Open main menu

User talk:Starship.paint



Stepping awayEdit

It is with sadness that I will soon (UPDATE: that's now: July 2!) depart the project for an unspecified amount of time. First and foremost, I’m dealing with personal problems. Contributing here is no longer a positive use of my time, at this time. I need to focus on myself. Secondly, my recent block has affected me. Editing is no longer the same, not that the editing has gotten worse, but my mood has. Suggested reading: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Recent research, particularly the paragraph on The authors concluded that... With my recent DYK promoted, there’s nothing much pressing left. Maybe you can contribute to how exercise should be portrayed at Talk:Donald Trump. Maybe you can weigh in for my suggestion, the latest topic at Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Maybe you can help me update WP:FRAMSUM. Maybe you can create a quality article on a notable woman (or notable anything, really). But I can’t for now. I’m doing this for myself. starship.paint (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I understand. You have been very active. I hope that you have a restful vacation. If Wikipedia is still operating when you return, then you will be welcome back. I would appreciate a ping when you return so that I can greet you. --Pine (✉) 06:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Pine:, okay, I will. Thanks! starship.paint (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, did you change your mind regarding taking a break? That is okay, but if you need vacation please take it. I would rather have you go on vacation and then return well rested than have you burn out. --Pine (✉) 06:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pine: - no, I didn't change my mind. I'm ... erm ... doing some stuff before I go. When I read things, I feel compelled to edit. I will do less reading during my break, so I won't feel compelled to edit. Rest assured, this is no burnout risk. Other than my article edits, you can see from some of my posts on talk pages that I'm gearing up to leave in peace. starship.paint (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pine: .... right... that's that. I think that's all the content I wanted to add. No more reading of Fram stuff until I officially return, unless someone notifies me. I'd probably log in a few times in the next days to respond to notifications, but other than that... think you're right. It should be break time. starship.paint (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to hear that starship, since you were normally a nice person to me and did a good job all around. I always saw you being active end editing pages. Hopefully you can come back eventually and help out more  . Bill Williams (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry the block affected you, Starship.paint. Tempers are very high and people are on edge. I don't know if it helps to think of it as something that is in part about the situation we're in, and that it will be viewed by others in that light also. I hope that when your personal things are wrapped up, you'll feel like coming back. --valereee (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: - saw your message when I came to post on my own ArbCom case request. Turns out I already posted. Hahaha, it’s funny you mention viewing it in that way - because I actually do, and it doesn’t help. I put a quote somewhere, it’s on Britishfinace’s talk page, that hints to what I think. I don’t think the block wasn’t anything personal from TonyB, we have no feud, neither do I think that TonyB blocked me to silence me on WP:FRAM. I know you’ll be an admin soon, Valereee, so you definitely should read the Signpost link I linked above. Alright? :) starship.paint (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'm sorry it doesn't help. I had already read that signpost passage you linked, and it references a longer passage in the full report. I will read that, promise. And let's not count our chickens before they're hatched, lol. Best wishes to you. --valereee (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Valereee: - no need to be sorry, in fact, thank you for trying to help! I appreciate it. Best wishes to you too. starship.paint (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Take good care of yourself and your entourage. No worries: we'll keep the wheels turning around here. — JFG talk 05:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks JFG. Yeah, I'm sure the major stuff will be covered. I'm just one person - tiny in the overall scheme of things. However, I should keep away from the news to stay away XD starship.paint (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I know, I've been there.[1] you'll make it! — JFG talk 08:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: - thanks very much! starship.paint (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a SnoopyEdit

  and a *bonus*
These are trying times around WP and I was reading some of the contributions over at WP:ARC (including yours) and I thought you might appreciate one of my all-time favorite images from Commons. As an added bonus here's one of my very VERY favorite WP-articles: Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office.

