This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.
A belated welcome!
Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belatedwelcome to Wikipedia, Egg Centric. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Is there a universal editnotice for myself? E.g. the editnotice for this talk page says wibble. I would like to make an edit notice for myself that I (and only I) will see on every page when I try to edit it. Is this possible? If not, is there a way of acheiving something similar? EggCentric23:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can modify your user CSS to do so ;) The MediaWiki ID thingy is "editnotice-area"; you could use the code
Thanks for replying but that wasn't what I was asking. I would like to see some text chosen by me on every edit page. For example, a checklist. Presumably that's doable with javascript. I don't have any real practical experience with javascript, and what I do have was well before AJAX came along, but I'm surte if a mock script was created then I could hack it to change the text. Or perhaps it could get the text from another wikipedia page? Is there somewhere for script requests? Again, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is a fairly common request and something like it at least already exists. EggCentric15:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend checking out the specific Wikiproject, found here. If you don't find what you're looking for, feel free to leave a message on the project's talk page or contact one of the project members directly. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, I think you could do this with CSS. You'd have to use the :before or :after CSS pseudo-selectors (you can use these to generate a slab of boilerplate text), which are pretty obscure, but it ought to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Egg Centric. You have new messages at User talk:Jasper Deng/Permissions. Message added 00:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Yes, actually, there is a huge difference in principle between my home address (which is not publicly available) and the email address of a company which is published on their web page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are both differences and similarity. I referred to the similarities, you are concentrating on the differences. Also, just to be very clear, that was in no way a veiled threat, I neither know your home address nor if I did would I ever reveal it. EggCentric13:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, diff was a poor example for you to include if you did not want to be interpreted as using Wikipedia to make threats. Your remark was less "veiled" than, say, phoning someone up at random and saying "do you know where your children are right now?" I suggest you seriously reconsider your approach to these matters. --Fæ (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will of course reconsider it because the possibilty never even occurred to me until I saw that I had new messages and I wondered why it would be taken here. Still, my gut instinct is that one only sees a threat there if one is predisposed to look for threats. But I will be extra cautious in future and apologise to Jimbo if he saw it that way. EggCentric13:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Egg Centric/list of bastards, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ZZArchtalk to me20:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted it as you asked: the whole history is preserved so that, on request, any admin can restore a particular version. WP:REFUND would be the place to ask. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Egg Centric. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
It would not be accurate to say that "the admins" are pro-circ - afaik there's only two of them. However, they both know wikipedia policy very well and are not afraid to use it. Meanwhile, the "anti-circ" lot know very little about wikipedia so are not able to counter policy based arguments effectively. I would not class myself as particularly "anti-circ", incidentally - I consider it mutilation and I feel it should be illegal in pre-pubescents except for medical reasons; however I'm not involved in any activism beyond what you see on the circumcision talk page, and expressing my views if I am asked in the pub. Basically, 99% of people just don't care that much. If a couple of wikipedians who were well versed in policy yet also against circumcision got involved then I have no doubt a genuinely neutral article would appear.
I also feel I should note, in fairness, the most egregious acts of unbecoming conduct come from the "anti-circ" side. Partly this is, I suppose, an issue where it is not really possible to be that passionately pro-circumcision (and it's passion that causes uncivil conduct): there are only three real reasons I can think of - cultural (primarily but not exclusively jewish - while there are many more circumcised muslims than there are jews, it is part of jewish identity [we can add another small item to the litany of suffering caused by religion here]), fetishistic, and profit-motive. I doubt there are pro-circumcision editors here who are out to make a profit, so you can draw your own conclusions about the pro-circs who really care. Although of course people can get interested in all kinds of things so one can never be sure.
To be passionate against mutilation hardly needs much explanation.
