User talk:Curly Turkey: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	2006; 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:52, 18 January 2015

I rarely check the email account I have set for Wikipedia. If you wish to email me, please notify me here on my talk page first.

Curly Turkey is busy in real life, but lacks sufficient self-control, and thus will likely respond swiftly to queries even when it clearly is not in his best interest.

Happy New Year!

Dear Curly Turkey,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Happy New Year!

Dear Curly Turkey,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Thank you for the kind thoughts and for all your consistently excellent work through the years. Last year was a hard one, both physically, thanks to medical ailments, and on Wikipedia, thanks to a plethora of Wikitrolls. Colleagues like you make staying here worthwhile. Here's to a better year to all!
--Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Little Sammy Sneeze

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Little Sammy Sneeze you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination question

Hi Curly Turkey, I noticed 4 or 5 days ago that you opened a review page for an article that I had nominated (Hidden Treasures (EP)), however, in the days since, I have heard nothing from you regarding the review or the article. Were you planning on communicating with me in any manor regarding this?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've been waiting for you to say you've been through the article to make sure everything's got an online cite. Have you done that? Once you have, I can continue. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point I have been getting at is that I generally expect a degree of communication during these things, regardless of the content, or lack thereof, of the article in question. Can't say I've seen that here. Heck, you've have talked to Retrohead more about the article when he wasn't the one who nominated it! (No disrespect meant to you Retro). Additionally, I had left a few comments and made a few fixes (though definitely not everything wrong with the article) on the article, had you bothered to check. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L1A1 FAL: Sorry about that. After your initial comments, I assumed you'd notify me when you got everything sourced, or at least after you'd dealt with those "Will look into"s—especially given that's exactly what I said in the opening to the review. Given how much hadn't been sourced, I assumed there'd be major enough changes to the content that I thought it would be best to wait until that was done before finishing the review. I contacted Retrohead because (a) he contacted me first and (b) I knew he had access to sources since he'd done the Megadeth FA. With no activity on the review page, it doen't show up on my watchlist to remind me to return. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. So its just a misunderstanding then. Sorry for coming across in an irritated manor. I've had increasingly bad interactions with other editors and reviewers, and as a result I take exception to stuff increasingly easily anymore. I'm frustrated almost to the point of leaving to be honest. Back on topic, I assumed you had been keeping an eye on the review page, no big deal though. Probably not going to get to it tonight, but I'll revisit the so-far-listed issues on the page, fix what needs fixed and I'll get back to you shortly. As for the rest of the page, we can deal with it as it comes along.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that between myself and Retrohead, the initial issues previously pointed out have been addressed. If you could proceed to inspect the following paragraphs, that would be great--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, new stuff fixed, or at least addressed on the review page--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the two iffy sources you pointed out--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw today that you passed the article. Just wanted to say thanks for reviewing it. Take care!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Arts Commemorative Series FAC

Hi Curly. I just wanted to leave a note of thanks for your efforts and review at the FAC for the AACS medallions article. I noticed your correction of the 'notes' template; I'll remember the way you did it in case I need to use those in future articles.-RHM22 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Little Sammy Sneeze

The article Little Sammy Sneeze you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Little Sammy Sneeze for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

… about the meltdown. Holidays, house guests, a visit to the ER and FAC. What can I say? Except I'm sorry you got in the line of fire. Btw - also, I cringed when I realized I'd jumped from cr to cy right over cu when idly posting xmas greetings while waiting for a delayed flight to arrive. So - better late than never - here's hoping you and yours have a wonderful 2015! Victoria (tk) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—I've been waiting for the flurry of edits to die down before returning to the FAC. Hope your January will be a bit more fun (we've got an influenza case at home, but it hasn't got to me ... yet ...). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It hit me unexpectedly hard at a bad time, but as they say, stuff happens. Anyway, I finally got a chance to review my files and think I'm finally finished at the FAC. Stay healthy! Victoria (tk) 02:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moi aussi

Et tu, Brute?

