User talk:Otterathome
 | For private messages, email me instead. |
Your concern has been addressed here, thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your further concerns have now been addressed. Thanks.Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Your edit to Oscar Wilde
WP:SERIOUS notwithstanding, you have been reverted. You could try it on Dubya's page, I suppose, but it wouldn't last long there either. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Otters
Yay, another otter at home editing Wikipedia! (See my user page regarding my in-joke on otters.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
sarcasm
You may want to consider reading this. I believe, as you seem to, that Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, but there is no need to be constantly smarmy and sarcastic with everyone. Just a thought. Thanks for your time. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- searching for sources of an article is a common sense thing to do before nominating it for deletion.. I was simply suggesting you do that in future.--Otterathome (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to get into a big thing here, but explaining why you removed a prod template from an article is a common sense thing too. If you read the template, it encourages editors who disagree to edit the article, and explain why the removed the prod. If you had done that, I would have known why it was de-prodded and it never would have went to AfD. The article in it's original form read more like some kid's made up idea for a term paper, and the only explanation I saw for why you removed the prod is that you felt it was put there by "deletionists". Beeblbrox (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not searching about an article to check if it's true/notable then trying to get it deleted is just plain lazyness. Seeing as the article was copied and pasted from The Times, I don't quite see how it looks like a kids made up idea for a term paper.--Otterathome (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Geez. OK, let me explain even further. I may have taken assume good faith a little far, in that I assumed the person who put the PROD up checked it out beforehand, when I added the PROD2. Then you removed both templates with no explanation, so I took it to AfD. I was frankly shocked that it was a copyvio from the Times, as I honestly don't think it was well written at all, but I suppose that's neither here nor there at this point. My point about the sarcasm, however, is that both your edit summary for the prod removal and your vote at AfD consist of nothing but sarcastic remarks, as opposed to citing logic and Wikipedia policies to back up your stance. I'm not saying you were wrong, just that it does not help your case to be sarcastic. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not searching about an article to check if it's true/notable then trying to get it deleted is just plain lazyness. Seeing as the article was copied and pasted from The Times, I don't quite see how it looks like a kids made up idea for a term paper.--Otterathome (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
oops
Sorry. I didn't pay attention to your edit summary. My apologies. J.delanoygabsadds 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Rsnbrgr
Mucho thanx for the tag fix to my user page! My very best to you. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
User:CP\M/User
I've declined the speedy tag you placed on User:CP\M/User. The reason I declined it is because it's a subpage of an existing user's userpage. Please note that if there's a slash (/) in a page in the User: namespace, the everything before it is the page name, and what's after it is a subpage name. . For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- How confusing. Sorry for time waste.--Otterathome (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that seems a bit unfair...
I saw your article you wrote regarding citing Uncyclopedia, and your belief that only vandals edit there, that it incites edit wars, and all other distasteful things. I can say personally as a Pee Reviewer there, that a lot of Uncyclopedia editors are dedicated to writing humourous articles, and that there actually is a defination as to what vandalism is (and such edits are indeed reverted!) While the edits encouraged on Uncyclopedia may be considered Vandalism on Wikipedia, that does not mean that one cannot edit both and equally contribute.
Warm regards, Javascap (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
For quoting what I had to say about Uncyclopedia. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me?
