![]() | This page 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. |
Someone keeps removing the link I added a the BBC news story, but this and other recent stories state quite clearly that Perelman has indeed declined the award, so I am trying to remove the fact flag. --- CH 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed your dissatisfaction with the way the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was deleted, so I thought I'd let you know something I recently discovered. I was surprised to see that of the four AfDs [1] [2] [3] [4] and two DRVs [5] [6] concerning ED, there is never any mention of this article which was published in the British Sunday Magazine The Observer or this posting at the well known blog Kotaku. Both of these sources are generally considered reliable, and both are indexed by Google News and LexisNexis. That neither of these was ever mentioned by anyone in any of the reams of discussion generated by this controversy, I find amazing. Although I personally have not made up my mind as to whether the article merits inclusion, I thought it only fair to notify you of what appears to be a major oversight in the deletion process. Thank you, and please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page. -- Nscheffey( T/ C) 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain why you edited the userpage of User:Ronin.shinta, [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and his talkpage? [13], [14]...I suppose he is your friend as you calim in that last diff. But it seem odd to say the least... [15], [16]. and after the kind of personal attacks I see coming from him [17], [18], I am hoping he is just your friend, and not simply another account of yours. It also seems odd that you showed up on my talkpage and then he did. Wikipedia is not a playground so be careful. Also, I'm done talking about Encyclopedia Dramatica...so I don't want to hear another word about it on my talk page, thanks.-- MONGO 04:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, friends or not, remember that Wikipedia isn't a playground. I doubt that I could make you understand why the ED article was deleted, though I think I made myself clear. Have a good day at school.-- MONGO 10:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The article wasn't verifiable, and that is policy. I told you I didn't want to hear about that website again on my talk page.-- MONGO 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Last warning...you mention that website again on my talk page and I will block you.-- MONGO 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you unable to read? The article wasn't verifiable...move on.-- MONGO 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ask User:Nandesuka, who closed out the deletion on the article...maybe he will provided the evidence you claim I can't. There isn't anything else I can add so, best to ask elsewhere.-- MONGO 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone wanted to find my messesages, they can be located here. MONGO removed it as "trolling" right before he archived his talk page. -- AlexJohnc3 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
I'm not sure how you found me, in your quest to determine the truth about the ED article, but I hope I can tell you what you need to know. It does, indeed, come down to those two policies: WP:V and WP:NOR. The basic problem is that there's no secondary source saying anything substantive about Encyclopedia Dramatica. The site simply hasn't been documented by independent writers. If we're going to apply the same standards to websites that we apply to other organizations, companies, individuals, etc, then we can only report information that's been reported already by some reliable source. That's the basic argument for deletion. If some media coverage arises, or if someone doing a scholarly work on Internet culture or something decides to document ED, then we can use that source to write an article, until then, we've got nothing to work with.
Does that answer your question? - GTBacchus( talk) 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
MONGO threatened to block you for what he perceived as trolling, which I take to mean pushing a contentious conversation (on a subject which he is particularly sensitive about) to a point of provocation. He did clearly warn you, which is rather better than finding yourself blocked out of the blue without knowing why. And he didn't block you anyway.
ED is different because it attacks wikipedia and its editors, which tends to make them somewhat aggrieved towards it and therefore not want to include it in wikipedia. This doesn't mean it will never get included. It just means people aren't going to be falling over themselves to do so, and, if possible, will exclude it. The situation is made worse by the fact that ED, like some other sites critical of wikipedia, exposes private and personal details of wiki editors/admins, when it can find them out. This can be embarrassing or even dangerous, as admins have received death threats on occasion, and the transition from online to RL harrassment can occur. Jeopardy to a person's job is another possible outcome.
P.S. If an admin threatens to block you if you continue to post about a certain subject on their talk page, it is prudent not to continue to post on their talk page about that subject. And who ever said it was going to be easy?