Can you fix this article? Coffee jelly. And Tokyo Banana too Black Thunder (chocolate bar) looks fine though.- Hafspajen (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean copyedit, or do you want me to hunt down sources? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Do you eat this stuff? Hafspajen (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like octopus—it's so chewy. The rest of my family eats it frequently. I'll see what I can do, but I honestly don't know where I'd start. I can't believe someone found enough sources to make Black Thunder a GA. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... perhaps it's not even Japanese in the first place, and just happens to be popular there (my wife has some once in a while—I don't drink coffee, let alone eat it). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Plymouth Rock Coffee Jelly Recipes (1920) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noo, not a GA

. Do you eat it raw? Hafspajen (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus? I've seen on TV where people ate it live (!!!), but I don't think it's normally eaten raw. It's definitely cooked in takoyaki (the "yaki" means "cooked"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So it's not sushi. And your sign you have ? Hafspajen (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean sashimi. Sushi doesn't require raw fish—sometimes the fish is cooked (like with anago), and even more often there's no fishi in it at all (just vegetables or whatever). I'm on the fence with Je suis Charlie. At the moment, I think the two articles should be merged (rather than deleting one). Only time will tell if it really merits its own article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you Japanese. I thought shushi was raw fish. Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here

is a turkey for you. Probably would make an excellent featured picture in about a week. (time required for a pic to stay in the article before nominated.) Hafspajen (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo discussion

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I was wondering why you deleted the RS-supported fact that she was identified as a suspect, here? Nor can I tell from your edit summary why you did so. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: The word "suspect" may not appear, but if "possible accomplice of Coulibaly, and is being sought by French police" doesn't make that clear, then Jesus Christ! If it makes you feel better, change "possible" to "suspected". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "person of interest" and the like may be a possible accomplice who is sought by the police; they may be someone "involved" in a criminal investigation who is not suspected of committing the crime by the police. A "suspect" is a significantly higher level. It is a known person who the police have put into the category of people they officially suspect have considered a crime. They are different things. When you delete suspect, you delete something very material, in a section about the person. Epeefleche (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's immaterial now as I've restored the word "suspected", but when someone is sought as a possible accomplice to a crime there's no way to interpret that but as "suspect". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you think this was an improvement. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS Query

Please point out where in the manual of style that the lede not to be considered part of the article. Thanks Dolescum (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolescum: The whole reason the lead is not required to have citations is because those citations must be in the body. Further, the lead is a summary (per MOS:LEAD) of the body—if you include something that in the summary that's not the thing being summarized then it's not a summary. This is also why the User:Ucucha/duplinks script doesn't register a link as a duplink when it appears for the first time in the body even though it already appears in the lead (install the script and then try it on, say, Ukiyo-e—you'll notice that Edo period appears once in the lead and again in the body, yet doesn't get highlighted as a duplink).

Need any more evidence? This is very, very well established, so I trust you'll stop with the reverts. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link isn't my main reason for reverting CT, it's WP:SAWW. Your edit means that that specific text ('Islamic prophet') is now in the article twice after I specifically cleaned it up earlier. Note the policy: Once per article. Now are you going to keep reverting that text back into the article? Dolescum (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read WP:SAWW, and you're obviously misreading the spirit of the letter. The lead is a stand-alone summary of the article—you cannot summarize something that is not in the body of text being summarized. Notice WP:SAWW does not say "Once per article"—it says "when it is the first reference in an article". The article itself being the body, of which the lead is a stand-alone summary. Just think of how ridiculous this would be—a "Background" section detailing the offense of depicting Muhammad—the central inciting incident for the attack—but that does not once bother to state who this "Muhammad" guy is? Please take a moment to ponder this before any further hairsplitting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lede is a summary of the rest of the article, but it is also an introduction (as the relevant MOS page states) and itself a part of that article. As an introduction, it's obvious that it's the location to introduce users to who Muhammad is, given that the dude is mentioned there. I don't think I'm the one misreading things here, CT. Dolescum (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you simply ignored what I wrote? Or you seriously believe the "Background" section should just skip out on telling the reader who the central character in the controversy actually was? Perhaps we should leave the number of dead or the names of the shooters out of the body as well---it's all redundant once it's mentioned in the lead! Ditto the dates and locations of the attacks ... Try bringing it up with the MoS people and see if any of them take your WikiLawyering seriously. You're damaging the body by removing a key background detail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you wrote. I think you're wrong. Introduction via the lede will have already framed which Muhammad is under discussion. There is no need to repeatedly reframe the context for readers. I also note I'm not the only editor to have removed this text]. Dolescum (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you simply refuse to address how a summary could summarize something that doesn't exist in the text behind summarized? Right, right, right: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Oh, and "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Unless it's trivial (pronunciation keys, alternate spellings, etc), we simply don't put things in the lead that aren't in the article. Who Muhammad was is a key detail in the background of the article. I mean, Jesus Christ: "There is no need to repeatedly reframe the context for readers"—?!? Just what do you think the entire lead is, then? These details are framed once—in the body—and are summarized in the lead. You're not seriously going to dispute that, are you? If you are, your dispute is with Wikipedia, not me. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Take it up at the talk page. I have. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm sorry you're frustrated with me. I wish there was a way to send you cake over the internet by way of thanks for your civility. Dolescum (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pancreatic cancer FAC