You recently re-added some of my old pages on the page for MfD at User:MZMcBride/Sandbox 3. Please don't re-add stuff to that page, please. I will keep deleting them. Report me at 3RR, and I swear I will take immediate action, as this is just wrong. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh
Thank you. Might I ask how you came to find that message? DS (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Alan Comer
The sources are already sufficient according to the notability criteria. There is absolutely no reason the sources need to be independent of Wizards of the Coast. The sources need to be independent of Alan Comer, and they are. Some of the articles have already survived AFDs with the very reasoning you're suggesting. Your PROD was poorly explained and I provided a reasoning when I contested it. I was not merely removing the template. I understand WP:N and these articles are fine. Jay32183 (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
It looks like I forgot to thank you for your essay(I thought I'd thanked you on the talk page of that essay, but seeing as there is none I must be mistaken.); it inspired an article on Uncyclopedia, you see. Anyways, I'd offer a link, but under the circumstances it seems inappropriate. Cheers, - TLB (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Name
One is as good as another, no special reason. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of the readers mostly, what the vandal wants to do is disrupt, and I intend to keep that disruption to a minimum. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey I noticed you are using {{temporary userpage}} on what appear to be abandoned pages. This template is intended for indef blocked users only (and the template is also up for deletion) and use like this was the subject of a recent WP:AN post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive138#Admin...well.2C_not_abuse...regarding_spam_talk_pages, which ended in a pretty clear consensus that this tag is not to be used on non-indef blocked users. I suggest you look at using WP:PROD or WP:MfD; although there is arguably no particular benefit to deleting user pages like these. Cheers.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Temp user pages
(copied from User talk:Doug for unified discussion)
Some of the pages I have tagged are of users who have not edited in over a year, and they are of users who have either vandalised or not contributed anything or their username is very inappropriate e.g. User:FriendlySockpuppet, User:Whatever it takes to get an account! and usernames that are emails. Prods take less time to take, and MFD is lengthy process. But if you support me in tagging the appropriate pages with a full reason using prod, then I will.--Otterathome (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, the first of these should probably be indef blocked and tagged using {{Uw-ublock}} (or {{uw-vaublock}} if also a vandal account), the second - maybe - I didn't review contribs; but no accounts should ever be tagged with {{temporary userpage}} unless they have first been indef blocked by an admin. Even then the tag shouldn't be used as the indef block tag puts the page in CAT:TEMP itself. Deleting the pages isn't a good idea because the users aren't blocked at all and can just come back and edit, vandalize, or recreate their userpages. I noticed the first page above was already deleted so I'm going to mention it to the admin too. If you PROD them I'll consider them - but you'll have to let me know as I don't check the PRODs very often. If they're really abandoned, I'll delete them but keep in mind I was 7 months between my second and third edits, people do come back. If they were spammers/vandals that's another story. I'd rather see you ask for the usernames to be blocked where appropriate. You can take the blocks to WP:UAA or make a list and ask me directly. Please review WP:U before doing either. Unless an account is a username problem there is really no point to blocking abandoned vandal accounts and policy probably probably wouldn't support it (though for a vandal only account with a substantial number of edits, it might be supportable). But these pages could be PRODded if the user page was a problem. Pages that simply have no recent activity, no edits outside their own userspace, and a userpage filled with userboxes, really aren't a big deal. Sure they waste space but that's not our problem and deleting doesn't recover the space anyway.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood what I said a little, the users who have not edited in over a year also haven't contributed apart from vandalism or user page creation. Tagging user pages of actual contributors who have not edited in over a year is definately not what I'm doing. They are users simply using Wikipedia as a web host/myspace which is under WP:NOT, which is why they sometimes get deleted by admins.--Otterathome (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if they have vandalized and nothing else, I would indef block them as vandal only accounts which would move them into CAT:TEMP. If they have unacceptable usernames, I would indef block them for that reason which would have the same effect. If their page is actually spam/webhost/BLP/NPA type junk, I'd speedy delete it if you pointed it out to me and probably indef block the user. (All of this assume I agree with you on the policy violations) If it's just a collection of userboxes, and the user has never spammed, etc., you could PROD it or MFD it but I personally don't believe there is any reason to delete such pages. My point is that someone's only edits may be to userspace but they may come back - if the edits are advertising then they can be deleted, if the edits are additions of userboxes or the sort of thing one normally says in userboxes, such as: "Hi my name is JohnB, I'm a male from Washington DC who believes quotation marks belong inside other punctuations and center should be spelled 'er' not 're'"; well, I don't see the problem, even if User:JohnB never does another edit. Since there is