You need to understand there is a unique Jewish mindset caused by thousands of years of persecution that can make one want to keep on to a tradition because it is also identity - even if that identity does come from the dark ages. I once semi-seriously considered a sort of "atheist conversion" to Judaism, before finding out such a thing basically wasn't possible, as I admired and continue to admire this solidarity so much. But part of said conversion would have been my circumcision, and that while I decided against this for other reasons, that alone could quite possibly have ended up being a deal breaker. Basically, the Jewish community needs to come to a conclusion by itself that decency should prevent them from seeing this as a pact with god, but actually mutilation. There is no good in us gentiles telling them not to do it. All we can do is put the arguments out there and hope that progressive Jews pick up on them and spread them around their communities. Maybe eventually Israel will make child circumcision illegal. But while the current attitude remains, circumcision does a Jewish boy far less harm over all than it does a normal boy, for it greatly helps him to integrate in that community which as I said has no no real parallel. This is all pragmatic thought - in principle I am against exceptions in law for religious reasons of any kind.
But that doesn't excuse pro-circumcision activism for anyone other than Jews - as you say, it is a dark ages thing. But while not wanting to speak for a Jewish community I am not and never have been a part of, I hope the above helps you see where they are coming from.
Meanwhile, as I typed all that out, another couple of baby parts were lopped off, quite possibly without anesthetic, never to be seen again. EggCentric14:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is an eloquent statement. I tend to be skeptical about a person's self-reported identity, "I am a Methodist" or "I am a Republican" does argue for a group identity, yet beneath such professions one finds a web of individual choices and motivations, all as inherently selfish as the will to live. No one is really a "Methodist" or "Republican" but a self-selected member of a like-minded host who justify and defend each other. I look beneath the self-reported label to the behavior which the purported group establishes as legitimate for the individual; for example, cannibalism was a religious practice, and had a profound religious meaning to its practitioners. Would we accept their argument in behalf of cannibalism? Rather, look to the prehistoric emotions of the human beast, who glorifies all his primitive warfare and instincts by imbuing them with a religious aura, making him proud of his bestiality in a uniquely human way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.159.75 (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, please could you be a bit more coherent with this circumcision stuff and less into spamming incoherent things on many people's talk pages.... EggCentric18:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Egg Centric. You have new messages at Jeepday's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I admire your honesty in seeking to rectify the consequences of your actions despite the potential block and ridicule. Ankh.Morpork01:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, that is your problem right there. If you had said to me: I" messed up and did something stupid that I thought at the time would be funny, but now I have caused a big mess instead." I doubt I would have blocked you at all, a trouting and a "don't do that again" would have done the job. But you persist on seeing yourself as the misunderstood martyr. You screwed up. If you can't or won't admit it I can't see that unblocking you would be a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have admitted all that. That isn't incompatible with anything I have said. But if it helps, I messed up and did something that I thought at the time would be funny, but now I have caused a big mess instead. EggCentric17:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
This is beyond ridiculous. I haven't trolled, and I haven't socked in violation of the sock policy either. Nor have I violated WP:POINT as someone else seems to think. Let's be completely clear what happened. Taking a look at FisherQueen's talk page (being something of a talk page stalker) I see that a new user Anontune (talk · contribs · count) has renamed themselves to something ridiculous - Wer34k234ksdfodbguwe4fod (talk · contribs · count) - choosing that username because, he said, it wouldn't be taken [10]. The username and the rationale is a so ridiculous that I find it quite amusing to create two usernames (Wer34k234ksdfodbguwe4fob (talk · contribs · count) and Wer34k234ksdfodbguwe4foc (talk · contribs · count)) that were very similar to it - one complained to the "real user" [11], while the other one told the "real user" not to worry because the first username was a hypocrite [12] having himself stolen his username. This was clearly a joke, playing off both the eccentricity of the name and the reason for choosing it, which I assumed FisherQueen and the user with the peculiar name would like, and I believe I have been proven correct in their subsequent reactions. Anyhow for some reason this was considered a trolling "sockfarm" and both my two users, and the "real user" - PLUS the screename the real user used to have that could belong to anyone, were indef blocked. Obviously I couldn't allow that to happen to someone who had done nothing wrong, so I came clean as soon as I was aware of it. And then I get blocked indefinitely for socking and trolling! I hadn't the faintest reason to think there was any problem; indeed the precedent I had in my mind when I did this was the santa-claus-like user that goes around on Christmas giving out presents. Reopen the ANI thread and have this looked at by more, impartial, eyes. If there is a proper community consensus for indefinite block I will respect it (while scratching my head). I should also point out the blocking admin was by his own admission [13] drinking when making this block. Not that I have a problem with drunk editing but it does make one question his judgement. Almost as much as this ridiculous block does.