Better days are ahead, things just sort of suck at the moment... Shearonink (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Was posting this and then read your posts above. Take care of yourself, sorry to see you step away but I *get* it. Hope you feel that you can come back someday. Shearonink (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
That’s so sweet Shearonink. Thank you! Ah yes, ARC, one of the last things for me to settle. But I think enough people have weighed in (and will continue to weigh in). starship.paint (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Two years ago ...
 
ultimate warrior
... you were recipient
no. 826 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

... and four! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

... and five! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions noticeEdit

This happened on 27 June 2019. starship.paint (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

GuidelinesEdit

... I've compiled the list of guidelines for me to adhere to: no outing, no adding more off-wiki statements to the summary, no attempts to seek the identity of anonymous editors, and no asking for personal details. starship.paint (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Before you goEdit

What is the most popular color of starship paint? Jehochman Talk 11:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism By All IPv6Edit

Hi Starship.paint, I suggest all IPv6 to be permanently range blocked globally because all this IP's are wrecking havoc and attack on user Gundam, hope you can to rangeblock globally on all IPv6 permanently to prevent any attack on other users. 113.210.101.3 (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m no admin! Can’t help you there. Make a report at WP:ANI. Also, I’m not an expert on IPs, but it sounds like you’re asking the whole world’s IPv6 to be blocked? Surely that can’t happen. starship.paint (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
A WP:semi-protection would block all IP editors, both V4 and v6. Not a big fan of protection myself, it's usually applied too soon, too liberally, and for too long. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC).

Barnstar & replyEdit

  The Content Creativity Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to editor starship.paint for many years of fine article creation, and friendly colloration with other editors.FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


There's always a risk that when someone posts on my talk they might get a rather TLDR response.  

I'm going to be a little blunt, but only as I think this might be helpful, as it looks like youre having trouble dis-engaging, even though you know it's what you need to do. (I'll also send a brief email with a point I don't want to make on wiki, that will be a bit softer)

I don't need your advice on Framgate, and the community as a whole needs it even less.

You've said you've got some personal problems going on that need your attention. That being the case, the last thing you should be doing is wasting your time trying to help with a complex situation like Framgate, with all the dark energy flowing about it. That is not to imply youre making things worse. I've reviewed your contribs to the matter and would say you've been a big net positive overall. All credit to you for that. But as you yourself have admitted, you are misreading many aspects of the situation. Your post on my talk was just another example. If you carefully read my statement, it suggests I already knew what Fram had written on meta. I was just saying that MLG actions were fine as at the time she would have had reason to think Fram had effectively cleared the article. And if I don't need your help on this, that's far more true of the community as a whole. Many editors older &/or much more experienced than myself are giving Framgate good attention. Folk like Kudpung , Jehocman, Stephan Schulz , Doc James, Iridescent, Risker, Dennis Brown, Swarm, Richie333, Aquillion , the Arbs, and many others not mentioned. These are serious editors. They don't need help from you or me to guide Framgate to the best possible resolution. Which won't be perfect, nothing can ever compensate for the loss of good editors like LH, but we should end up with a Wikipedia that is more inclusive & tolerant of mistakes, while also hopefully getting the WMF to revert its ban & desysop.

The complexities of Framgate could easily 100% consume any individuals time over the next few weeks. You've clearly signalled you need to spend that time on yourself. Time is so often critical , but we don't realise until its too late. Unless I'm misreading, there's quite a storm coming - of which the nonsense that's erupted across the world since 2016, now invading even the once rational safe have community that is Wikipedia – is but a foreshadowing. Now is the time for any young individuals to grow strong roots so they can sand against what is to come, and contribute for the good. On a more personal level, middle age can be quite sweet if you get well established when your young. It's much harder to compensate once your 50+, if such people have procrastinated on sorting their personal lives out for too long, then life can be full of bitterness & regret. So get going & sort out whatever these personal problems are!

But please do come back to Wikipedia once you have things sorted out. I see you've been quite shaken by the block. It might seem empty if I say that's no big deal considering I have a clean block log. So here's a short story. A few months back I was in a content dispute where the only honourable play was for me to take actions where from a harsh but still reasonable policy interpretation, I'd deserve a block. That didn't bother me. I'm not comparing myself to much more talented writers like Giano or Eric Corbett. But when I consider their block logs I sometimes commit the sin of envy, as it proves they are passionate. In various statements I made during the dispute to admins I openly said it would be fine if they wanted to block me. All this is not to say that its not best to be sanction free, just sharing the perspective that's its not really a big deal. Anyhow, if I may take the risk of speaking on behalf of the community, we very much want you to come back, but only once you've done what needs to be done in your personal life.