Tyrenius 23:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's notable enough for an article now.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.236.244 ( talk • contribs)
Hi Alexjohnc3. I'm sorry but I don't believe that your changes were an improvement to the Justice article. Please feel free to discuss this on the article's talk page. Ben 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your edit in Protestantism, but I did want to point out that historically speaking, China probably would qualify as Third World. The First World used to mean Europe, the US and its allies; the Second World was the USSR and its allies, and the "Third World" was pretty much everyone else. More recently though, Third World has come to mean struggling countries with little GDP and a lot of poor. Peyna 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've put back the Firefox TOC. Please could you checkout the discussion page for it to see why it's been removed. This is a legal issue, so I will remove the Swiftfox box, but leave the others for you to do, or to justify on that page. Widefox 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
With regards to your comments on User_talk:MONGO: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Tbeatty 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Guinnog 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
MONGO's not the only one editing your userpage. Buahahaha! Miltopia 18:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The next time you infer that I am a dick, you'll be blocked. Remove your comment from Miltopias talkpage now.-- MONGO 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
HELLO- K37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You've got email! Miltopia 02:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It's perfectly normal to delete the talk page of a deleted page. And as for the protection, well it's hard to believe that that's a genuine question from someone who innocently and genuinely is wondering and has no intent to harass and annoy another user. I'll give you a little piece of advice it you want to avoid being blocked for disruption and harassment. If someone deletes something from his own talk page, assume that he has read it and do NOT attempt to repost it. If you are sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia to be able to check logs and know who deleted or protected a particular page, then you are also have sufficient knowledge to be able to work out for yourself why the page you refer to was deleted and protected, whether or not you agree with the decision. AnnH ♫ 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you and MONGO have it out for ED, especially after reading your comment on the DRV (in which you felt the need TO USE ALL CAPS FOR SOME REASON). I've had enough of the crap coming from people like you who feel they can abuse their privileges as administrators. I would like you to stay away from me and that's especially true for MONGO who has made multiple edits to my userpage without my permission, though he knows much better than to do that. Now go away and play in some traffic. -- AlexJohnc3 (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
On another note, I can't believe I tried to apologize to MONGO. I hate it when I try to be nice to people who are too arrogant to even realize their mistakes. Oh well, that's what I'd expect from someone like him. I guess I'm just not used to people like MONGO; I've had more experience with the religiously crazy than the power/censorship/anti-criticism crazy type. -- AlexJohnc3 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Don't leave spurious "vandalism" warnings. There are a number of valid reasons for removing content from talk pages; if you're confused about an edit by an established user, assume good faith and ask for a clarification. Throwing around the word "vandalism" is likely to lead to any concern you may have being dismissed. Jkelly 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, if you're wondering about the ED talk page getting to deleted you should take it to the deletion review, like they did with wikifur. That way you won't have admins jumping down your throat :-( Miltopia 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alexjohnc3! Re your message on Nov. 20 2006 to FAAFA. Please refrain from such comments which cause an atmosphere of greater conflict. [23] Wikipedia's rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. Thank you! ^_^ -- Electric Eye ( talk) 03:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, After seeing your edit, I see your point; however, I am inclined to revert the edit because the section in question (Argument in favor of United States sovereignty) describes such a fringe position that I didn't want to create a POV problem by giving it undue weight. As such, I noted that "a small minority" believes thus. Let me know if I have misunderstood. Thanks. Ngchen 02:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page 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. |
Someone keeps removing the link I added a the BBC news story, but this and other recent stories state quite clearly that Perelman has indeed declined the award, so I am trying to remove the fact flag. --- CH 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed your dissatisfaction with the way the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was deleted, so I thought I'd let you know something I recently discovered. I was surprised to see that of the four AfDs [1] [2] [3] [4] and two DRVs [5] [6] concerning ED, there is never any mention of this article which was published in the British Sunday Magazine The Observer or this posting at the well known blog Kotaku. Both of these sources are generally considered reliable, and both are indexed by Google News and LexisNexis. That neither of these was ever mentioned by anyone in any of the reams of discussion generated by this controversy, I find amazing. Although I personally have not made up my mind as to whether the article merits inclusion, I thought it only fair to notify you of what appears to be a major oversight in the deletion process. Thank you, and please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page. -- Nscheffey( T/ C) 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain why you edited the userpage of User:Ronin.shinta, [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and his talkpage? [13], [14]...I suppose he is your friend as you calim in that last diff. But it seem odd to say the least... [15], [16]. and after the kind of personal attacks I see coming from him [17], [18], I am hoping he is just your friend, and not simply another account of yours. It also seems odd that you showed up on my talkpage and then he did. Wikipedia is not a playground so be careful. Also, I'm done talking about Encyclopedia Dramatica...so I don't want to hear another word about it on my talk page, thanks.-- MONGO 04:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, friends or not, remember that Wikipedia isn't a playground. I doubt that I could make you understand why the ED article was deleted, though I think I made myself clear. Have a good day at school.-- MONGO 10:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The article wasn't verifiable, and that is policy. I told you I didn't want to hear about that website again on my talk page.-- MONGO 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Last warning...you mention that website again on my talk page and I will block you.-- MONGO 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you unable to read? The article wasn't verifiable...move on.-- MONGO 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ask User:Nandesuka, who closed out the deletion on the article...maybe he will provided the evidence you claim I can't. There isn't anything else I can add so, best to ask elsewhere.-- MONGO 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone wanted to find my messesages, they can be located here. MONGO removed it as "trolling" right before he archived his talk page. -- AlexJohnc3 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
I'm not sure how you found me, in your quest to determine the truth about the ED article, but I hope I can tell you what you need to know. It does, indeed, come down to those two policies: WP:V and WP:NOR. The basic problem is that there's no secondary source saying anything substantive about Encyclopedia Dramatica. The site simply hasn't been documented by independent writers. If we're going to apply the same standards to websites that we apply to other organizations, companies, individuals, etc, then we can only report information that's been reported already by some reliable source. That's the basic argument for deletion. If some media coverage arises, or if someone doing a scholarly work on Internet culture or something decides to document ED, then we can use that source to write an article, until then, we've got nothing to work with.
