User talk:Sticky Parkin/Archive 6
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Secret message
- 2 Um...
- 3 OMG thats weird
- 4 Not an article, but...
- 5 ip vandalism
- 6 Help, now, please, go
- 7 Sticky...
- 8 Are you, by chance...
- 9 About User:Fredrick day's unblock request, I'd hoped it was a hopeful sign. But not yet, apparently.
- 10 yeah, well, i think your name is inappropriate
- 11 Thanks!
- 12 Your adoptee needs some help and advice
- 13 Order of Tharky member
- 14 Smack Noir Cited for deletion
- 15 Smack Response
- 16 Thanks Again
- 17 UAA
- 18 AfD discussions for WP Food (Macaroni soup)
- 19 Reply to your comment
- 20 Jeffries
- 21 Sorry, shame
- 22 NLP: Trying again
- 23 Oh, and about the Uncyclopedia comment...
- 24 Great! Well,
- 25 Seduction community AFDs and Aldrich
- 26 Presumptivebreak
- 27 saw your pruning
- 28 Peace process: pseudoscience
- 29 RE:Black metal
- 30 RE:Comment
- 31 Hi, Sticky
- 32 Satanism
- 33 Provisional Editorial Council
- 34 I'm thinking...
- 35 you can find the new template at:
- 36 No!
- 37 Congratulations
PS I'll be logging out soon so take note of the Time!
OMG thats weird
I was looking at Sky One, or Two, or Three, one day, and I saw a show called Floyd Around The World. It tured out it was to do with Keith Floyd! OMG! It's like you're psychic!--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, I can't give you the barnie cos you patrol me!--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 17:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Not an article, but...
I'm planning on making a Wikipedia: page, intended as humour, about Wikipedianism, in the same context as Animalism. I need a fake Communist-reminiscent flag, similar to the hammer and sickle, like the hoof and horn flag, both below:
Gimme some help, make a flag like the hammer and sickle or something.
- Well answer me then!--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll cop to what I did in the past (and have done so) - I have no idea what that AN/I report is about, it's nothing to do with me. As for the charge that I'm a SPA obsessed with deletion, that's a lot of old bollocks - I'll take my licks for what I've done but that's revisionist history - my contribution history speaks for itself:
Help, now, please, go
I have an issue with Daniel. Please can you go to his talkpage and add to my apology, I'm worried he'll become a WikiEnemy and want to block me! HELP ME!--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- What ... the ... Daniel (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going on a wikibreak. I can't change my Wikistress-o-meter because my page is protected. I am now very sad because of these people. All I wanted is fun. I'm not happy. Good job I'm going to Bulgaria anyway. See you in two weeks. I hope you complain to these people, upsetting a kind person like me.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ye, I do. And its gone. For good. I'll think up some other prank...>:->--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 12:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you, by chance...
...from Toronto? I don't want to ask about specific areas or whatnot on a public page like wikipedia, but I'm moving to the general area somewhat soon, and thought I remembered seeing something about that here. I don't see it now though, so maybe I'm remembering wrong. Unforgiven24 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
About User:Fredrick day's unblock request, I'd hoped it was a hopeful sign. But not yet, apparently.
I think it is truly unfortunate. I saw it and believed it was important that any administrator considering an unblock realize the depth of the matter. Contrary to what was implied in Steve's request, Alle wasn't blocked merely for block evasion, but that was simply the least disruptive way to deal with his behavior, since it avoided RfC, ArbComm, and that huge fuss and the inevitable contentious debates. It was hard enough just to file the SSP report and Checkuser request, as you know. If you aren't familiar with it, I'd urge you to read my recent edits to Fd's talk page.