no particular benefit to deleting the pages (as a practical matter nobody is ever going to think they are someone to communicate with if they aren't actually editing at least in userspace) the only possible effect can be negative - for the 1 in n who actually return to the project under the same username to edit. As for usertalk pages, policy is unclear but current practice does allow them to be deleted for indef blocked users but I personally won't do it (though I won't do anything to prevent it, unless they're a sock or something). My real concern is with {{temporary userpage}} which, if it remains after the TFD, is only for indef blocked users. I don't like the tag at all and I will not support it on any page unless the user is indef blocked and the blocking admin (or someone else) didn't place an indef block tag. Before I noticed you had quite a number of pages tagged I undid two or three - then I stopped when I saw your contribs so we could discuss it. I will review any of these or any other page and tell you what I think. I'm happy to work with you on this and I can block uses or delete pages if I agree that policy supports you but if I don't all I can do is tell you that I won't do it but you'd still be free to nominate it. The easiest thing for me would be if you created a subpage in your userspace with a list of userpages and usertalk pages and I'd take a look at them and tell you what I thought. Even easier, template the page to my talk page and I'll template it back when done (e.g. leave something like {{User:Otterathome/Spamuserpages}} as a message for me on my talk page - please don't fully transclude it though unless it's very short). Would something like that work for you?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at my contribs Here there's still a few remaining pages of indef blocked users. The helpful edit summaries I used say if they are indefinately blocked or just vandals that are not indefinately blocked (except User talk:The Office I didn't use a full edit summary. Many of them have already been removed, out of my 800 edits, about 200 are deleted.--Otterathome (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take a look shortly. Please note that the TFD for {{temporary userpage}} has closed as delete so that tag is now no longer of any use. If some of the pages you've placed it on are not indef blocked we should try to pin point what should happen to them if anything as the tag will go red and then be removed by a bot shortly.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- An example of one I'd question: User talk:Ljedynak. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- The reason for it being tagged for deletion is usually in the edit summary, in the case it is a very old vandalism only account. I'm sure there will be no problem in deleting the ones I have tagged, indef or not. But that is of course up to you.--Otterathome (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- A bot has replaced the template messages with the temporary user pages category, I don't think any further action is required.--Otterathome (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at my contribs Here there's still a few remaining pages of indef blocked users. The helpful edit summaries I used say if they are indefinately blocked or just vandals that are not indefinately blocked (except User talk:The Office I didn't use a full edit summary. Many of them have already been removed, out of my 800 edits, about 200 are deleted.--Otterathome (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if they have vandalized and nothing else, I would indef block them as vandal only accounts which would move them into CAT:TEMP. If they have unacceptable usernames, I would indef block them for that reason which would have the same effect. If their page is actually spam/webhost/BLP/NPA type junk, I'd speedy delete it if you pointed it out to me and probably indef block the user. (All of this assume I agree with you on the policy violations) If it's just a collection of userboxes, and the user has never spammed, etc., you could PROD it or MFD it but I personally don't believe there is any reason to delete such pages. My point is that someone's only edits may be to userspace but they may come back - if the edits are advertising then they can be deleted, if the edits are additions of userboxes or the sort of thing one normally says in userboxes, such as: "Hi my name is JohnB, I'm a male from Washington DC who believes quotation marks belong inside other punctuations and center should be spelled 'er' not 're'"; well, I don't see the problem, even if User:JohnB never does another edit. Since there is no particular benefit to deleting the pages (as a practical matter nobody is ever going to think they are someone to communicate with if they aren't actually editing at least in userspace) the only possible effect can be negative - for the 1 in n who actually return to the project under the same username to edit. As for usertalk pages, policy is unclear but current practice does allow them to be deleted for indef blocked users but I personally won't do it (though I won't do anything to prevent it, unless they're a sock or something). My real concern is with {{temporary userpage}} which, if it remains after the TFD, is only for indef blocked users. I don't like the tag at all and I will not support it on any page unless the user is indef blocked and the blocking admin (or someone else) didn't place an indef block tag. Before I noticed you had quite a number of pages tagged I undid two or three - then I stopped when I saw your contribs so we could discuss it. I will review any of these or any other page and tell you what I think. I'm happy to work with you on this and I can block uses or delete pages if I agree that policy supports you but if I don't all I can do is tell you that I won't do it but you'd still be free to nominate it. The easiest thing for me would be if you created a subpage in your userspace with a list of userpages and usertalk pages and I'd take a look at them and tell you what I thought. Even easier, template the page to my talk page and I'll template it back when done (e.g. leave something like {{User:Otterathome/Spamuserpages}} as a message for me on my talk page - please don't fully transclude it though unless it's very short). Would something like that work for you?