If you find this advise useful, no need to thank me. The best response would be just to log out, get a grip on the personal issues, and then come back in however many weeks or months it takes you to get things sorted. I'll leave a wiki kitten to guard your talk page in the meantime. And I know its easier said than done, but try not to worry about Framgate. Take it on faith that the community can handle it. We've got this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


Replied by email. Some stuff for the watchers: I'm over my 'stained' block log, and I'm not worrying about FramGate. starship.paint (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

For the strawberries, but I actually was thinking more of many other editors who were far more productive than I was, & who served as shining examples until one day they were the subject of an WP:AN/I thread -- & then were gone. Just because they weren't at the very top of the pile, or distinguished themselves in some way (dying before her/his time seems to be the most common, I regret to observe), TPTB neglected to single them out for praise when it could have made a difference. But anyway, you take care of yourself & try to keep out of the Wikidrama: it's addictive, & too much is as bad for you as street drugs. -- llywrch (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Llywrch: - thank you for the well wishes. I wasn't aware of the examples you raised, so the least I can do is just pass some appreciation to you. starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Starship.paint, I suspect you must feel rather beaten up after all the drama that has happened, and I just thought I should drop by and offer you my good wishes. I hope that you will be of good cheer! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Tryptofish: - thank you for your kind thoughts. I will be honest to you: in the immediate aftermath of my indef block, I confronted the harrowing possibility that my unblock request would be declined, and that I would not be able to return. I coped by mentally producing the epitaph of my Wikipedia career - I prepared to leave with my head held high. I’m afraid, as I have found out, that one does not simply return to Wikipedia the same after that. I’m not especially unhappy, it’s just that this has left a scar. starship.paint (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    You may be interested to know that I, too, was indeffed once, by ArbCom no less (and that set off an immense s–t storm)! I can attest that there really is wiki-life after being blocked. After all, it's only a website. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Tryptofish: - wow. It seems like you extremely qualified to comment here. In your case, you felt that your block was something of a statement, or an somewhat of an example being made to satisfy something like 'tradition', or as other editors pointed out, procedure. I'm sorry you went through that, but I can see that you were better equipped to deal with it, as even then, you've already had the mindset that this was only a website (which is true). starship.paint (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    ... and from your case, I read Jytdog's retirement ... and from that, a case request from Black Kite against BU Rob13 for comments about The Rambling Man. Funny how life works. starship.paint (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declinedEdit

The request for arbitration User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock has been declined by the committee. The arbitrators' comments about the request can be viewed here. – bradv🍁 03:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trump administration migrant detentions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'M BACK, BUT NOT THE SAMEEdit

So, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Sometimes change is good for us even if it comes to us unwillingly. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Liz: - I don't know at this point. I'm not saying that it is bad. starship.paint (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope it's a good thing. --valereee (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: - thanks :) perhaps it is neutral now, may it be good soon. starship.paint (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Immigration policy of Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trump National Golf Club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Trump administration migrant detentions for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trump administration migrant detentions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump administration migrant detentions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Racial views of Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palm Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 at Women in RedEdit

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131


Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red...

Virtual events:


Editor feedback:


Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

YOU'RE kind of the opposite of criticism!Edit

It's your blessing and your curse, whatever that means. But seriously, when someone prefaces a "compliment" with "at least", they're being "ironic". It's like the comedic equivalent of Aja Kong backfisting an elephant into next week on rollerskates or whatever.

Anyway, I know I said I'd be back in 45 days, but I've decided the best way forward this week is hiking westward, and this week starts tomorrow, as dumb luck would have it. No Wikipedia, no women, no worries. Just one man chasing his dream of cutting off and eating a mythical beast's tail or getting bored trying. Hope you don't mind if I "write you a rain check", as the children of tomorrow used to say. Whatever strange change has come over you on the weird and wooly watercoaster that was The Last 44, just at least know that I'll always remember you're like a bird.