I've amended your unblock template to correct the coding; it should display correctly now. No comment (as yet) on the merits, but on point of information - did you use sockpuppet accounts? Knowing which socks you used may help show that they were used within the rules. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did13:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. By the book, the socks did indeed violate policy - they impersonated another editor. Consider what would have (or could have) happened if you had gone about this maliciously - you could have done significant damage to another editor's reputation. If I went douchebagging about as User:Cgg_Eentric, it might bother you. Good on you for coming clean the instant it went sideways, but I have yet to see any sort of apology to 4od. And that would, I think, be a necessary first step. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did14:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally I aplogise unreservedly and without hesitation to 4od. It was not my intention for anyone to believe that those users were actually related to him. Indeed, even if their claims were taken on face value (which they weren't supposed to be) then they claimed to be different users. I believed (and still do although I don't plan to argue the point unless it is absolutely necessary) that they came under the "Humor accounts" exception EggCentric14:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive, I struggle to see the purpose of this block. The editor has recognised his wrong-doing and admitted to it of his own accord; I have no idea how this can be construed as a case of reducing "likely future problems".Ankh.Morpork14:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Egg made accounts in an attempt at humor - but did so in precisely the same way that other editors have in the past gone about harassing other editors. Remember too that the discussion looked like someone discussing an issue with Fisherqueen, getting renamed, and suddenly having multiple socks. The involvement of the innocent victim muddied the picture considerably - but, at the time, the block was justified and entirely within policy. Could it have been handled differently? Possibly. But it is what it is. The question now becomes - is this something Egg Centric will ever attempt again? Does he/she understand that not everyone on this project will find humor in violations of policy, even well intentioned ones? I see that there is a humor exemption, but that applies to declared sock accounts - these socks were not immediately declared as socks, which added to the confusion. He claimed them later, but the damage was done. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did14:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I shall be more cautious in future, and in any case will not use socks for any reason where they could be construed as impersonating other users or are within my knowledge violating policy. I am also, frakly, extremely unlikely to use socks for any reason at all, especially humour, with the exception of editing anonymously from time to time within policy. EggCentric14:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, forgive me if I missed this above - have you ever used any other sockpuppet accounts in the past? Since this is a sock block, it might come up. Thanks. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did14:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of anonymous editing, especially before I got this account, but also sometimes after getting it, for various reasons (e.g. too lazy to login or at internet cafe or whatever). In any case, nothing "dodgy". EggCentric14:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity by anonymous editing in the above two posts I mean editing as an IP when not logged in, not using another account. EggCentric14:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea and would in fact prefer it to no CU, given the comments by a couple of other users on Beeb's talk page. Not sure what's wrong with my "interests"... EggCentric15:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked about checkuser-ing this account. It looks EC owned up to both accounts, so I don't think there's much more to say. If there are other suspected socks, an SPI case can be filed, but I think we're OK otherwise. TNXMan
IMHO, you're about to let them off for something pretty serious - and I still don't seem to think they get that. Impersonation is wrong, period. An "innocent" party has been harmed through this. Indeed, months from now someone may see those "humour" accounts, and actually attribute them to the other user, and nobody will remember this sheer stupidity that has occurred here. I'm all for humour, but to actually CLAIM these accounts were created for such a purpose disgusts me - do you personally know the user that you were having a joke at their expense? (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add: moreover, after reading the unblock request again, it's so WP:NOTTHEM that it tells more about their belief in the block than their half-assed discussions further down. That unblock request as it stands now CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be actionned whatsoever, as it would condone the behaviour. Who gives a shit if the admin had an adult beverage: the block is valid no matter what (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are