User talk:Wee Curry Monster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.
  • I will normally reply to your message on your talk page but will frequently reply here if it is warranted. To be honest, the way I respond is chaotic and haphazard, don't be offended if I forget. For information, I have removed all user pages from my watchlist and the drama boards of WP:ANI and WP:AN, I am not interested in that nonsense.
  • Please post new messages at the bottom of this page and don't forget to give your message a heading.
  • Remember to sign using the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message.
  • Please be civil, if you fail to be civil I will simply ignore you.
  • As a Glaswegian (born, bred and proud of it) I speak directly and don't pussy foot around. Whilst I'm direct, I do try to be polite. I have observed there are far too many editors on Wikipedia who take offence at comments I and others make. Usually this is because they read into a comment, a totally unintended meaning. Remember text is a crap medium for conveying nuance. What you interpret as sarcasm in all probability was a light hearted or jocular remark. Textual communication is further complicated by cultural differences in the way English is used. For example: An American describing something as quite nice will mean it as a compliment, whereas a Brit is more than likely saying it is crap. If you find yourself here after taking offence at something I've written, breathe, count to ten and assume good faith before posting.
  • If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I do tend to delete what I regard as niff naff and trivia.
  • Repeatedly adding the same message to my talk page will simply piss me off and more than likely just be deleted. Refer to WP:3RR, I can delete comments on my own talk page if I like but you don't get to badger me. Per WP:UP#CMT I am perfectly within my rights to remove comments.
  • If you're asked not to comment here then please respect that and don't.
  • There are a number of friendly talk page stalkers, who have my permission to remove comments that are unwelcome. If they do so, please respect my wishes and do not revert.
  • I do not claim to be infallible, occasionally I'll revert something in error.
  • I've also noticed a tendency when editing on my tablet to occasionally hit Rollback by accident. If you've spotted what you think is a strange edit of mine, accidental rollback is usually the answer. Feel free to point it out to me but if its rollback I would suggest you just revert; I don't mind people fixing my screw ups.
  • If you're here because of the revert of a reasonable edit, then may I suggest you first of all ask yourself did you provide an informative edit summary or properly source the edit I reverted. You will find a civil comment will receive a reply (and most likely an apology if warranted).
  • User:Antandrus some time ago wrote an excellent essay entitled observations on Wikipedia behavior. I suggest it as recommended reading to everyone.
  • I used to do a lot of work on recent changes patrolling to stop wikifiddling, vandalism and partisan changes to the articles on my watchlist. I don't tend to do that much these days but long ago came to the conclusion that most people who post such crap do so because they think Wikipedia exists to right great wrongs or set the world to rights. Sorry but, newsflash, it doesn't; its an encyclopedia nothing more. A bed rock policy of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view. Contrary to popular opinion this does not mean we have to represent ALL views. Rather wikipedia represents the predominant views in the literature, this doesn't mean that we represent fringe material with undue prominence. The more advanced POV pushers decide after reading a bit of policy that sourcing makes their edits bulletproof. Wrong again. Sources have to be reliable, so the conspiracy website or the book by a crank doesn't mean your edit is sacrosanct. If you've come to wikipedia because you're convinced J. Edgar Hoover was the second gunman on the grassy knoll please jog on. I've pointed you to relevant policy about why your edit was removed in what was intended to be a humorous manner, so please don't bug me any further.
If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia or frequently asked questions. If you need editing help, head here.
To all the garbage trucks I've offended unwittingly, I just want to...
1.) Smile.
2.) Wave.
3.) And wish you well.
4.) Bye... I'm moving on !
Have a nice day ! Face-grin.svg

Inactive user 20171[edit]

Hi. I saw your case at ANI. I confess I'm sceptical. This, this and this look like the work of a rabid Catalan nationalist, while "Inactive user" was rabidly anti-Catalan. Also, this edit on a talk page changed the signature of "Inactive user" to hide his former username, but stated the old username in the edit summary! That's not like him either. Scolaire (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm certain that I'm right, the editing of his user page was a dead give away. The editing of the Catalan pages is a crude attempt at diversion. WCMemail 07:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Plus as soon as the ANI incident was raised he went quiet, that's classic for this editor. WCMemail 07:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, he continued editing for hours after you went to ANI, including editing your talk page archives. His last edit was at 21:31 (UTC) on 16 July 2017, just before the rangeblock. But if you're convinced, I'll say nothing more. Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)