I tried to make clear in my comments that I was not opposed to unblock, intrinsically. I agree with the Wikipedia policy that we don't punish. However, it would seem to be essential, for us not to fear that recent behavior would simply be repeated, that Fd show that he can respond civilly and constructively to criticism, assuming good faith. His reaction showed that he is far from ready to do that. Basically, it will be necessary for him to face the full impact of what he did, and probably would have continued to do. It isn't deletion and cleanup, that's a necessary function. But how it is done is crucial. POV-pushing pales as a problem compared to uncivil and ungenerous deletion. (By ungenerous I mean "unwelcoming," that the attitude is essentially "go away, you can't do what you want to do," rather than, "Well, if you want to do this, you would have to satisfy that guideline or find a consensus that it is proper. If I can be of any assistance, please don't hesitate to ask." Real vandals will ignore that, or spit on it.
yeah, well, i think your name is inappropriate
Thanks for the welcome back. I've gotten caught up in building a webpage for my water polo team, and have been having so much fun I've been neglecting wikipedia. So far, it's only the home page, but I'm pretty happy with it and am ready to start the subpages. people.tamu.edu/~bradenkeith if you're interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradenkeith (talk • contribs) 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Your adoptee needs some help and advice
User:Presumptive, having formed the opinion that the opening sentence of September 11, 2001 attacks is wrong, and having first raised the matter on the Talk page, went on to change the lead of the article to match their prefered wording and against accepted style. A variety of (to my mind) clumsy and ungrammatical proposals and attempts were made to change the lead sentence. Presumptive has since added an OR tag to the article based on the belief, not that the article's current title is wrong, but that the lead sentence should not use the same phrase. The latest development is an RfC on whether the wording is OR and must be changed.
This is an awful lot of effort (see the Talk page) for something which, to me, could be resolved fairly easily as a proposed move to a new title. I note that Presumptive responded to receiving the standard 9/11 arbcom sanctions warning by removing it (on the basis that they were not being disruptive according to another editor). Having adopted Presumptive, I assume that you believe so too. However, disruption even if unintentional is definitely occuring. I'd appreciate any help you can offer. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Order of Tharky member
Smack Noir Cited for deletion
I am trying to figure out why the page I created was cited for "Speedy Deletion". I do not feel that it meets the Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The page contains information on an Independent Film which, at the time was produced by three college students. If the mere fact that it was produced by students is the issue, the movie is still an independent film. The status of it's producers should not effect the page itself. The page is not "blatant advertising" but an informative reference about the film. The producers and actors alike have gone on from this production to work in Hollywood productions and create projects of their own. The information on this page is no different that the information one would find on any other movie page, which also could be argues as "blatant advertising". The benefits of the page do not serve as advertising to the movie but as reference to those who seek to produce their own film. The page as not been fully developed and it's deletion should not have occured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RunnerX13 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, though I no more understand the issue than I did before. Was the original issue strictly because it was a student film or because it is not a film that has been referenced in Entertainment Weekly? I only wish I had time to complete the entry and to address the problems that arouse with the page before it was deleted. So much for social discussion. But the page was written in the third person and would have been just as informative as any other movie page. And the page was clearly not set up as a “how to”, I only mentioned that because quite frankly, I wasn’t sure how to respond. Live and learn I guess. Further questions, is a page for Smack Noir forbidden to appear now and forever or is a page that fits the style of other entries allowed sometime in the near future. --RunnerX13 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:UAA is a noticeboard for requesting username blocks. The name "Josefszekeres" in no way merits a username block, because it is acceptable to use your own name as your username. You might notice that many Wikipedians do in fact edit under their own name.
In general, I have observed a trend of people taking issues that are mostly unrelated to usernames to UAA in hopes of getting a "speedy block", and I fear that your UAA report was one of those. Don't do that, okay? It would be more reasonable to warn the user (who may simply not understand that you can't promote yourself on Wikipedia like you can on a private web site), watch to see if he continues to promote himself, and possibly go to WP:AIV if he doesn't stop after the warning. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that his edits are purely promotional. That has nothing to do with his username, though. You should handle this situation like you would handle any other self-promotional editor, and not try to use a different process just because he's doing it under his real name.
