User talk:Onorem/Archive 12

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.

Comment from JeanLatore

Underdog-- I do not realise what it is you are trying to say, i mean, what is the "commentary" that youy object to? Is it not "fact"? Its unclear, plz. clarify 4 me. JeanLatore (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is no wonder that young, attractive, hip New Yorkers would be listening to this tune immediately previous to getting eaten by a ginormous alien monster." - This is the commentary that has no place in an encyclopedia article. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

sir, what you quoted is undisputedly "fact" AND it is relevant. Why do you confuse "fact" with "commentary"? Did you see the movie? It was about young, hip, attractive new yorkers getting eaten by a giant lizard while listening to the "underdog" right? I saw the movie at the theatre.JeanLatore (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The characters listening to the song before being eaten may be fact, but your addition is presented as opinion. The "It's no wonder" part seems to infer some sort of correlation between the characters listening to this song and their being eaten. And "ginormous"? Real words are preferable to made up words in articles. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough dude. Chek the article now plz. thanks for your tips, i totally see your point. JeanLatore (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok cool. Happy editing and thank you .JeanLatore (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for protection

DOH. Sorry about that. Yes please, protection is requested on Beatrix of the Netherlands. Thanks! PrinceOfCanada (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Bit of a brainfart there on my part. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from TheTruth909

You reverted the redirect on Johnny Knoxville, though I don't understand why. A wrestle is shown as the real name, with a redirect on the name of the Ring Name--TheTruth909 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) says that the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". I don't think many people are going to be looking up Philip John Clapp. Not many people are going to recognize that name. This section of that guideline goes into a bit more detail.

Also, changing titles should be done by moving the article instead of copy/pasting the original. We want to try to preserve the edit history as much as possible. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keith Steve Howard

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		For tireless reverting of the specious edits to the page of a not-very-important Yu-Gi-Oh! character. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.11.209 (talk)

Thank you

for the revert on my userpage :) --Faradayplank (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reverts on my user pages! -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user

Can I ask a question I've been wondering. How do you tell if a user is a sock puppet because in what way do you know if they use both. From what I've seen it's communicating with the sock puppeteer. Which can be sometimes a innocent act with a fellow wikipedian. Chubbennaitor 17:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are several things that might make me suspect sockpuppetry. Sometimes it's a combination of things. Sometimes it's just incredibly obvious. It depends on the user. Any instance in particular you're curious about? --Onorem ♠Dil 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm just curious how you tell. Because t's not like you hack onto their computer to see if the log on as two people. Chubbennaitor 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can't hack onto their computers, but there are methods of seeing where edits have come from. Most of the time, it can be reasonably determined by the duck test. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you don't that was a joke. So what is the 'duck test'. Chubbennaitor 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The duck test implies that a person can figure out the true nature of an unknown subject by observing this subject's readily identifiable traits. We might not know for sure who a user is, but we can observe that they edit the same articles, use the same phrases, communicate with the same users, or generally just act the same as another (usually recently blocked) user. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Question. Isn't Motofan the sock puppeteer seeing as flyhead is new. Chubbennaitor 20:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence of Motofan being a sockpuppeteer. I think that he is just friends with Flyhead/Aerofreak1061...who are likely puppeteer/puppet. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that flyhead is a more recent than motofan so he couldn't be the puppeteer. Chubbennaitor 16:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said that I thought that Flyhead was Motofan's puppeteer. I do believe that Aerofreak is a puppet of Flyhead. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

May I ask then who Motofans puppeteer is? Chubbennaitor 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any reason to suspect that he has one. As far as I know, I've never mentioned Motofan as being a puppet or a puppeteer. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just that's the reason he's blocked. Well atleast what I saw when I checked. Chubbennaitor 16:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No it's ok. I just want to know o what terms he's been blocked on. Chubbennaitor 16:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.13.151.71

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I partially reverted User talk:68.13.151.71 as this vandal is correct that WP:USER gives anonymous editor the right to remove (almost all) messages at will from his or her own talk page. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've often argued for the rights of IPs to remove comments/warnings from their pages, but I thought it was generally accepted that current block notices were supposed to remain for all users. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of months ago it was reaffirmed at WP:VPP that WP:USER applies to both registered and anonymous editors. It was at that time that the WP:BLANKING section was explicitly updated to state "policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages" in the hope that it would permanently resolve exactly these sorts of issues. As per consensus at VPP, the only types of messages that editors may not remove from their talk pages are declined unblock requests (but only while the blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates like the {{ISP}} one at the top of this ISP's page. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming I participated in the discussion. By the way, this has absolutely nothing to do with the user being anonymous. I thought all users were expected to leave block notices up. Obviously, that's not what the policy currently says. I don't remember the topic of block notices being discussed...only warnings. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

sandbox

please stop. the sandbox is for editing tests and you are spoiling the fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.220.127 (talk)

