User talk:ViriiK

Archives: Archive 1

Our mutual friend

Guy like that are just the cost of doing business at Wikipedia. Once his talkpage fills up with enough warnings and blocks someone will take him to ANI. He'll get a second chance, then a mentor, then another chance, then some kind of voluntary sanctions, then a topic ban, and when he finally realizes he won't be able to push his POV he'll disappear. Going by his edit frequency, this process will take a couple months. Just be patient, always warn him on his talk when he's disruptive, and never never edit war with him. That only engenders sympathy for him.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Lionel, I'm glad you're here. You guys will both appreciate the irony to be found in this diff. Note what he says he is not interested in. I think the lady doth protest too much. Belchfire-TALK 07:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that before and it made me laugh as well when I checked out his entire history. I try to be open to everything on Wikipedia just as you both have been. Right now, keeping these edits in check is just a big headache but I'm still motivated anyways. ViriiK (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The both of you might be interested in this which he's removed his warnings as with our discussion as the reason for blanking out his talk page. He's aware of this conversation now. Hello Still! ViriiK (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave his talk page alone. His talk page history is the first place admins will look for red flags. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment didn't go in. I realized that when I found the Wikipedia discussing the blanking of warnings where they said that his warnings will be archived anyways. ViriiK (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. Found it quite humorous. Lionel explains how he's going to screw himself, by himself, and he thinks it's a nefarious conspiracy to "get rid of him". You can't make stuff like this up. Lionel's absolutely correct, we should template him when it's called for, ignore his B.S., and go about our business, but avoid going out of our way to interact with him. Belchfire-TALK 09:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now they'll find one. Have a great day! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, to any future admin that notices this page, these discussions took place after warnings were implemented against the user. I merely opened the conversations regarding the problem with this user given his declination to work with other users to push POV issues. Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely certain that Wikipedia administrators can see for themselves that you were actively encouraging people to fill my talk page with warnings as the first step to getting me kicked off. Thanks for being so blatant; I'd hate to have any ambiguity about this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before? Good luck with that argument. ViriiK (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that when I looked up the policy of blanking warnings which pointed out those warnings are archived anyways. ViriiK (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A sammie for you

	Hello ViriiK, Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie, for for your commitment to a WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV encyclopedia! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy!

NICE! I'll bet Pass a Method would like one of those. Belchfire-TALK 07:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

[sigh] What's the over/under on how many more times we'll see drive-by's try to plop the dog thing into the Romney articles without bothering to check the Talk archives? It's not like they have hot new information to share. And by the way, have you looked at any of the Obama articles lately? I was in Political positions of Barack Obama last night, and it's like a ghost town. Full of stuff from 2007-2010, but very little at all has been done to it since the election season started. It's almost like... like... he's not very popular any more. [shrug] Belchfire-TALK 23:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've avoided that side because it's not exactly new information to keep up on since it's the same old same old again whereas the current BLP is a lot more active and fairly new. Anyways should we close the haicut conversation brought up by you-know-who using the archive templates? It's a dumb topic to dredge up again and without any basis. The idea that BRD should be used in this case was absurd. ViriiK (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up an interesting idea. I was just looking at the dog guy's discussion attempt on a different article, and I noticed that somebody shut him down pretty quickly. That seems to be an under-utilized tool in many of the articles I've been frequenting, and it deserves a look. I would fully expect some push-back, though. By the way, if you want to reach me privately, take my full name from here and put Gmail behind it. Belchfire-TALK 00:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope I wasn't going too far in representing the other users on that topic since there is an obvious consensus based on previous discussion not to include it particularly the homosexual part which had no bearing on the story whatsoever. It was just a untasteful tactic by the writers of that WAPO story to imply some kind of connection between the two when the writers knew that wasn't the case at all. I assume without the space by the way? Let me know if it worked. ViriiK (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Mitt Romney? No, your last change appears to be just a comment. Belchfire-TALK 01:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about edit

Could you please explain this edit, which reverted this one?

Before answering, you might want to refer to:
Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings
Wikipedia:User pages#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments
Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments
--Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already took the advice of another user to leave it alone after the first revert. However he was properly warned unlike his 3RR warning against me. Can you take a look at my page history? I was warned for edit-warring despite the fact I was at 1RR. He's already lied to me twice now accusing me of requesting page protection and accusing me of edit-warring. ViriiK (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec-Still's post removed) Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are wrong Still. You have a right to 3RR to remove unsourced content from a BLP. So when you said "nobody does" you were wrong. Editors enforcing BLP have the "right." Can I help you with anything else, Still?– Lionel ^(talk) 08:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above refers to a removed post, not the post directly above it. For the record, ViriiK's answer was The Right Thing, essentially saying "I didn't know that policy then, I know it now, and I will follow it in the future" I wish more Wikipedia editors had that good attitude. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone...

...agrees. Arcandam (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edit!

Hiya! I made a bold edit, I assumed you wouldn't mind. Arcandam (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. ViriiK (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind to voice your opinion about whether or not the opinion of the president of PETA is a notable POV? We can easily get a consensus on the talkpage. 108 agrees with me. Arcandam (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I've noticed there's a dispute going on between User:101.161.38.174 and you on Template:Steve Jobs, which is on my watchlist. Personally, I support your reversion because I'm against adding pictures in navboxes, especially without discussion or consensus. It clutters up the template and is unnecessary for navigation. But I'm wondering if you can clue me in on the dispute? I've noticed similar edits by the IP on other templates.--SGCM (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So V you're against pics in templates? Just when I was becoming fond of you. Have you tried a pic in a template? Once you start, you can't stop, hahahaha! If you haven't noticed, I put pics everywhere... – Lionel ^(talk) 07:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing but it depends to me honestly. Steve Jobs template is pretty small and the focus at least to me should be on the categories within. Whereas Barack Obama (his picture is too huge in it and holy crap so many articles), George W. Bush, etc have pictures mostly because the picture isn't distracting away from the content and they're quite notable. I'm not saying Steve Jobs isn't notable but honestly I don't know what though. Maybe it has to do with my mood? ViriiK (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! If the user isn't responding, then that's problematic. The consensus is that, as per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Be helpful: explain, editors must explain their edits, especially if disputed or controversial. I'd recommend bringing the issue to the attention of administrators and editors. I would advise against following another user's edits. It's against etiquette, and policy warns against it. If the user is unresponsive and disruptive, discuss him directly on the noticeboards. Have you tried WP:AN/I yet? --SGCM (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm aware that it isn't polite to follow him around since it's a form of hounding. I've found a lot of questionable edits by him which I've had to revert although I'm sure other users would have reverted his actions anyways. I've added a lot of pages to my watch list so sometimes I see him once in a while and I dig through his contribution history which a lot were just bad. I honestly didn't think to discuss him at ANI because I don't really have a good reason to make a report at least in my opinion. Most of his contributions centers around categorizing so it's hard to suggest users to submit an explanation on that basis in the edit summaries. However he has the habit of modifying or submitting political templates such as Nazism which did not help. He would also modify templates such as the Libertarian template to add people who didn't contribute to the theory. ViriiK (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is persistently unresponsive, while continuing to make controversial edits, concern likely is warranted. I hope you manage to find a way to resolve the issue. Cheers, and good luck!--SGCM (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism.
Simply click here to accept! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I don't know if you're watching my user talk, but I've replied to your message there. Tiderolls 00:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well fuck you too then asshole

Be a dick.