Daedalus969 (talk | contribs) →Vandalism: r |
→Barnstar: new section |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
{{user:Kww/RFAspam}} |
{{user:Kww/RFAspam}} |
||
:—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
:—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Barnstar == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:CopyeditorStar7.PNG]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Copyeditor's Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I [[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]<small>([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">Contribs</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[WP:CFL|<font color="black">WP:CFL</font>]])</small> award you the Copyeditor's Barnstar for your top notch copyediting of [[Michael Vick]]. Keep it up! [[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]<small>([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">Contribs</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[WP:CFL|<font color="black">WP:CFL</font>]])</small> 02:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 02:14, 24 October 2009
Welcome!
Hello, SluggoOne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 05:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
IP block
Sorry that you were unable to edit recently, but as you can see at Special:Contributions/64.136.26.226 this IP has been vandalizing a lot lately. I'm afraid it is not quite as easy to just unblock a username and not an IP just yet. So I have unblocked the IP for now. Please be aware that if the vandalism persists there may be more blocks, however we will try to keep them to a minimum now that we know that your IP is used by many users. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
please tamp it down
This isn't harassment but it's in the leafy outskirts. Please talk about content and sources, not what you think might befall other editors. You might think it was harmless, but nonetheless this kind of post only stirs things up and won't get you what you want for long. This is meant as a warning, but a friendly one. It's not to be seen as taking sides in any content or PoV dispute. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy note: I wanted to let you know about this conversation. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
RfC Collect
Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Joe the Plumber (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is indeed very much still open. Feel free to comment. Soxwon (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- That was quite the comment. Cheers. Mattnad (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sluggo, regarding your RfC comments, please remove (not strike but remove) the comments about another editors being "insane" and "arrogant dolt". This only makes you look bad, not the editors you are talking badly about. The most sucessful editors on wikipedia are editors who keep it cool, and never call other editors names (some refer to this as being passive agressive). If you want to bitch about editors, do it off wiki, in email or wikipedia review, not on wikipedia.
- There is already a request to move your comments to talk: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Collect#Outside_View_SluggoOne
- I was thinking of emailing you*
- *You should activate your email account at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences. Most editors will not look at your user page for your email, and you will get into a edit war with an editor and they will spam your email. You can have the user page deleted by adding {{db-author}}, so no future editors will get your email
- Anyway, I was thinking of emailing you, but your behavior seems a little self-destructive and unpredictable, you seem to be attacking everyone and everything. I don't want any help I try to provide you to blow up in my face (I am reminded of user:deeceevoice). Ikip (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know, I know. It's about me, not what I said. The guy's gone, hopefully for good, so who cares? It really takes some odd priorities to see the havoc Collect has wrought and think, "gee, this other random guy ought to be more civil." Based on your considerable efforts at the RfC, you definitely have better ways of spending your time. (Thanks, also, for the concern, but do you have Gmail? Their spam filters are the best, bar none.) SluggoOne (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have gmail and yahoo.
- Unfortunatly on wikipedia bad comments are more punished than disruptive behavior. I dont like it, but that is the reality we must live in. I support NPA, but I feel like disruptive behavior should be punished more.
- Best wishes, Ikip (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have not been punished a bit, and I maintain it's because, unpleasant as my comments may be, I haven't actually said anything wrong and what I say tends to agree with consensus. Most people are just as appalled by Collect's arrogance as I am; the only thing that annoys me more is the lack of reaction by people (read: admins) with the power to keep him in check. I make no apologies. I'll be watching the discussion at ANI if it ever happens. I assume I won't be asked to contribute.
- You ought to phase out your Yahoo email. I did. Yahoo mail and Hotmail are just not as good as Gmail, which was a predictable ending, wasn't it? SluggoOne (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- RE: "I have not been punished a bit" your a new editor, who has not crossed powerful editors. All our edits are recorded here, ready for opposing editors to harvest. I am simply trying to help you avoid my repeated 4 years of turbulent mistakes here on wikipedia. Recently, I attempted to help an editor here, who talks a lot like you: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Dream Focus This is your future.