Now fly, my frazzled friend, fly high and never forget everything I've taught you (except the part about backfisting an elephant, that's just gross). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - YOU'RE not even a real editorial, that's right. Actually, that comment of his was revealing why he ultimately preferred Republicans to Democrats, instead of hating both equally. What's wrong with women? Tell me in 45 days. I won't be backfisting any elephants. starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Well yeah, everyone has a slight favourite once they think about it. If you held a Patriot missile battery to my head and told me to pick a lapel pin, I'd choose Democrats. But once you were out of earshot, I'd say it once and I'd say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work.
.You know what the problem with women really is, bird? They all start with W. You just don't see many manly men hanging around with worries, Wikipedia and whatnot, at least figuratively. And literally less likely to stumble across a woman in these wild woods. They're either wicked witches, white Wiccans or wedded wives. My rhetorical grandfather always said, son, if you're going to break up a marriage or interrupt a ritual, do it in polite society, in broad daylight. That way, nobody can possibly shoot or curse at you.
Seriously though, pretty uneventful trek, saw nobody bigger than squirrels of indeterminate gender (no telltale nuts) and devoid of particular political persuasion. Nice, though, in a filthy sexless hippie way. Glad I live in a people house again, though, kind of. Might just be because tonight is rainy. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, August 10, 2019 (UTC)
That's a fast 45 days, oh yeah, we don't see many manly men in wrestling, I wonder why? Wheeeee starship.paint (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
You can use world wrestling wisdom to prove anything, though, doesn't really prove anything. Or does it? In any case, I didn't realize the 45-day intermissions were mandatory, sheesh. But I get it. You're a starbird now, don't need ol' Boogeyhulk weighing you down with tales of broken clocks, wounded worms and dreaded red backstage mist (did you hear Rip says the worms are too good for Zeus?)
Seriously though, we should cowrite a reboot of No Holds Barred where absolutely nothing is different except every character is played by a woman and the bad guy is a moronic white unibrowed skinhead (Charlize Theron? Charlotte Flair? Roseanne?) First time for everything, just saying, and if we don't grab that moolah, you know who will, Koko? Women! Stealing our ideas! What would a woman know about wrestling, except everything we do and more.
Anyway, no rush. Keep on Trumpin'! Sorry for sheeshing you earlier, that wasn't very Stephanie McMahonly of me, but there's no rewriting it now...or is there? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, August 10, 2019 (UTC)
The intermissions are not only mandatory, but there's gotta be no wrestling during them at all, unless you're using split screens. Keep your mouth runnels, Hulk, on and on. How about skinhead Cate Blanchett? She's hela fine! starship.paint (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet youEdit

  Greetings
~ thanks for the warning ~ lol ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mitchellhobbs: - you're welcome, I've added one more statement made by Trump [3], thought you may be interested. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please readEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 08:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: - did you mean to post something in the second template? starship.paint (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Damn, I thought I'd fix that. Did you know there's now a self-awaremess template? {{Ds/aware}} Doug Weller talk 08:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Doug Weller, I've implemented that! starship.paint (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
You need to move it to the top of your talk page. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Doug Weller - done, thanks again! Got a question for you though. So we can't add a list of victim names to the article. How about prose of victims including the names? starship.paint (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't been following the discussion and at the moment simply don't have time. Wife's away, I have my dog, her dog, and step-sons difficult dog to look after and I need to walk ours at least 4 miles a a day! Doug Weller talk 13:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't been following the discussion either. Have fun on your walk! starship.paint (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