- Think of the message it would send if we username blocked this guy. It would say "Hi, we don't have any problem with what you've been writing about yourself. Our biggest problem is with your name." rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There actually isn't a Wikipedia policy against saying "fuck", and there certainly isn't one against implying it with the letters "WTF". When you dig this far looking for reasons to block people without discussion, what problem do you think you are solving? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Usernames that contain the word "fuck" (or even, as you say, "f**k") in context are often blocked because they are abusive and disruptive. It is not because they contain the substring "fuck". There are bots that report all names that contain the substring "fuck" and let admins sort them out, but that's another story. In fact, the case you are talking about was a bot report, so I was just doing some routine sorting, not declining an actual UAA nomination. There was no "nominator". My edit summary expressed my irritation that someone thought it would be a good idea to put "wtf" in the bot's blacklist in the first place.
I'd like to encourage you to read the username policy. I'm aware that it's sometimes hard to follow because it's accumulated a bit of policy creep, but hopefully it will give you a better sense of when username blocks are appropriate than you would get from watching UAA and extrapolating. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- User:The Anome used the wrong block message. Do you think this is a shining example of the username policy? I sure don't. The block should have been for vandalism. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Again, The Anome was sloppy. He softblocked a vandal who should have been hardblocked. To me that's not a shining example of the username policy, that's a mistake. I don't begrudge The Anome for making a mistake, but realize that admins do make them. This is why you should draw your conclusions about the username policy from what it actually says, not from watching what admins do. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, if there's a precedent of getting offended by the letters "WTF" I don't want to be part of it. Offensive was supposed to mean racial slurs, attacks, names that were simply disgusting, and so on. I'm not offended by "WTF", I don't think you really are either, and I don't think anyone mature enough to be on Wikipedia is.
- But anyway, this argument has turned really strange. I said that LOLblahblahWTF should have been hardblocked because he's a vandal. Are you saying that by precedent and IAR and stuff, he should be only softblocked? Three supposedly "offensive" letters constitute a shield against being hardblocked? Either that's a really silly adherence to tradition, or you haven't thought things through. Vandals with WTF in their name aren't different from vandals, they're just more obvious vandals. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
AfD discussions for WP Food (Macaroni soup)
Reply to your comment
- He snuck in another parting shot after the block notice. I'll keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't just pick up where he left off with his personal attacks. Rob Banzai (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You've ben doing a good job cleaning up Ross Jeffries, but perhaps you want to take another look at the wording for the UK court case. 04:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that I have brought shame to our wiki-family. :( I genuinely thought that I was doing good. I proposed SIX versions of a lead sentence of an article and waited 13 days for discussion. I added a 7th version using the ideas of another editor, Peter Grey. Two editors, despite not having made significant comments on these versions, tag teams and reverted my changes with theirs (which did not have consensus).
Those two forum shopped until they found someone to block me. :( Sorry for bring shame to us. Anyway, now I am out of jail. The article in question has been page protected but the admin doing so doesn't understand the issue. He page protected one version and then went against consensus to "fix" what he thought was a typo. It wasn't. It was the consensus version of being grammatically correct.
NLP: Trying again
Oh, and about the Uncyclopedia comment...