Hi, you have commented at this. I think as of now all the points on all the reviews are responded to, and either settled or awaiting a response from the reviewer (mostly the former), so you may want to revisit it. I'm sorry some of you have had to wait a while for this. There has been a lot of activity, both on this page and on the article itself, as well as the holidays. It's been great to see so many people getting involved in this. Many thanks to you and all reviewers and editors! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely get back to it, but it may not be right away—I'll have to refamiliarize myself with it, and it's a fairly long article on a topic over my head. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cease your blaming of Muslims

Your continued edits blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few Islamists is sickening. I assure you that if you keep this up you will find yourself topic-banned. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reported, you fucking troll. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coco (cartoonist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Parisienne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Love It to Death

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Love It to Death you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie hebdo/muslim population

btw - where you have put that information now, I think is good - it flows better in the story of the magazine in a way - and in a way it made me think - -of course they will make cartoons that upset this religion at this point because its more visible - in the nineteenth century they would have been just focused on the catholic church and Calvinists or whatever. and it doesn't imply anything sinister about the religion - it just joins all the other religions for the secularist left to have a go at.Sayerslle (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks! Let's see if it'll stick. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor comment: Curly Turkey, I have read much of the discussions of the edit warring at this article, and I hope you will appreciate an outside editor's thoughts and advice. While I have noted you are very often on the right side of any discussion as you are an intelligent, experienced, and respected editor, you are very often aggressive and you normally fail to communicate "with a view to explicitly cooling things down" (as recommended in the "Handling of edit-warring behaviors" section of WP:EW. I believe you would fail any WP:RFA, for example, were you ever to attempt such an action, as they value this skill. In my opinion, you are respected for your accuracy, not your attitude, and it is surely possible to be respected for both. In myself, for example, I try to achieve this (but it is difficult, I know) for I have seen other editors do so. I hope you will consider these thoughts and recognise that I am not offering them in any desire to be right, but that I am offering them in kindness and thoughtfulness.

Before I go, I must of course express my shock at how satire was attacked by this terrible event. When I first heard the news, I thought immediately of the satire of both Harvey Kurtzman and Mad magazine, and I thought about how much you and I respect the publication of satire. Where satire is discussed in this article, I'm glad you are there to ensure the article gets it right. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably be more tactful, but I doubt it'd be any more effective with partisans who cover their ears, anyways. It's a good thing I have no aspirations towards adminship, eh? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you would be more effective with them. Everyone is a person who doesn't want to get their feelings hurt. You've been around wise people who have won your respect, despite a difference of opinion, haven't you? Well. there you go.