Does that answer your question? - GTBacchus( talk) 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
MONGO threatened to block you for what he perceived as trolling, which I take to mean pushing a contentious conversation (on a subject which he is particularly sensitive about) to a point of provocation. He did clearly warn you, which is rather better than finding yourself blocked out of the blue without knowing why. And he didn't block you anyway.
ED is different because it attacks wikipedia and its editors, which tends to make them somewhat aggrieved towards it and therefore not want to include it in wikipedia. This doesn't mean it will never get included. It just means people aren't going to be falling over themselves to do so, and, if possible, will exclude it. The situation is made worse by the fact that ED, like some other sites critical of wikipedia, exposes private and personal details of wiki editors/admins, when it can find them out. This can be embarrassing or even dangerous, as admins have received death threats on occasion, and the transition from online to RL harrassment can occur. Jeopardy to a person's job is another possible outcome.
P.S. If an admin threatens to block you if you continue to post about a certain subject on their talk page, it is prudent not to continue to post on their talk page about that subject. And who ever said it was going to be easy?
Tyrenius 23:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's notable enough for an article now.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.236.244 ( talk • contribs)
Hi Alexjohnc3. I'm sorry but I don't believe that your changes were an improvement to the Justice article. Please feel free to discuss this on the article's talk page. Ben 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your edit in Protestantism, but I did want to point out that historically speaking, China probably would qualify as Third World. The First World used to mean Europe, the US and its allies; the Second World was the USSR and its allies, and the "Third World" was pretty much everyone else. More recently though, Third World has come to mean struggling countries with little GDP and a lot of poor. Peyna 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've put back the Firefox TOC. Please could you checkout the discussion page for it to see why it's been removed. This is a legal issue, so I will remove the Swiftfox box, but leave the others for you to do, or to justify on that page. Widefox 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
With regards to your comments on User_talk:MONGO: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Tbeatty 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Guinnog 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
MONGO's not the only one editing your userpage. Buahahaha! Miltopia 18:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The next time you infer that I am a dick, you'll be blocked. Remove your comment from Miltopias talkpage now.-- MONGO 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
HELLO- K37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You've got email! Miltopia 02:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It's perfectly normal to delete the talk page of a deleted page. And as for the protection, well it's hard to believe that that's a genuine question from someone who innocently and genuinely is wondering and has no intent to harass and annoy another user. I'll give you a little piece of advice it you want to avoid being blocked for disruption and harassment. If someone deletes something from his own talk page, assume that he has read it and do NOT attempt to repost it. If you are sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia to be able to check logs and know who deleted or protected a particular page, then you are also have sufficient knowledge to be able to work out for yourself why the page you refer to was deleted and protected, whether or not you agree with the decision. AnnH ♫ 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you and MONGO have it out for ED, especially after reading your comment on the DRV (in which you felt the need TO USE ALL CAPS FOR SOME REASON). I've had enough of the crap coming from people like you who feel they can abuse their privileges as administrators. I would like you to stay away from me and that's especially true for MONGO who has made multiple edits to my userpage without my permission, though he knows much better than to do that. Now go away and play in some traffic. -- AlexJohnc3 (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
On another note, I can't believe I tried to apologize to MONGO. I hate it when I try to be nice to people who are too arrogant to even realize their mistakes. Oh well, that's what I'd expect from someone like him. I guess I'm just not used to people like MONGO; I've had more experience with the religiously crazy than the power/censorship/anti-criticism crazy type. -- AlexJohnc3 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Don't leave spurious "vandalism" warnings. There are a number of valid reasons for removing content from talk pages; if you're confused about an edit by an established user, assume good faith and ask for a clarification. Throwing around the word "vandalism" is likely to lead to any concern you may have being dismissed. Jkelly 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, if you're wondering about the ED talk page getting to deleted you should take it to the deletion review, like they did with wikifur. That way you won't have admins jumping down your throat :-( Miltopia 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alexjohnc3! Re your message on Nov. 20 2006 to FAAFA. Please refrain from such comments which cause an atmosphere of greater conflict. [23] Wikipedia's rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. Thank you! ^_^ -- Electric Eye ( talk) 03:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, After seeing your edit, I see your point; however, I am inclined to revert the edit because the section in question (Argument in favor of United States sovereignty) describes such a fringe position that I didn't want to create a POV problem by giving it undue weight. As such, I noted that "a small minority" believes thus. Let me know if I have misunderstood. Thanks. Ngchen 02:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |