User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, WP:FORUM states that discussions on talkpages are only allowed if they're geared towards improving the article, and yours wasn't. It was a general discussion about Gematria. WP:TALK clearly states that: "irrelevant discussions are subject to removal".--Rambutan (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. You can be blocked if you continue making edits such as this. If you have a problem, please reply here or on my talkpage.--Rambutan (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rambutan. Irrelevant is a considered opinion, inherently POV. If 23/6/81 isn't relevant to the article, remove it. If it is, then so is the ice-cream joke. Do you really believe a website designed to mimic that of a UK ice-cream company would draw attention to this particular date for no reason at all? If so, go back to school and try to pass that GCSE. Otherwise, that's two comment blankings today. Try number three and you'll be discussing the matter with an admin - whether someone else's comments are relevant being POV, I doubt you'll make a very good case for yourself with this attitude. Incidentally, most of the web monkeys I know are buggers for this sort of joke. It's gematria to you, it's social bonding to them. 23/6/81 being, of course, and entirely arbitrary date, the possibility of it actually being "true" rather than forced gematria is lessened considerably. If it is forced, it's been forced for a reason. It's clear there are some coincidences in an ongoing serial and associated media, but Who is known for it's humour and, particularly in the present form, the threading of apparently meaningless data which, if looked at in more detail, provides a... you know what? It's easier to just say nothing is in fiction without a reason. It may not be a good reason, or one you understand immediately (or ever, if you've had to sit through The Matrix trilogy or Pulp Fiction), but it's there because someone thought enough about it to put it there. So you don't like ice-cream... does that mean ice-cream isn't relevant? Does that mean a 99 joke isn't there, just because you don't get it? No. And if it's not relevant... who made you sole custodian of this page? The whole purpose of talking to other people in this fashion is to garner opinion and discuss any given matter. How dare you silence someone simply because you personally disagree with what they're saying? Can you cite me even one person who, after reading my comment, has said "you know, that's not relevant" ? No. Not even yourself, because you haven't the good graces to say so, join in the discussion, and end it in the normal way, as you had the previous comment, which was, I think, irrelevant. Yes, this particular talk page is cluttered and overlong and there is a lot of less-than-important commentary on it, but the acceptable answer to that is and has been for a very long time to archive the page, not to blank the most recent comments. In my opinion, your frankly rude behaviour aside, this whole problem stems from your initial failure to assume good faith. If I had produced a 200-line mathematical proof of 23/6/81 being the date on which the Antichrist was born, sure, gematria, whatever. But I didn't, and you don't seem to know the difference between fiction - where everything is made up for a reason, prima facie to entertain (which a joke does) - and interpretation - where the indisputably real yet wholly coincidental is forced into "proofs" of anything the interpreter happens to wish to prove.
I'm copying this to your talk page in case you've not watchlisted the message. Remember, you may remove any discussion from your own domain without comment, but elsewhere, well, I'd advise you to take more care in future. You're being very selective about applying those talk page rules. 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems your over-zealous and imbecilic attitude has reverted the page whilst I've been writing to you. That's three. It's going back, and for the record, I cannot be blocked since a new IP is 30 seconds away at any given point in time. Nor can my ISP be contacted about "abusive behaviour", before you start with that old chestnut - discussion isn't considered abuse. Kindly read the above and take heed, I'm off to find an admin to discuss the matter with, and for the record, you can also be blocked.


Sorry, you're confused, and do please try to be civil. Now, the discussion I removed began: "Is this as hilarious as numerical puns get?". This is not relevant to improving the article and Wikipedia as a whole. It's a general discussion of the topic. This is not what talkpages are for. While its subject is relevant, it's not about making the article better.--Rambutan (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, threatening to change IP address is an indication of your bad terrible faith.--Rambutan (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
What Rambutan is trying to say is that talk pages are for collaboration to improve the article, and comments about the article. Comments about the subject in general should be taken to an online forum or chat room.-Wafulz 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)