User talk:The Crying Orc

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear The Crying Orc: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! 5aret 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your tests to several Deletion Pages

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 5aret 19:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have put the phrase "Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall." on several pages without additional comment. If this is stating you're position on a page deletion or not, please explain. Thanks. 5aret 20:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only time you have truly explained yourself is in the deletion article Christian Metal which was speedy kept. Some editors may not know of that page on other deletion articles, such as in the Death Shriek article. You will need to explain yourself for why that article should be deleted or kept, not just putting that phrase. Thanks. 5aret 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, glad to be of some help! 5aret 21:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during October 15 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. _→AzaToth 23:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal

No problem, luckily I caught the user just as they were going on a spree on inserting that same rant across as many metal articles as possible... that's an official Deiz indefinite block offence.. give me a shout if you ever need admin help on metal articles. Deizio talk 09:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I apologize if you feel that I am harassing you, I will cease immediately.

As for reverting your edits, I think I have provided an adequate edit summary for each of them. If you ever feel that this is not the case, I would suggest you use the article's talk page to let me know. From what I have seen, you tend to ignore it and simply edit away. While there is nothing wrong with this, it often helps your point to discuss what you think is wrong before changing it, so other editors can see where you are coming from.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I'm a little confused by this. I don't think I have added any commentary or personal analysis into an article. If you feel that I have, please point it out.

I always try to assume good faith. However, the policy also states that one does not have to in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Some of your edits border on vandalism, especially your additions of multiple citation needed templates to the Christian Metal and Christian Punk articles. While I feel that you are fully entitled to your opinion on those genres of music, and that you are correct that they have a serious lack of sources, adding that many cite tags, and some in a manner that breaks links and images, is not a productive way to go about doing things.

In conclusion, I apologize, and I hope that your knowledge of heavy metal can be useful to Wikipedia, you do seem to know quite a bit about it. --Lim e tom 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of the bad faith issues could be resolved if you simply followed two simple steps:

The fist is something that is expected of every Wikipedian, that is making sure you included verifiable information that is properly cited. Granted many people do not do this, but especially on points where there is some contention, it can help clear up misgivings from the side that does not share your view point. This gets more and more important as the scale of the controversy or disagreement increases, such as in the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide articles.

The second is that before you make the changes, you might want to try and discuss them on the talk page. You could, for example, discuss where you feel the article has a problem. I did such here. While it didn't amount to much, I think it is a pretty good example of how to go about what you seem to want to do on some of the articles.

According to the vandalism policy, what you did with the citation needed tags technically does count as vandalism (especially the ones that broke links and images), however your intent seems to dictate otherwise. I would suggest that in the future, instead of adding citation needed templates, you instead go for one of the NPOV boilerplates, which add a message that the article or section in question seems to not follow a neutral point of view. You can find them here. --Lim e tom 20:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graveworm

It was vandalism because you damn well know that Graveworm aren't Christian. Everytime you edit it I will edit it --Inhumer 22:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Vanity"

Hey, I just wanted to let you know to not use the term "vanity" in AfD discussions. There's been a lot of controversy over that. A better term to use is "conflict of interest" as noted at WP:COI. Just FYI. - Lex 02:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4-4-1

Hi,

As the closer of the DRV on this article, I just wanted to make clear that I did not accept the contention that your nomination was bad-faith. The deletion was overturned because of additional references only. Anyone "insulting" you on this count, as you suggested might be happening in the AfD relist, is in error.

Also, if I may, a scholarly aside on your userpage. God, as the name of the single Deity of monotheism, is traditionally capitalized on the basis of specific exception provided for names of the Deity of monotheism. This exception dates back to at least Middle English, when capitalization was sporadic, and any important noun might be capitalized solely for emphasis. Hence, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, wherein capitalization of such phrases as "Common Welfare," etc., occur that would today be considered anachronistic. The modern rules of capitalization that we learn in grade-school were adopted gradually over the course of the mid-to-late 19th century, and don't really govern some archiac uses, like capitalizing God.

This capitalization of the Deity is not specific to a "Christian" Deity, or even to the Abrahamic one. Any Supreme Being, of any monotheistic religion, may be capitalized when referred to as the only God.

The proper name of the Christian (Abrahamic) Deity is not "God," but is usually held to be YHVH, ineffable, but vocalized to Yahweh by some. Wikipedia has fine articles on all these subjects.