- Your edits are minor and no threat to any established editors, but if you ever cross one of these editors, you will be on ANI, just like Dream Focus, who has your same attitude. When you get reported to ANI, editors will not agree with this comment: "I haven't actually said anything wrong and what I say tends to agree with consensus"
- You are incredibly lucky that you have not crossed an vendictive established editor yet, otherwise you would already have a block log, which will follow you as long as you are on wikipedia with this user name. My first block was 24 days after I started editing. Seven months later I was indefinetly booted. Ikip (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- My life wouldn't be that heavily damaged should WP, or my ability to interact with it, vanish. I can find all sorts of knowledge about Joe the Plumber without consulting his WP page. I've had to, actually. His page is still garbage. The reason I'm barking fire on here so much with so little regard for the potential consequences is that I genuinely am not concerned with my reputation. Ban me, shun me, whatever. I don't care. That's the primary difference between me and Dream Focus. Strange as it may seem, I behave the way I do because I don't have a personal investment in the project. I know what I'm doing. Spotty as my history is, it still shows that I've been editing on here almost four years. (Believe it or not, my first edit [1] came a few months before yours [2].)
- And look: I am able to attack Collect like I have been because nobody likes him. Consensus is impossibly stacked against him. He is despised. You didn't really try to talk me down from that claim, either. You just sort of transferred it onto a hypothetical future fight. I am not really afraid of the fallout should I attack an established editor in this fashion, because anybody who could be called "an established editor" would not be as constantly useless as our subject. I have never shown the slightest tendency towards attacking anyone even remotely worthwhile. (Collect and Gwen Gale, on the other hand...) Should an ANI or RfC ever actually be brought against me, it will be without its subject's input. Kind of like the RfC on Collect...SluggoOne (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know, I know. It's about me, not what I said. The guy's gone, hopefully for good, so who cares? It really takes some odd priorities to see the havoc Collect has wrought and think, "gee, this other random guy ought to be more civil." Based on your considerable efforts at the RfC, you definitely have better ways of spending your time. (Thanks, also, for the concern, but do you have Gmail? Their spam filters are the best, bar none.) SluggoOne (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- That was quite the comment. Cheers. Mattnad (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Your recent example of Collect's behavior was a good example, but as you may note Soxwon reverted it because of the language around it. Why don't you reintroduce it, but just use neutral language to describe the context of the (failed) attempt by Kevin to come to a resolution with Collect. Regards. Mattnad (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This was not vandalism and you were wrong to call it that as you did here. It was a good-faith attempt at re-wording the article for readability, and it in-fact improved readability. You are not allowed to call and label good-faith edits as vandalism. Such falls under our policy on no personal attacks and incivility. For what vandalism is, read the link in the section title for this section. Do not do it this again.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reverted both your edits because you did not initiate discussion regarding what you called my "good faith" edits. IP has been inserting the same stuff on Surrogates (film) against consensus and has repeatedly ignored requests for discussion, pushing the reverts into vandalism territory and certainly separating them from good faith. Based on IP's other edits, IP does not appear to be a terribly helpful editor. "Currently" ranks right up there with "also" when it comes to completely useless words, and I literally believe the exact opposite of what you said regarding readability. Please do not revert anything without a settled discussion or, at least, an explanation why I am wrong when I say that the word is useless. Sluggo | Talk 06:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, those edits are not vandalism. Just because you disagree with them does not make them vandalism. Secondly, discussion is not required for small changes in wording like that. Thirdly, edit warring for a change doesn't make that change vandalism. It doesn't now nor will it ever. Fourthly, there is no consensus for the article's current condition. Opposition by a single editor does not make an edit against consensus, and indeed, there are no such discussions on the talk page.
- Based on what edits, specifically. Please, list them here, and tell me how they are vandalism.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Go have a thorough read of WP:VANDALISM, then come back and tell me what type of vandalism you think the edit falls under, and why.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whenever this sort of thing starts up, I ask myself: "Do I have a reason to care?" In the case of Surrogates, in which a random IP started repeatedly inserting incorrect English usage for no apparent reason, reverting my corrections, and ignoring my request for discussion, I decided not to put too much stock in it. This whole thing jumped the shark when, apropos of absolutely nothing, some random wannabe admin showed up to my talk page and whined at me in a paragraph that, appropriately, had seven grammatical errors in six sentences. This individual proceeded to restore the IP's usage errors on the article. Do I have a reason to care? No. Let me know when you've read this so I can delete it. Sluggo | Talk 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
RFA spam
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
Barnstar
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
I Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) award you the Copyeditor's Barnstar for your top notch copyediting of Michael Vick. Keep it up! Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC) |