Talk:2019 Dayton shootingEdit

Please don't remove content from an archive page. We have a procedure for suppressing content that, for a policy reason, should not remain publicly visible. That procedure was followed in this case and suppression was rejected. While this specific content may or may not be useful in the future, removing content directly from an archive page establishes a precedent that anyone may remove content from an archive page that they don't think is useful or that they want to try to hide from view. This is not the community's policy. General Ization Talk 13:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: - I'm not going to contest your revert, but frankly, you should be more flexible. We have WP:IAR for such purposes. starship.paint (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Please explain why you think we should ignore this rule. "Because I think so" isn't a valid reason. General Ization Talk 03:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
General Ization - (1) The original poster did not have any legitimate gripe with the picture. (2) The original poster went into more detail about the shooting than what was already covered and also talked about inspirations of copycat shootings, and thus ironically is even more likely to inspire a copycat shooting. (3) Primefac, while declining suppression, [4] said: My personal suggestion would just be to remove the thread and let it fade away into the history of the talk page. - I am interpreting removing the thread as physically blanking it from the archives, because the diffs of the content themselves are still preserved in the history of both the talk page and the talk page archive. (4) The original poster, myself, and Nice4What want the thread to be deleted, you're the only one in the way of it. starship.paint (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Primefac's advice meant to do exactly what was done, which was to manually archive the thread, thus removing it from the Talk page. If you think they meant something else, you should ask them. As I explained, my concern isn't specifically about this content, but about the notion that anyone may remove anything they would like to remove, for any reason or for no reason at all, from a Talk page archive. Whether you see it or not, that would result in chaos. The diffs still exist, but the discussion cannot be readily reconstructed from the diffs to, for example, cite it as precedent in another discussion in the future. While I understand that hiding the content is what you think should happen (or have happened) in this case, that was not the determination of the Oversight team and I don't think you, the original poster or Nice4What should substitute your judgment for theirs. General Ization Talk 03:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
When I wrote my opinion, the discussion was still on the talk page, and removal/archival would mean that it would no longer be immediately visible (which seems to be the main concern). If outright removal were appropriate, then it would likely have been revdel'd or suppressed. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan OmarEdit

Please revert your edit. We are in middle of discussing it on the talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Trump administration migrant detentionsEdit

 On 18 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trump administration migrant detentions, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. Border Patrol agents reported that some migrant detainees at the U.S.–Mexico border in 2019 were housed in standing-room conditions for days or weeks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trump administration migrant detentions. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Trump administration migrant detentions), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Advice on working on languageEdit

Please pardon the question, I'm trying to get better at this.

At Talk:List of concentration and internment camps, do you think I should be editing the block of text I put in green? Or do you think I should reproduce the whole (or parts) of the text every time I make a change?

--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: let's just edit the text in green. starship.paint (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jair Bolsonaro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 at Women in RedEdit

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135


Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

What planet are these people on?Edit

I have checked the Bible on this issue. There is no "God-given right" to own weapons. These people are fucking insane. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @JzG: - they're on the same planet as you and me. Now, that seems like something to pray about. starship.paint (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    @JzG: - frankly, these mass shootings convinced me that there is no higher being that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent (see Problem of evil) What does it say about any higher being that does not take action simply because people have not prayed enough? starship.paint (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    Starship.paint, the fundamental problem when you allow religion into politics is that you don't get to vote for the pastors. You substitute the judgment of unelected religious leaders for any objective fact. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    @JzG: - that's an astute observation, and certainly a problem. But isn't there a very similar problem for any kind of lobbying and special interests? starship.paint (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    Starship.paint, up to a point, but usually the lobbyists are not deferred to in the same way that preachers are. Preachers set themselves up as authorities, as final arbiters of Truth™. Lobbyists will argue their corner but not normally in such absolutist terms. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    @JzG: - yes, the preachers directly influence the voters, if that is what you are arguing. I was considering a different point: when a politician speaks, is it really their words or their lobbyists'? starship.paint (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Sharpiegate" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sharpiegate. Since you had some involvement with the Sharpiegate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lmatt (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited AEW All Out, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!Edit

  Thank you for joining the discussion on RD: Carol Lynley with some very strong arguments that helped in gaining consensus to post. DBigXray 10:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