Yes. It's for editing tests. You've established that you can remove the header and replace the page with a message about credit card details, so there should be no further need for that particular test. Please stop. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

the test is social as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.220.127 (talk)

Please conduct your social experiments elsewhere. You edits are disruptive for those who actually want to use the sandbox for the actual reasons it's there for. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Bloodymaryprettyscary

Hi I appologize about my edit earlier I was just having a little fun...but hey I would like the introduce myself ^^...my name is Robert nice to meet you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodymaryprettyscary (talk • contribs)

RE: Death of George Carlin

I got your message. The text you quoted me was a guideline:
This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Which, by the way, cautions against removing (or striking out) comments, except in unusual cases:
It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.

Yes, I agree her comment was not exactly about the article. ( No - I won't stretch it by saying it was about the topic of the article --- that would be way wrong! ) It wasn't trolling , spam, attack or otherwise indecent. Why not leave it for a few days then remove it (there's precendent for that already). BTW - should you remove the comment, I'll leave it alone and not war over it!. Thanks Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW: Good catch on my George Carlin article edit!

I realize it's a guideline. I don't see how a bad joke that doesn't have anything to do with improving the article would be considered an appropriate exception. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered becoming an Administrator?

You seem like good guy devoted to improving this site. Wikipedia needs more Administrators that fit your description. - 4.156.54.181 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Skanedog

Wilipedia needs moar admins like /b/ needs moar cancer. Also GTFO was my FF7 revision vandalism,; the article is tagged as being too long - The story section was several thousand words long and condencing that to "Aeris dies get over it" is a far more concise way of representing the information. Skanedog (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism...just like your edits to Battletoads, and your edit to Agatha Christie. Please find a different site to play on. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

why when it's so much fun here? Skanedog (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Greg Mueller

I can appreciate your interest. However, I have spent days researching this guy. Greg FBT Mueller the professional poker player is not the Gregor Mueller listed in the Hockey db. Pictures on the official team websites are the first giveaway, the birthdates do not match, the heights aren't even close (FBT is 6'5), and FBT goes by the given name of Gregory, and not Gregor. The citations used are from Poker magazines and the funny part about that is there isn't a journalist in site with any of those rags. The articles, commentary, and editorials are all written by professional poker players. Not only is the content sorely lacking any professional substance, but I'm also pretty sure that basic journalistic integrity like verifying bio information isn't even on the list of what these guys do. I'm sorry, i just can't let this go. It's amazing how the truth gets distorted when these 15 minutes of fame people start giving you the "where I came from" speeches. Now, I'm not saying that FBT himself is perpetrating these lies, someone may be doing it on his behalf. However, he's complicit when he doesn't set the record straight because he at least knows that the Full Tilt and WPT bio's on him include this misinformation.

99.145.222.230 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Wimbas1

This discussion belongs at Talk:Greg Mueller. Original research isn't going to be enough. There would still need to be reliable sources that dispute the current references. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the hockey db information, look at the team photo's, this is not the same guy who is playing poker as Greg FBT Mueller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimbas1 (talk • contribs)

I'm not saying you are wrong, but no original research... --Onorem ♠Dil 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

thank you

You are kind and helpful! The two others were telling me they had a problem with me but not what the problem is. I have read the redlink page and realising what the error was. In my web class we learn that a dead link is a bad link - but not on wikipedia (except for common sense!) But I need to learn a lot too, it seems. Thankyous for being kind ;) Danpatterson89 (contribs) 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Prods

Re your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snomping:

Wasn't expecting a contested prod

That's one of the drawbacks to prod. Original editors may validly contest a prod, so unless the editor posts the article and goes away, a quick prod will be contested. That's the main reason I don't prod on sight. I'd rather give the article a day to see what happens and then, after the notability tag has hung up there a while, prod the article...but that's just me. (Plus, hopefully any editor who lasts the first 24 hours has had a chance to read the guidelines by that point.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

vandalism????

what am i doing wrong?