User talk:DropDeadGorgias

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Swedish Bikini Team, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I've never been prouder... --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

DropDeadGorgias' Talk Page

Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.
I reserve the right to delete anonymous comments without consideration.
If sending me an e-mail via the "Special:Emailuser" tool, please include your Wikipedia name or your IP; I will not reply via e-mail, but on your Talk page. If the mail is regarding a block, please include both your account name and IP.

Start a new talk topic.

Deletion Log

DropDeadGorgias 23:02, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC) - Deleted old discussions. For old discussions, please visit the page history.

DropDeadGorgias 19:46, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC) - Deleted more old discussions... kept overt flattery. ;)

DropDeadGorgias 17:33, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) - Long overdue archival of dead discussions (some licensing stuff, admin promotion discussions, etc.)

DropDeadGorgias 18:31, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) - Archival of random discussions

DDG 17:54, February 23, 2006 (UTC) - Archival of many random discussions (one hit wonders, elvis, lost, etc.)

Hectorthebat

You may remember this user Hectorthebat who frequencly over links pages. In the past few weeks he has restarted this habit and I do now think some sort of action does need to be taken. He does not react to messages left on the talk page and such links to Art as a surname is uncesscessary. Is there anything you can do because I am still fairly new to the administration side (for average users) of Wikipedia. TheTallOne 21:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville link

I am not taking a stand as to whether the link deserves to be there or not, but, I do believe that you are contributing to edit wars with the user that keeps posting the link. There has not been a discussion (on the article TALK page) about whether the link deserves to be there or not, and you have not explained to the user on their TALK page as why you keep deleting the link. I will say to you as I did them, please refrain from edit wars. The article has a discussion page for a reason. Bignole 17:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did use the discussion page, which you can find here Talk:Smallville (TV series)#External links. I was not contributing to an edit war, but reverting a controversial edit that had yet to be ratified by consensus. It is customary for disputed links to be left off unless there is a consensus to add them, as many of these articles are inundated by fans. --DDG 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was for a different page, that was not for the Smallville Season 5 page. They are connected by a link, but just because there is a discussion on that page does not mean that it is automatically forwarded to connecting pages. That is fine that it was discussed there, but it wasn't on the Season 5 page. Secondly, that website would count as the "one fansite" link that you said can be allowed on a page. Kryptonsite.com and Smallvilleph.com are more official websites that are used to verify information that was added to the page (i.e. future descriptions of episodes..etc.). These sites are together to verify each other's information because you should never rely on one sites information for everything because they can be wrong at any given moment, even theWB.com. So, they would fall under source/reference sites where as the other would fall under pure fansite. Devoted is more of a discussion about the show and what is going on with spoilers on the side (mainly what they get from these other two sites); Ksite and Small are informative sites that contain forum sections with rigid guidelines as to what can be talked about. Though, I don't really care if the link is there or not, just that it seems more like an edit war because no one has taken the time to discuss it (atleast) on the user's page. They are obviously a new user (noted from their lack of edits to wikipedia) and do not understand all the rules and regulations set forth by wikipedia. I know how stiff wikipedia can be with their rules so I am sure that they would prefer that if a similar situation is occuring on other pages that the discussion be presented to those pages as well, because not everyone views every Smallville related page. Bignole 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think that you are? You cannot just go in and delete stuff because you think that they should be repremanded to the main article page. What you think doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not subjective it's objective. Those sites are there for a reason, they are the source sites for all the information on that page. If someone goes directly to that page and sees that information without reference sites it could be construde as plagarism. The main page is a general page that does not contain details that the season pages contain. There is hardly any information for those sites on the main page. They belong exactly where they were. Bignole 18:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I never raised my "wikivoice" and my tone never changed. I didn't use exlamation marks to show excitement, so please do not confuse that with an uncivil tone. I apologize if you were offended by what I said, but when it comes to the internet and chatting it is rather hard to correctly convey emotions from one to the other. Bignole 18:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Unfortunately the issue here won't seem to go away. Can you log into meta and add your comments here to help lock down the issue with the least additional wasted time? Thanks. - Taxman ^Talk 14:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List at 78th Academy Awards