BackEdit

To take a famous ruling by the Honourable Robert Palmer slightly out of context, you might as well face it, you're addicted to Trump. Could you not have waited till Halloween to dress WrestleMania IV and V's esteemed patron as an influential demon familiar of a libtard snowflake turned racist gun-rights monster hailing from the other side of the damned country? You could have at least waited till Canadian Thanksgiving to stuff those fully loaded references from "in your house" into a simple quotation about general Republican population control tendencies. Was that really called for, this soon in the endless election cycle of hell? You be the judge, I guess.
Anyway, if you're looking for a good show about demons, drinking and disenchantment, I nominate Disenchantment. Part three should be out shortly before Kamala Harris seemingly makes the Million Dollar Team's mystery partner allegedly submit in his own backyard, and three months after Bernie Sanders is literally lowered into a casket by the undertaker. I won't spoil the part about the elf and the princess for you, on either side of the mirror, just out of common decency, but they're quite good at turning me on.
Good to have you back in the old royal rumble, that's the important thing, better early than never! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, September 28, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: - you’re a freakish mind reader. I thought I didn’t edit Trump articles during this break. But I just logged in to do so. starship.paint (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
My only uncanny abilities are of the Beastmaster, Firestarter and Millenium varieties. I couldn't even tell you about your first tattoo (or lack thereof). If your ATM pin number begins with 80, that's just a coincidence.
As for your relapse back to the future, a renowned frontman for The News once blamed The Power of Love. It was long ago and far away, sure, but objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are. Not to put too sweet a point on it, but have you ever considered your complicated celebrity bromance with this large orange blonde nWo leader may in fact not be unlike oxygen, whereas a bit gets you high then too much and you die?
Indulge responsibly and drive safely, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: - there's been a huge scandal about Trump lately for Ukraine, but I didn't edit anything about that, though I was tempted to. I think that's improvement! starship.paint (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I filled in for you on that one, unwittingly. Not as much as you were probably tempted to, or from the same angle, but something. Editing Trump's lead is a harsh trip, reminded me of the tedious load times back when ISIL was infamous. I don't see myself chasing this dragon into the cold turkey weeks ahead, but it wasn't a totally wasted experience. I got to catch up with Mr. X again and chat about the illusory nature of power in the art of the deal, and met a curious character who seemed to truly believe Joe Biden might win the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Battle Royal and go on to challenge whomever the champion of his choosing may be when the quadrennial thanksgiving extravaganza runs wild on you, brother. Can you even imagine?
Ugandan Headhunter all the way, I say, though I feel I should immediately apologize for saying it like that. It's just that I read a stimulating interview today with The Wizard, published shortly after he sold his pair of touring savage slaves to the devious Mr. Fuji and was unceremoniously shipped back to Hawaii (like House Minority Speaker Daenerys Targaryen, 'member?) He raised some valid points about how Kamala and Sika were destined to manifest greatness over the corpses of all the Real American Hulkamaniacs because Fuji understood the Forbidden Mysteries of the Orient like no slickster nor weasel nor Mouth of the South ever could. He refused to disclose specifics of the ancient campaign strategies to "unbelievers" through the press, but did say music helped soothe the wild beast and that Kimchee was key to the plot. He revealed the mighty Kamala would soon eclipse the setting Samoan son, because size does matter and lo, it did come to pass.
Got me thinking, you "hail from the East" and watch over the West, don't you? Have you ever noticed how amazingly racist the interference and introduction of foreign objects game was before Trump drained the Jersey swamp in '88? And have you ever heard Biden cut a promo where he mentions tagging with a Puerto Rican, Samoan or Italian? Even Vince Sr. knew it took more than putting over Bobo and Big Cat. Where's Jose Luis Rivera? Spiros Arion? Ivan Putski? Tito Santana? Rene Goulet? Rick Martel? Tony Garea? The Tonga Kid? Satoru Sayama? Kendo Nagasaki? Any one of those beloved old-timers could go full Asuka on all parties if they'd JUST BRING IT, you know? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, October 1, 2019 (UTC)