Hey, some wiki gossip: Our fellow editor Neelix was wikihounded to the point of resigning last week. Prhartcom (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard something about that on that deletion discussion (you commented there, too, didn't you?) I don't know the details. It's hard to be tactful with people when they editwar to tell you not to start an editwar. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that; those are the times when we could choose to be even more annoyed or we could choose to just laugh. Sometimes something disguised as a trial is actually life becoming more ironically humorous and bearable! On that deletion discussion there was an editor who flatly stated he disagreed with what I said but also stated he respected the way I said it. I went to his talk page and told him I respected him as well, and we found something to agree about and left each other with mutual respect. That was a win; if I have to disagree with someone, that's the kind of disagreement I strive for. Prhartcom (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those things happen. I seem to remember some friction when you and I first came across each other ... Formerip has made it clear to me, though, that he's only interested in fillibustering the discussion. We're not having a "disagreement", he's simply generating a long list of baldfaced lies. I'm going to try to reboot the converstation at Charlie Hebdo shooting with a mind to changing the tone. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Hopefully your new tone will pleasantly surprise them and lead to something positive. Of course it won't work on everyone but I'll bet it will work on some. And the others could actually have a valid point too. Yes, the details between you and I have faded but I remember with shame some friction between us and have resolved to try to never let that kind of thing happen with anyone again. I even remember letting you down in some way. You probably weren't fishing but while I am thinking about it, please accept my apology for whatever that was. I'm sure I could have handled it in a calmer way. BTW, I finally got Masterful Marks: Cartoonists Who Have Changed The World in the mail today; will start reading it now and add it to Annie later. Prhartcom (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I just got Craig Yoe's Barney Google book; I haven't gotten around to using it much on Billy DeBeck, but I probably will this weekend. One of these days I'll get my hands on Barney Google & Snuffy Smith: 75 Years of an American Legend and really finish off the article. I hope to get back to copyediting Annie this weekend, too. I'd've done it by now if it weren't for Charlie Hebdo. Normally I steer clear of political articles, and I think you can see why. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried, but it doesn't surprise me in the least that Abductive would first recommence his editwarring (with another claim that the "material is against the now well-established talk page consensus" that has been beaten into the rest of us) and then start pointing fingers and saying what we've added is "disgracing the article". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. I'm sorry that those editors are like that. As an interesting exercise, try to understand them. Get inside their minds and be them and try to figure out why they are like that. I think I can understand them. They are on the side of the vast majority of innocent Muslims and who can blame them. Unfortunately look where their compassion has lead: to illogical and unfair banning, unproductive and lazy refusal to offer counter proposals, and mean-spirited and immature rebellion. And that's just the dissenters going in the one direction. But understanding them is an important step: people want to be understood (you want to be understood, right?) It could lead to productivity and actually accomplishing a workable result. Try extending an olive branch. Ah well. I does seem a little hopeless at the moment. Imagine how the administrators feel. I appreciate how that one editor summed it up a few hours ago. But it really isn't that important to "win". There are lots of other areas to work on here. It's interesting to hear you talk about historic comics that I didn't know existed. There is so much out there, isn't there. Prhartcom (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying, but there's a big difference between an Abductive single-mindedly trying to "set the record straight" and a FormerIP whose motivation is to stir the pot—it's not like he can pass for believing the manure he shoveled on that discussion. A "difference of opinion" that wasn't. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I honestly thought Gamebuster was going to come out against the content. 03:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right when referring to trolls, that's what they do, but even they could be motivated by a valid point sometimes. It's almost a game; treat people with the respect they crave, take the high road, and see what happens. It's exciting when it actually pays off: I believe the editor you mention was genuinely surprised when you stopped being predictably loud and started being unpredictably wise; you were not as two-dimensional as he realized he himself was behaving. Notice how he took a break to cool off and then came back with a compromise; we could all learn from that. I was glad to see you agree with his compromise, why wouldn't you, you're reasonable. Now let's get that new paragraph in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, blatant canvasing request: Could you please stop by Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Nonspecific date 2 and consider Supporting? Crisco 1492 and Dank have already looked at it very closely. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Hbedo

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You have no right to remove the Template:Relevance-inline template that I've added, especially after reverting what I've deleted. Furthermore, you refuse to answer my questions. MoorNextDoor (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MoorNextDoor: Broken record time again:

Your questions have been answered repeatedly, but YOUDIDNTHEARTHEM (again).
You have yet to make even the pretence of demonstrating WP:SYNTH. Why? Because there has been no SYNTH, of course.
You've been reported for your editwarring against both myself and PuffinSoc. It doesn't look good that the one supporting you is Abductive, who just got off his own 48hr block for the same thing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Love It to Death

The article Love It to Death you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Love It to Death for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Messages.

Hello, Curly Turkey. You have new messages at Gamebuster19901's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Curly Turkey. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just wanted to let you know that there are relevant messages in those two pages. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 192: / Line 192: @@
 :::: Well, I honestly thought Gamebuster was going to come out against the content. 03:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 ::::: You're right when referring to trolls, that's what they do, but even they could be motivated by a valid point sometimes. It's almost a game; treat people with the respect they crave, take the high road, and see what happens. It's exciting when it actually pays off: I believe the editor you mention was genuinely surprised when you stopped being predictably loud and started being unpredictably wise; you were not as two-dimensional as he realized he himself was behaving. Notice how he took a break to cool off and then came back with a compromise; we could all learn from that. I was glad to see you agree with his compromise, why wouldn't you, you're reasonable. Now let's get that new paragraph in the article. [[User:Prhartcom|Prhartcom]] ([[User talk:Prhartcom|talk]]) 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
+::::: Unrelated, blatant canvasing request: Could you please stop by [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Nonspecific date 2]] and consider Supporting? Crisco 1492 and Dank have already looked at it very closely. Thanks. [[User:Prhartcom|Prhartcom]] ([[User talk:Prhartcom|talk]]) 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 == Charlie Hbedo ==