User talk:HandThatFeeds/Archive 2014

Talk:Lycos

Hello, HTF, and Happy Holidays.

A couple of years ago, you closed off some off-topic (WP:TALKNO, WP:NOFORUM) and defamatory (WP:NPA, WP:LEGAL) comments on Talk:Lycos. Well, the same sort of stuff has been added again. I initially hid it using {hat}, but then the other user accused me of vandalism (as well as covering up pedophile networks etc.!), so I'd appreciate a third-party look at the situation. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Please advise Guy that engaging in wild unfounded allegationd against fellow editors is totally inappropriate. I don't know whether he's paranoid delusional or not, but there is absolutely no basis in reality for the allegations he's made against me. So I don't appreciate you coming to my talk page to warn me against informing him that he needs to stop engaging in abusive behavior. Shape up. You've been warned and further abusive behavior by you and/ or Guy may result in appropiate sanctions. We can't condone bullying and personal attacks on good faith and perfectly competent editors. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Insinuating someone is "delusional" is a blatant personal attack. Feel free to bring this to the attention of admins. Warning you for making a personal attack is not bullying or harassment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

New Section

Dear HandThatFeeds,

I made a correction to "9/11 conspiracy theories" yesterday because the predicate verb "were" modifies the singular subject "collapse." Consequently, the verb must be in the "singular" form, i.e., "was."

Therefore, the first sentence in the second paragraph should read: "The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition..."

Thank you kindly.

Craig Grimm Centennial, CO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccgrimm (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case, we are referring to multiple collapses (both of the Twin Towers structures plus WTC 7). The entire sentence is awkwardly phrased but, regardless, this is a situation where the plural verb is necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Blazing Saddles

There is no mention of the DVD commentary in relation to the disputed material. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth. Citations belong in articles, not edit summaries; see WP:CITE. Please stop edit warring and discuss on the talk page, as two of us have already done. If you need an official warning about edit warring, consider this your first. Thank you. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That "warning" is hilarious, considering you've been reverting *two* editors who objected to your tagging. That said, you're just being pedantic. You acknowledge that this is verified by the DVDs, then you can add the reference instead of doing the lazy bit and just tagging it. That should've been the end of it after you were first reverted. Instead you're just reverting repeatedly and insisting we do the work for you. If you won't bother, then leave it alone until I'm off work tomorrow and can dig through the citations format to put it on myself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

First, please refrain from name calling. Secondly, I did not acknowledge that it is on the DVD. I can't "fix it" because I don't have the DVD. If you have the DVD, that should be a simple process for you instead of arguing endlessly. And finally, please comment on the article's talk page if you disagree with the tag. Please provide a citation in the article. Thank you. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

HTF, I agree with anonymous above - ALL content must be verifiable, per WP:Verifiability: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So far nobody has cited the commentary, but if I can get ahold of the Blu-Ray I will check it out. MFNickster (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I just listened to the complete DVD commentary by Brooks, and he says nothing about doing the song. Trying to find the Blu-Ray. MFNickster (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sovereign Citizen Movement

Dear HandThatFeeds: On the Dennis Marx material in the article on the Sovereign Citizen Movement, I added some more material from various sources regarding Marx and the tie-in between the Movement and the courthouse shooting. However, I have to say that the materials that I have read -- the ones that Marx filed in his court case (the lawsuit mentioned in the article) -- do not seem to indicate that he was a believer in the typical "sovereign citizen" ideas. I haven't read every document filed in the case, and obviously other relevant materials might surface as time goes by. I'm just saying that I share what I think might be your concern about the documentation of the purported connection between the shooting and "sovereign citizen" beliefs. I will continue to monitor this. Famspear (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Redban closure

Hello HandThat Feeds. About this closure. The entry in the block log doesn't say he is a sock. Do you have another source for this information? I don't object to the block, but am just trying to ensure that all the closure information is correct. The actual block was done by User:Postdlf and his reason was 'Disruptive editing', with a link to the ANI. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The ANI discussion points out that Redban edited around his/her block by editing as an IP, then as User:Percentagesign. The original block was for disruption, it was then extended after the socking by User:Postdlf. Postdlf didn't change their reason for the block, but it seems to me that the indef was for the socking. If you'd like, I can change the Archive wording. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you just change your closure to 'Indef by User:Postdlf for disruptive editing' that would make the different messages consistent. Unclear whether placing sock tags is worth the trouble, though anyone could do so. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated it to "'Redban blocked by Postdlf for disruption, extended to indef after socking around the block.'" Hopefully that's clear enough. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for being willing to reconsider. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Always glad to help. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)