Yeah it definitely isn't easy doing anything to the lede, but I've done so anyway. Ha! Mr. X or Wikipedia's MrX? LOL. It's Prime Minister Daenerys, actually - and it's also kimchi. Less lo and more Io. Yes, I do remember PAC, check him out! No, I can't remember anything from 1988. The thing is ... are you ready? starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been meaning to see what the pre-WWE online fuss was about for some time, but something older or newer always comes up first. If you're ready for the deepest, darkest dirtsheet scoop on real Kimchee, Google "WWF Magazine June 1987". Also contains a riveting alternate history piece on what might happen if Idi Amin's bodyguard met up with a walking condominium within the confines of a squared circle. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:25, October 1, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: - that cabbage was more like Rorschach! starship.paint (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. To be clearer, I meant the fuss about PAC. The rest is open to interpretation, just like Marianne "Lightning Kid" Williamson and her little birds, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, October 1, 2019 (UTC)
Or did you mean Kimchee looks like Rorschach? If so, yes, I believe you are correct, sir. This is...most troubling. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:27, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
Also, you seem to have gone from away until October to back until October. If true, that is most troubling! Kimchach can wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
Fixed the paradox. Yes, Kimchee is cabbage, the reincarnation of our ink blot! Seems like Doctor Manhattan ain’t so omnipotent after all. starship.paint (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
In this rebooted timeline, I return triumphantly out of the blue, just ranting about Robert Palmer for reasons made unclear to the audience. Seems a little "rushed". Has my character been developed enough for this penultimate meltdown, or will it all seem like years of wasted foreshadowing? Am I even still married to Janet in this one? Wait, no. The Wizard. All coming back to me now. We must stop the Living Receiver in 28 days! Not a second sooner or later. And by we, I mean you. I can't work under these wildly fluctuating conditions. I'll be in my trailer. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
Man, who knew Mysterio was really Donnie Darko? You should have, Hulk, you were there! Yer a wizard! starship.paint (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Dude, not every stark raving Maple Leaf Wrestling fan famous for playing an unconvincing '88 Hulkster online is Stuart Stone. At the time that movie was shot, I was still just a regular smalltown teen with ordinary dreams of a Y2K-ready Christina Applegate and three-dimensional Smurfette one day coming together to solve America's greatest problem of the day: a tremendous dearth of international interspecies deepfake hypnosis porn.
Then 9/11, Viacom and Avatar changed everything. Suddenly the idea of a skeleton playing the xylophone in front of an older woman in a position of power while his sister's dead boyfriend watches in reverse through water just wasn't "hot enough for TV" anymore. Jack had to get ripped and go to Iraq, while Margaret had to get naked and molested by a heterosexual midget for national security reasons. Not cool, man!
America owes those siblings big, and what better way to make Republicans suck a fuck than giving them high-level cabinet positions as a symbolic gesture toward reparation and reconciliation? If any Democrat can promise the Gyllenhaals will make everything better for Hollywood types, I will do my utmost to support your campaign through official Algonquin folk magic. No joke. Quid pro quo, yo! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, October 3, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: - your alternate timeline is really wacky. Just like this one! starship.paint (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, beneath my velvet lies, there's a truth as hard as steel: the vision never dies, like some neverending wheel. One day it's an ocean, one day ice in motion, one day it's a teardrop in your eye. One and one and one make three, got to be good-looking if it's so hard to see. These things I say, does my purple prose give me away? These things, some say...they're unavoidable (Oh!)
Seriously though, shine on, you crazy diamonds! Maybe in another year, the pain will disappear, and you can look back on your life as if it were a dream. Hope springs eternal, so put on the glasses, get comfortably numb and wish you were her! Change is an illusion, but what we choose is our choice, and what's a boy supposed to do? Maybe you were blind before, but you're not afraid, anymore!
Alternatively, if optimistic Top 40 nostalgia waves are somehow inappropriate in this dystopian future, might I suggest dropping out of the race entirely and tuning into the voracious march of godliness that makes us all the same anyway? Meaning Paradise Lost, not Bad Religion. A middle road less traveled might begin again in Andrew Jackson Jihad's semi-unforgettable ditty, "Love Will Fork Us Apart". InedibleHulk (talk) 11:03, October 4, 2019 (UTC)
Who can say where the road goes? Where the day flows? Only time. Next on my playlist. It's my party, I do, do what I want! starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 Southeast Asian hazeEdit

