User talk:HieronymousCrowley

PISH PISH PISH PISH PISH[edit]

Hi. If you've come to complain about something I've done, please form an orderly queue

Generally I just creep about the place, quiet as a church mouse, changing a small spelling mistake here, or correcting a small grammatical error there. I rarely have the time, or the inclination, to do anythng more substantial, and yet I still manage to rile a few people up

Admittedly on occasion (usually after one teeny little glass of after-dinner sherry too many) I get a little raucous on discussion pages. I'm particularly antipathetic towards articles on religion and other forms of mumbo jumbo, that are written as if what's being discussed is in some way real

Get with the programme dudes. There is no god, there is no devil, there is no magic, there is no extrasensory perception, there is no afterlife, there is no reincarnation

How can I be sure? The Lizard Men told me. Duh-uh...HieronymousCrowley (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lord George Sanger[edit]

Hi, thanks for trying to improve Lord George Sanger, but please don't randomly change facts just because they seem unlikely to you, without checking the sources used to write the article. Thanks, --Beloved Freak 08:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies. it certainly wasn't "randomly". it simply wasn't, um... rightly

(i can see now that Elliott was the name of his father's wife. i'd misread the sentence, and assumed it was referring to his own wife - "Ellen (Nellie) Chapman, the lady lion tamer from Wombwell's circus") HieronymousCrowley (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i can see that you are a tremendously busy person, but if you'd looked beyond my empty talk page, and taken a little time to check my overall contributions, you would have noticed that i never edit "randomly". in this particular instance i was certainly wrong, having misread the paragraph, but to the best of my recollection you are supposed to assume good faith here. your snarky self-important comments are symptomatic of all that's off-putting to genuine contributors to wikipedia, and the kind of attitude that deters more people from wanting to join in constructively HieronymousCrowley (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well touché. I apologise for using the word "randomly" which was obviously incorrect. Yes, I can be wrong too. I don't think it really warrants calling me (or my comments) snarky and self-important but there you go. "To the best of my recollection", AGF goes two ways.--Beloved Freak 14:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

touché touché! i was probably suffering from PMT when i made that comment. sorry HieronymousCrowley (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Talk:Ethics in religion appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Charles (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i notice my comment's been deleted, and while i certainly agree that articles should be NPOV, trying to insist that discussion page comments should also be NPOV simply has the effect of neutering any meaningful discussion. i can't believe that's really the intention (although i'm sure you'll know what's official policy far better than i would). anyway, i've re-read the offending portion of the article (about "Satanic Ethics") and it IS a pile of pish. i guess i'm allowed to say "pish" on my own talk page? or do i have to be completely neutral here too? *sigh* HieronymousCrowley (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Byron McLaughlin[edit]

If you have an issue with the use of the word, then change it. It is not constructive to make a comment like that in the edit summary. It can even be construed a rude, although I will assume good faith. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, it wasn't intended to be rude. all i wanted to flag up was that even the corrected phrase ("proceeded to post bail") still sounded a bit... strange. in the end i couldn't think of a better alternative though (even just "posted bail" didn't sound quite right) HieronymousCrowley (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]