presentation after MediaWiki and HTML processing, so your changes to it are really only creating noise in edit histories and recent changes. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --Darth Tacker (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing double spaces

Hi Darth,

please do not do this. HTML already collapses multiple spaces, unless you use a "hard space" of some sort. So the edit has no effect on the rendered page. And it annoys people. Thanks. --Trovatore (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops. I thought that minor edits were just as important to the encyclopedia as big edits. --Darth Tacker (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "minor edits" in general. There's something wrong with that edit in particular. It has no effect on the rendered page, and it annoys people who prefer two spaces between sentences. If it did affect the rendered page, then we might have to make a decision about which style to use. But since it doesn't, please avoid the unnecessary provocation. --Trovatore (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Question of the while!

 Question: Is it possible for a talk page to have its own talk page? Or in other words; Can talk pages have talk pages? --Darth Tacker (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"I see you like talk pages, so I made a talk page for your talk page so you can talk about the talk page on another talk page!"

ShiftyRye27 to Darth Tacker greetings. I completely understand your point, and have relented to the current description "Killing of Harambe". I know have come to terms with the fact that in the most literal terms "killing" is a very neutral word. I was simply put off by the etymology of the word, especially the harsh "k". I take joy in that we could come to an agreement and therefore have the honour to remain, your's deeply, ShiftyRye27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftyrye27 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

ShiftyRye27 to Darth Tacker greetings. I completely understand your point, and have relented to the current description "Killing of Harambe". I know have come to terms with the fact that in the most literal terms "killing" is a very neutral word. I was simply put off by the etymology of the word, especially the harsh "k". I take joy in that we could come to an agreement and therefore have the honour to remain, your's deeply, ShiftyRye27. Shiftyrye27 (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There are a few funny things with what you are telling me;

• It doesn't answer my question on whether talk pages could have talk pages or not.
• If it wasn't supposed to answer my question, you could've at least used the == subheading to separate your response.
• You just repeated what you said.

But here's the thing. I was going through the article's revision history (I used the CTRL-F thing to look for funny revisions by typing in "revert"), and I saw that you changed the infobox title from "Killing of Harambe" to "Cincinnati Zoo Incident", it is a zoo incident, but "Killing of Harambe" is just as neutral and accurate as "September 11 attacks". Your revision is like changing "Invasion of Iraq" to "2003 Iraqi incident" or "Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr." to "Lorraine Motel incident", and it has already been reverted by someone else a while ago. — Darth Tacker (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

Turkeybutt JC, you are indef blocked. You aren't allowed to create a new account and continue the disruption. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, all I have to say is that it is okay to think that I am disruptive. I do not deny that I was disruptive or potentially incompetent, but I did not mean to be disruptive. Many of my edits were well-intentioned, despite all the criticism I receive.

I go by the sayings "the past is in the past", "never give up", "try your best", "everyone makes mistakes", "treat others the way you want to be treated", "don't be a jerk", and "agree to disagree". But if you really do not wish to block me, you don't have to, although consensus wished that I be blocked, because not all consensus can be good consensus.

Also I noticed that you have reverted most of the edits I have made under this account. I admit I was socking, but I didn't mean to be disruptive. But a few of my edits that you have reverted brought back obvious typographical errors such as "Arkansas. ." or "winnign", although you have reminded me that my edits under Turkeybutt JC are bringing in a bunch of typographical errors that I did not seem to notice.

I tried to make Wikipedia articles more clear and less biased, I focused on making Wikipedia more informational rather than instructional. I will apologize for any and all disruption I may have caused with my editing. I know I've gotten on a lot of people's nerves and I'd like to make it up to all of them.

Also I may not be able to go back to my Turkeybutt JC account though, since I lost my password, and I don't do email. So it is abandoned and so are that long-named one and 'qwertyuiop poop'. After realizing that I was instantaneously blocked without warning, I got pretty tense and stressed, but I'm fine right now.

Also I may be aware that the odds of me getting unblocked seem pretty slim to me, and I may be more likely to have my talk-page access revoked again for turning my talk page into a time sink. I am just trying to respond in a calm, polite, civil and a reasonable way, something that I have not done so well when I was Turkeybutt JC.

I am sorry if I waste your time reading this message, or if it is a TL;DR message. But I'd like it if you let me know why you reverted almost every edit I made under this account (even the few that seemed to be obvious improvements). But thanks for taking some time to read this, and I hope we can get along and reach reasonable agreements, as we failed to do when I was Turkeybutt JC. — Darth Tacker (talk • contribs) 21:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.