 On 28 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Southeast Asian haze, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

SpencerT•C 16:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Hong Kong protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikkei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey YouEdit

  I just wanted to say I've seen you around a lot and appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. I always enjoy seeing your signature show up on a talk page, even if we don't have perfectly matching viewpoints or opinions. Thank you for contributing, even if life gets hard, and I understand needing to step away for periods. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Gwenhope: - thanks for the kind words Gwen, I do my best on-wiki. I haven't seen you around anywhere before today, actually. A fellow connoisseur of purple, too! I took a look at your user page, and I hope you will recover from your mental health issues, though it isn't an easy journey. I was surprised at how much personal information was on-wiki. By the way, your Twitter account link on your user page is broken due to the extra @. starship.paint (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I know you do, I've seen it. I guess perhaps we've been talking past each other on different page sections or such. I've seen you quite a bit. Mental health issues suck. Anxiety and depression suck, and gender dysphoria and interpersonal drama to boot doesn't help.   Thank you, I've fixed that Twitter link now. We do both indeed enjoy purple!~ Best color is best. Regarding personal information, I believe in openness, honesty, authenticity as best as life allow us to be. Please feel free to talk to me anytime, on-wiki or off-wiki. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Gwenhope: - stay strong during this tough period, you can do it! Actually I think yellow is best, but it doesn't show up well here! Purple is second :) Also, thank you for the kind offer! starship.paint (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Latest revert at Hunter BidenEdit

I undid a recent addition on the grounds that (a) it's not Wikipedia's job to dig through bank statements, (b) we should stick with what the more recent reports in more reliable publications say, and (c) the text didn't accord with its own source (turning "most months" into all months, for example). You probably have an opinion on this. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: - while I do not really care about the specific content in question, I would say that is a good revert because the sources are lacking. starship.paint (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I've about used up my capacity of caring, too, though I did leave a reply here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hunter Biden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Invasion of SyriaEdit

My post was an edit conflict..Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Also I would watch it, not sure you are not not too close to 1RR.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: - I'm pretty sure I'm exactly on 1RR. Not planning to revert any further. starship.paint (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: - frankly the article is a war zone and if people insist on doing day-by-day updates then 1RR will be totally overwhelmed. starship.paint (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that was (in essence) my first ever post there. I think that no edits without discussion DS might be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

thanksEdit

I thought that was a productive discussion, and I think that subsection was much improved by your edits. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: It ain't over. Regarding [5], I did find a source which said the Federalist did not mention that. [6] The Federalist used a screenshot of that field to illustrate its story. What the article didn’t mention or screenshot is a nearly identical field gracing Form 401 since at least May 2018, making it impossible that it was added as an easement for Trump’s whistleblower. The major difference in the fields is that the old form includes three options instead of two, subdividing secondhand sources into outside source and “other employees.” starship.paint (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, it's never over. Even if you revert my changes, I still think it was a good conversation that produced a productive edit. As for this quote you've provided, I don't feel that I understand the point being made, but it is certainly misleading to say that Davis didn't mention the two boxes when he had a picture of the two boxes in his story. If you want to try again, be my guest. What's the language you're proposing to add back in? We should probably discuss on talk, not here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Shinealittlelight: - Davis mentioned the two boxes of August 2019, Beast acknowledged (The Federalist used a screenshot of that field to illustrate its story.). That's not the problem. Davis didn't mention the May 2018's three boxes (article didn’t mention or screenshot is a nearly identical field gracing Form 401 since at least May 2018). That's my point. If you understand that now, we don't need to go to article talk, because in my view it's a reading error on your part that can easily be resolved. starship.paint (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I don't understand! He didn't mention the boxes at all. What you're proposing to add gives the false impression that he made a mistaken claim about the boxes. But he didn't, since he didn't say anything about the boxes on any form at all. I think the point you mean to make is something like: "when Davis claimed that the forms were changed, someone might have thought that he believed that the box about second hand info was added in (even though he didn't explicitly say that). But it later emerged that the boxes were present in some form all the way back to 2018." If that's the point, my reply is: Davis didn't say anything about the boxes, and we are not justified in thinking that he meant to imply something about them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
You're a reading error! Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Shinealittlelight: Okay - I'll take it to article talk (later) instead of reply. I'll also revert (later), but probably with an alternative wording to address your above post. But not now. Will take hours. Thanks for being nice and collaborative. I do appreciate it, and you're not even a real editorial. starship.paint (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. Good luck with the revision. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 at Women in RedEdit

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143


Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Request for commentsEdit

I invite you to participate in the ongoing discussion at Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#RFC: Add any foreign countries as "support" of the protesters at infobox. KasimMejia (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me KasimMejia, I was aware of the discussion, but I have no opinion as of now. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Starship.paint".