You are, of course, free to use the miniscule when referring to God as a calculated political gesture of denigration. As I strongly dislike fundamentalist Christianity myself, I do have some sympathy for that gesture. The gesture has more meaning, in my opinion, if one understands the context underlying the capitalization -- the theory currently expressed on your userpage appears to lack an understanding of that context, which I have now (only slightly) tried to provide. Reading Wikipedia's articles is a wonderful way to explore these subjects further. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xoloz. It is good to see that not everyone here is a bigoted, closed-minded moralist! I followed your advice and read some articles on capitalization, but then became sidetracked into typography and from thence to Dio Cassius (via Garamond) and from there to Josephus and back to Christianity. A hyperlinked encyclopedia is a wonderful thing. The Crying Orc 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Couch (of doom)

WP:MfD is the proper venue for nominating User and Wikipedia namespace pages. (I think it's for portals as well.) --tjstrf talk 18:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Userpage

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. It's much appreciated. I've also removed the comment I made about the MfD. It doesn't seem fair to you for the comment to remain. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. The Crying Orc 09:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Mosley

Hi - I reverted the edits for the following reasons:

A) I felt that describing the actions of Lloyd George as "connivery" is unencyclopedic, and I would consider "connivery" a weasel word.

B) You removed mentions of confrontations with Jewish groups and inserted "Communists" and "violent Communist" when the word "Communist" had already been used to describe the hecklers - giving the appearance that communists were the ONLY protestors involved.

C) I think that the memoirs point is fair enough - but ought to have a citation.

D) I feel that it would be better to add information about the newspaper image rather than removing it simply because there is a lack of information about it at the moment. Granted - the image doesn't state its source, but that should be dealt with as a seperate issue rather than simply removing it.

Thanks. Yeanold Viskersenn 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church article deletions

I follow these and tried to get something going toward a guideline, but only got a few comments when I started a topic (now archived) at Wikipedia:Notability. I have saved a copy of it at my talk page, and I would welcome your thoughts there. I object to notability being restricted to megachurches, although they are usually notable by virtue of having lots of newspaper and magazine articles. Churches might otherwise be famous because of a famous preacher or member, because some religious doctrine invented there started a new important movement or denomination, because an important musician (Bach? Thomas Dorsey?) or style of music (Gospel?) or famous hymns originated there, or because the building is famous architecturally, or because it is in the news all the time (blown up in the civil rights movement, hotbed of radicalism) or because they were recognized by an outside body as important in some way. The key thing appears to be multiple independent reliable and verifiable coverage, as in newspapers, magazines, and documentaries. What do you think? Edison 17:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page under the relevant heading. The Crying Orc 18:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...I seem to recall you doing the same for me, once! The Crying Orc 06:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reverting another vandal. =) -- Gogo Dodo 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Zephaniah

I wondered if you realised that this only looked like nonsense because a good article on a notable person had been vandalised. It's been restored now. --Poetlister 17:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church Notability

I've started a page on notability guidelines for local churches. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) Lurker ^oi! 11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research warning?

I don't see how this is original research. —Centrx→talk • 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Cooper

Regarding you edit from about a month ago on Christian metal, Alice Cooper is a Christian. If you listen to albums like Dragontown, you might even call his music such. Tim Long 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHURCH/WP:CONG to be labelled as "Rejected"

There is a move to label this proposed guideline, to which you contributed,as "rejected." Please add your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks. Edison 05:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...

So, why aren't you a Christian? -23_PatPeter*∞ 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but this dude apparently has a biased grudge against anything Christian, or religious, and it's really making Wikipedia look a biased itself on many of the articles he edits. What really bothers me is the fact that he actually stuck the phrase: "Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall," in an edit on the Christian Metal discussion page and a few other discussions, which not only makes little sense, but it is unprofound and NOT the place it should be. Now it may be just me, but do I sense a certain bias? All I ask is that if you (Crying Orc) go out editing pages, at least don't make them biased. You call Christians biased for their beliefs, yet you seem to be the one shoving trendy beliefs down throats with your partiality. I for one am no fundamentalist, nor am I an extreme liberal, but I do believe your preconceived notions should be kept to yourself and out of an encyclopedia such as this one. Yes I am late with this comment, I know, so just bear with me here. A neutral point of view is needed and is policy, so please obey at least that if not anything else. Thanks for reading, and I hope you have a good time with Wikipedia! IronCrow 03:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mental health issues?

Is he seriously suffering from mental health issues, or did someone vandalize his user page? 76.229.173.22 14:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he put it there. I've always seen after he vandalised the Christian metal page... constantly... But I think it's meant as a joke.IronCrow 04:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]