Humm, I don't know. I believe that some kind of order is preferable to no order at all. Usually, when we alphabetize by last name, we use the format last name, first name, which is not being used there (wouldn't be appropriate for that kind of list, I believe). The alphabetization by first name makes the list far easier to search than the chaotic order we've got now. I appreciate your later explanation, but please remember that rollback is a tool to fight vandalism, not reverting legitimate, made-in-good-faith edits. Regards, Redux 20:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. No harm done about the rollback thing. It didn't really take me that long to alphabetize the list. I do know of some lists — although I can't quite pin point any now, or I'd link them — that are ordered by first name. But as I said, any order is better than none. I don't suppose the article profits from having the unsorted list just because we're yet to implement the other order. I suppose we could restore that sorting, until one of us (or maybe someone else) has a little more time to resort the entries by last name. In the meantime, we'd have a better "functioning" list. Regards, Redux 01:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, seems that the list was already alphabetized by last name. I somehow managed to miss that. It's all done, then. Redux 12:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Just wondering why you gave me the test-4 warning instead of the test-1. 205.155.48.5 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Web, Dark Internet

When you said "dark web usually refers to the dark internet" and reversed the meaning of Dark web, was this because you have some evidence for that usage, or is it just because you're not clear about the difference between the World Wide Web and the Internet? I don't mean to be rude, but it is a subtle and, I think, quite important distinction for an encyclopedia to be clear on - as the two concepts are very different, and many people are confused. I admit that common usage isn't helping, with people saying "Look it up on the internet", when they mean the web or "Connect my computer to the web", when they mean the internet, but I still think it's worth trying to be clear here in WP. If you've recently done some research on current common usage of the phrase 'dark web', then you're way ahead of me, but if not, can I suggest we revert the whole thing (Dark internet too) back to how they were? --Nigelj 22:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venom

Hey,

I found your name on the Wikiproject Comics page. I was wondering if you could weigh in on a discussion going on at [1]. I don't have a lot of background knowledge on this stuff, and it seems like I'm standing between two editors, neither of whom really want to give.

--MikeJ9919 22:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a friend

Anyone using P as friend indirection is certainly my friend! Laughed out loud at that one. Thanks much, I don't do it often (the docs say the condition is not permanent, but they've held that position for lo these eons, so.... A great conceit, dude!! ww 09:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot's blankings

Originally the bot was set to tag old talk pages (older than 180 days) in a special category and a admin would delete them on mass per U2 but seeing in an hour that we had some 500 pages and some users requested the articles history be kept and hence blanking was the only option see CSD talk - the bot does ignore the standard shared ip template as well as threatban, blocks etc. The primary reason for doing this run was it was confusing for new users to join the site if they got a tonne of warning messages. If you have any questions and or suggestions feel free to give me a shout, suggestions are always welcome -- Tawker 17:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just killed the bot. Do you have any ideas where a more prominent discussion place would be, I discussed there and on IRC and that seemed to be consensus. If you have a list of templates it was removing that it shouldn't have, we thought we had them all. -- Tawker 19:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qualm over Harry Potter speculation

Please follow this link. TydeNet 08:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink?

Are you interested in reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink? If so, I'll gladly help --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 23:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the terrorists have won

wanted to say how great the "terrorists have won" page is. thanks Spencerk 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious mind

Hello, are you an Elvis fan? Aside from his very early Sun material, I'm not, which is why I have no copy of any biography of this, uh, icon. Still, I was alerted that the dread 141 had returned, again shoveling in lipsmacking material into the article. And I see your name in the article's talk page.

I've a hunch that a lot of the quoting by 141 is highly selective (or worse), but lack the resources to investigate this. As I can't assume good faith, I have to imagine it, but my imagination can't take the strain.

Even if it's all true, it doesn't interest me; but this may be my "fault", as I must concede that millions of people the world over pay real money for magazines and tabloids full of celebrity tittle-tattle such as this. I have only so much time and energy for this article, which in its present state shows less interest in the King's voicebox than in his dick (pardon me). Could you join in the not-fun? Thanks (and good night). -- Hoary 14:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add my concern regarding the entry on Elvis Presely. It's become a cess-pit of innuendo and unfounded allegations. Currently, Presley is a homosexual, padeophile, mother-lover (in the very real sense) and voyeur. Oh yes, he might have sung a song or two in his day. The article is a disgrace and it's a disservice to Wikipedia. It should be cleaned up and locked because at the moment it's just not worth the constant struggle to maintain it. Lochdale