User talk:Joseph S Atkinson/Archive 1

Ejaculation

You have commented in the past either for or against a video or image on the ejaculation article. There is currently a survey discussing this topic if you care to offer your opinion. Atom (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy

Let's get a few things straight. First, I have no idea what you're referring to. The only thing that I can think of is this edit. If that's the case, then you cannot make a statement about what someone else wanted, and then create your own response about how that was never satisfied. That's called original research, and it is completely forbidden on Wikipedia. Second, you may want to read WP:ONUS and WP:V#Burden of evidence, because it is not my responsibility to verify something someone else put in the article, when I have no idea where they even got the information from. You speak of half-assing edits by just putting a citation tag in...um, hello, what do you call putting in information and then not providing a source when the info clearly requires it? I'd call that half-assing. Lastly, please do not ever just come to my talk page and act like an asshole toward me, when I have given you no personal reason to act like such a fool in the past. Also, never question my devotion to the quality of any page I work on. I'm the one who wrote Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers after the horrid condition they were once written in. Most of the stuff in the current Freddy article is from my sandbox. Excuse me if I have a real life and cannot devote every second to wiping the asses of newbish editors that get pissed when I crack down on their inadequate editing. To quote Wikipedia: "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." - and that includes putting a citation tag in an article. They were created for a reason, so get over it. Good day. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Your response was a really nice try. Sadly, the action you took, was again... reverting an edit to remove a citation spam on an unimportant and self evident bit. Instead of rewording it to make it fit what you wanted or providing a citation to support the statement, you still took the "half ass" approach and clicked a few times to put it back. Then came here and posted some lame ass excuses about your wiki-accomplishments to justify why you felt it more important to put a citation needed tag there instead of actually citing something. Really... it's a nice try. Maybe if you spent half as much effort as you did trying to impress me on my talk page into doing it right the first time, you would have my sincere thanks instead of my oh so cleverly concealed scorn. You sir, appear to need to get over more than just"it". -- JSAtkinson 06:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's point out the misconception you are having here. I didn't add the comment. The comment required a source (plain and simple). Per the policy on verifiability it is the responsibility of the person adding something to provide a source for it. Since I have no idea where they got said information, I placed a citation tag next to it so that someone who recognized the info could provide that citation that is required. Now, what other approach could I have done? Well, per the same policy I could have simply deleted the entire thing as being original research (which it was). I chose to take the "half-ass" approach and alert others to the fact that it needed a source. If I knew where it was taken from I would have added the source myself. I didn't, so I didn't. If you want, the next time I won't even bother doing that. I'll simply remove everything I see that isn't verified by a reliable source. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my talk page

Thank you, it was my pleasure. I hope to see you editing more often, and don't worry, most users aren't like Bignole! ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 12:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful I make a grand return, though I do make tons of minor edits without singing in. The WP:BUREAUCRACY is an abomination that serves the lowest common denominator and "crusaders" are upheld by the establishment at the cost of common sense. For example, I once spent months embroiled in an argument over a picture of a guy jerking off on himself being appropriate. I had several users try the "Wikipedia is not censored" line on me and everyone else who agreed with me (the non-trivial majority). I posted the pic to Jimbo's talk page, got chastised for it being "inappropriate for Wikipedia" and WP:SOAPBOX by an admin, then that same admin turned on me with "Wikipedia is not censored" when I agreed with him. Fuck it, it's just far easier to drive by fix what annoys me and mock those who get their panties in a wad over it. I don't have the patience to be concerned with people who think their opinions matter more than others, and/or that their previous Wikipedia work is somehow a badge of entitlement.

However, if you need help or advice on the subject of NOES, I was the 2nd webmaster for now defunct Y2Krueger.com, and K2K (original webmaster) and I can probably provide (verifiable!) info you might not find elsewhere through our contacts. -- JSAtkinson 20:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]