you suggesting my claim is a lie? If not, why does that claim disgust you? And while I don't know the user I know enough about how most people work to know that someone who changed their username to that would usually be receptive to that sort of thing. EggCentric17:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to consider this unblock request on the basis that he has now owned up to what he did. I'm not entirely convinced that is the case. Egg acts as though the real problem here is that I don't have a sense of humor. What he doesn't seem to get is that nobody thought this was funny. He goes on an and on about how it was obviously a joke. Well guess what trolls think they are doing? That's right, they think they are being funny, when they are anything but. This supposed joke didn't backfire because I lack the ability to detect a joke, it backfired because it looked exactly like the kind of trolling we see here all the time, users who create multiple throw-away accounts with "mash the keyboard" usernames intended solely for disruption, fully expecting they will be blocked. Egg is still painting himself as the misunderstood good guy in all this, and as long as that is how he continues to see it I do see a valid preventative prpose to this block. Comparing oneself to Santa Claus when all you have delivered is a lump of coal is not what I expect to see in an unblock request from someone who actually understands what they did wrong. And as for blaming this all on my having had a drink on a Sunday afternoon, well it doesn't really merit a response but I can tell you that I am a grown man of almost forty and I weigh in at about 225 pounds (102 kg) and had consumed one small beer by the time I made that remark.My judgement was not impaired and I was not intoxicated. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may or may not be wise for me to say what I'm about to say, but I have a pathological case of honesty so I'm not going to pretend to feel ways I don't. As a point of fact, Wer34k234ksdfodbguwe4fod(talk·contribs·count), the relevant user, has stated they found it funny. I still find the original text funny. Not a classic python sketch, not laugh out loud hilarious, but mildly amusing. Now, having said that - I have acknowledged that you do not find it funny and also I have clearly stated, and state again for the record, I won't do such a thing again. I also acknowledge that you would have blocked them if it wasn't for my actions, and have apologised for that. Asking me to concede that it wasn't funny - I can't do that. And yeah, I am a misunderstood good guy. That remains how I see myself. Good guys make mistakes. And, for clarity, that doesn't make you a bad guy, of course.
Now to be perfectly clear, what I do mean by "I won't do such a thing again"? Well, first of all, I won't make any jokes using socks that aren't clearly labeled as mine. But secondly, and more broadly, I will be far more careful not to make any statements that are not literally true, less they be misunderstood. EggCentric17:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was a fairly poor unblock request, but subsequent comments by EC make it hard to argue with the basic underlying fact that he is unlikely to do anything remotely like this again. The joke impersonations were dumb, and wrong, and not as clearly a joke as EC seems to think (I didn't think it funny, and I'll laugh at almost anything). The block of EC without prior discussion was (IMHO) too aggressive, especially since the "target" of the joke/trolling found it humorous and evidently doesn't harbor any ill will to EC [2]. But that's just what it is, MHO, and doesn't mean the block was out of policy or wrong or anything.
Egg Centric, I've unblocked, without requiring further hoop jumping first. However, I ask that you do the following now that you're unblocked:
Tag the userpages of the two accounts as joke accounts of yours, and unrelated to Wer34k234ksdfodbguwe4fod.
Rethink the fairness of mentioning B's beer. That was unreasonable, makes you look bad, and contributed to this unblock dragging on longer than necessary.
Thanks, will do. The beer thing was actually meant as an explanation, as I have certainly done daft things on wikipedia under the influence, and I couldn't at the time see the block as rational. But as it seems to have been taken as an insult, of course apologies to Beeblebrox for that too. EggCentric18:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Egg Centric. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
How do I source this? Can I just WebCite the oversight permissions page? It may be a bit close to primary research and perhaps I'm better off leaving it unsourced (and just truthful!) EggCentric21:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Egg Centric, and thanks for contacting the helpers. Unfortunately, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source in an article on here - see WP:CIRCULAR for more information. If you need anymore help, please reactivate the helpme tag and someone will come assist you. Cat in the Hat | To the Thinga-ma-jigger | Whistle for Things 1 and 222:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Egg Centric 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Egg Centric 19:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Done - It should visit within 24 hours to archive this page. I'll come back around to make sure everything went well.