No way! AHHH! Don't make me go in there! I want my blankie! I WANT MY BLANKIE...AND MY MUMMY! Nah, i like Uncyclopedia, I may get an account some day, but I wouldn't give Wiki up for it. Right, read Daniel's talk to see my apology and add if you must. Yes, I am into The Streets. My plan is to also write an article on 'Popcorn and Fisticuffs' by Example, as it is a funny and cool song. Well, see ya around.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 19:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The song is part of a concept album. Basically, Mike has had a fall out with his girl, and is now after someone at McDonald's. However, she is a show-off...she's fit, but she knows it! A white-shirted man wants her too. Mike tries to get her but stops for a mo to get chips and drinks. When he gets back she runs at him...then runs into the arms of the white shirted man. He gets himself drunk, then laments it in the following song Such A Tw**. Good album.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Seduction community AFDs and Aldrich
Thanks for your comments on my talk page, and your comments in the recent AFDs where you pointed out the existence of reliable sources on those topics, a fact that I was trying to underscore to other users. I definitely understand Aldrich being frustrated after he wrote many articles on a subject he was passionate about, many of which got nominated for deletion at the same time. However, his comments towards you went way out of line. Clearly, he has recently become involved in the seduction community and is working out some issues involving women in his life. I've observed that some new members of the community go through a dogmatic phase, a misogynistic phase (or both). One common pet peeve of men in the seduction community is when some women will deny that certain approaches or techniques will work (as you did in the AFD, which is when he started lashing out at you), when men in the community feel that they do work. It can be a very touchy subject for a man when (a) during adolescence he is rejected by females in favor of males exhibiting behavior X, (b) he tries out behavior X later at the behest of the seduction community and finds it to produce what he considers results, and (c) he encounters women who deny the effectiveness of X. Many men in the seduction community perceive a disparity between women's stated preferences and behaviors (a disparity that is supported by some research, and may exist for both women and men). However, when encountering disagreement from a woman on the effectiveness of seduction techniques, I don't find the most constructive approach is to try to convince her that she actually would respond to them. When I discuss this subject off wikipedia, I would instead suggest that even if she might not respond to such behavior herself, other women do at least enough to fuel the perception among pickup artists that the behavior is effective. I hope this helps explain, thought not excuse, why Aldrich responded to you with such anger. By the way, it would also interest you to know that many pickup artists don't actually like negs: they are considered effective in some situations and with some women, but not everyone likes the type of interactions they create (see this for instance, though it's probably not citeable in the article unfortunately). --SecondSight (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I put a header on my user talk page. I will be on a semi-break due to being the recipient of incivility. I will not embarass these people by naming them. I will probably be back. Presumptive (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
saw your pruning
I saw your pruning of the links in the Satanism article. I also noticed that you adopt users. Would you adopt me? I would like to be under your wing. 903M (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you. I promise to work with you and to write well in Wikipedia. 903M (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Peace process: pseudoscience
See my message on FT2's talk page and suggesting of mediation process. I think there are some important lessons to be learned from recent incidents, and would value your input. Let me know on my talk page. See also the points I discussed with Guy. Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I just found another one - Methods of neuro-linguistic programming - of these articles. How many are there? Peter Damian (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You got the right project. A lot of us, the people who like black metal, are thought of as Satanists. Black metal normally has satanic lyrics/anti christian lyrics. (not all black metal is satanic, some of it is thelemic too along with other things) Undeath (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't remove your comment. You were not canvassing at all. Notifying groups who deal with this stuff is NOT canvassing. It's not like you posted the message on individual talk pages. Honestly, I'd like you to re-add that information. I'll defend you on the AfD. I know it's not canvassing. They are just becoming flustered because they will not be successful in deleting a good article. Undeath (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to defy you or ignore you. Your advice is well taken. However, in WP, informal mediation by nice people is not against policy. In fact, it is very much allowed. If the provisional council's first case is more like mediation, that helps and doesn't harm. If we are ineffective, we can disband. If we are wildly successful, we can coexist with an editorial council and maybe even help out. 903M (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit help in satanism! The Catholic comment was a shot at CoS of course, they are the only ones that believe the reality they are trying to push on others.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Provisional Editorial Council
I want to make a Template to mark works in progress, but I'm scared that someone similar those who took part in my infamous Geez... comment will come and I'll have half the blummin' encyclopedia laying into me. Should I go for it? Or should I let it pass?--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 14:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- It was for-dare i say it-project pages. I'm balancing it, so I can do Projects and Articles. They are mainly on songs. 2001: A Space Odyssey got an 'interpretations' page, so I'm goin' for a Pink Floyd The Wall interpretations page.
you can find the new template at:
That your hard work on Hail Satan led to the closure of the AfD as keep. It was very nearly a case of WP:SNOW, really. Well argued and defended in the nomination discussion. ColdmachineTalk 17:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|