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood what I said a little, the users who have not edited in over a year also haven't contributed apart from vandalism or user page creation. Tagging user pages of actual contributors who have not edited in over a year is definately not what I'm doing. They are users simply using Wikipedia as a web host/myspace which is under WP:NOT, which is why they sometimes get deleted by admins.--Otterathome (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah that's just the result of the TFD. The question remains whether to delete those. I'm going through them and I just don't see the purpose to deleting the talk pages, indef blocked or not. In the case of the non-indef blocked users the category needs to be removed. In the case of the indef blocked users, I'm refraining from deleting any pending an RFC on that topic. As for userpages, I'll delete any for indef blocked users (other than socks - by the way, I found one of those among the ones you tagged) and consider prods of non-indef blocked users. Please give me some rationale for the deletions of the talk pages though, especially the non-indef blocked ones, or I will have to remove them from the category very soon. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for participation in Peer Review of The Orange Box
The Orange Box, an article that you recently commented on at Featured Article nomination, has been put up for peer review. Please can you take the time to re-examine the article for anything that you feel remains an issue. Should you have any comments or concerns, please can you add them to the discussion. It is hoped that once this peer review is complete that the article will be resubmitted for consideration as a featured article.
Many thanks for both your time and valuable input. --Gazimoff (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've responsed to your peer review comments and hope I've addressed most of your concerns, but I have a few follow-up questions as well. Please can you take a look at the peer review page when you have a moment and let me know what you think. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded to your further comments, particularly where areas needed rewording, or where the awards section was an impenetrable jungle of listcruft with no context or meaning. I hope you feel that the article's improving and I'd appreciate it if you could check over the changes when you get a chance. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 20:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Annoy
You have been blanking my sandboxes. I'll revert that soon enough. Stop blanking my sandboxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk • contribs) 08:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Uncy
Do you think I should WP:BOLDly delist Uncy from GA status myself, seeing as the article is a wreck now? (P.S. How did you get your username?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Uncy must be your nickname for it eh, Otter? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, my otters want to know why you're just an otter at home. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I never said I was otter king. There's no royal blood in me or my otters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Uncy again
The GAR is turning into a mess isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Another Uncy
- It is not a sister site, see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Please use the talk page of the article instead of my user talk page. Thanks.--Otterathome (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
RV of Uncyclopedia
Why did you revert my edit? On the top of the article, it says it needs improvement in 3 areas, notably cleanup and Copy editing. Now might I inquire as to why you have such an extensive revert pattern, reverting (Between you and Tenpoundhammer) every attept to edit Uncyclopedia, DESPITE the fact YOU labled this article as needing improvement? Javascap (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And furthermore, looking at the history of this page, 64.72.65.130 had some very valid points. Do you care to tend to those? "Regarding your insistance of Uncyclopedia not a sister site, Whether you know it or not, Uncyclopedia IS suppouted by Wikia, and as such, is a Wiki, therefore, it is a sister site. I believe my point still stands. 64.72.65.130 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Otterathome/Uncy What did I know... you DO have a problem with Uncyclopedia. I find it kind of funny, you insistance that Uncyclopedia serves as a source of Vandals, claiming that "2 of the 5" top editors are banned. Doesn't seem like a majority to me. Care to explain away a point of view in this particular instance? 64.72.65.130 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)" An excellent point, and one I agree with. You and Tenpound, with your own biases, are deliberatally TRYING to reduce the quality of an article. WP:IDONTLIKE, anyone? Javascap (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I think he undid it for the links to HTBFANJS, and the Flamewar Guidelines. Apparently we're trying to avoid links to Uncyclopedia, especially in the main text. I don't know why, I'm sure there's some kind of micromanaging policy about external links, but I can't be arsed to look for it. Anyways, yeah, in the future, Otter, can you just remove the links, as opposed to reverting the entire edit? They're almost always in good faith, and it's mostly because of not knowing that external links are a no-no. If you fix what was added instead of destroying it, it looks more like you're giving the edit due consideration, which is always nice. Cheers, all, - TLB (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)