User talk:WikiuserNI/Archive 4

Plato's Stepchildren

This article, like most Wikipedia articles, contains uncited statements. (For example: the second sentence.) There is no need for every statement in a Wikipedia article to be documented by a published reference; a statement can be verifiably true even if no published document exists that verifies it. (The opposite can also be true: Many documentable statements are false.) This particular statement is true; that is not a matter of opinion; if you are uncertain, then please read Telek. I have reverted your change and added a tag. Good hunting!LyleHoward (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference Question

In your opinion, are references made in DVD commentaries by South Park creators acceptable cites? Twinsrulemlb (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I've used them myself. Alastairward (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Right on. Is there someplace on the internet where the transcripts of the commentaries are stored so you can link to it? What's the proper way to cite a DVD commentary? Twinsrulemlb (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's one thing I'm not too sure about, citing them. It was used to cite Cripple Fight, but no reference tags were used. Otherwise, I've heard that if you google for southpark stuff, there's a wiki that hosts them. Not sure if that's legal or not, but they're certainly out there. Alastairward (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Fuckhead

Quit acting like the all mighty editor. It is not up to you to decide whether something is adequately cited to be on Wikipedia. Your argument that there can't be any orignial research is utterly ridiculous. Everything is original research at one time or another. Let the reader decide or bring it to the talk page before you decide. Leave it alone until you are given premission by the group. I think more people like the cultural references in South Park than do not. So under rule of the majority leave it alone or you will be deleted. 15:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Whut?... Alastairward (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with him. You're doing more harm than good. So what if it's not perfect, imperfectly sourced, but right, knowledge is better the bare and empty articles you are leaving in your wake. Do you realize how many people come to these articles thinking that they recognize something but can't place where and then can't find out where because of people like you? 129.107.81.12 (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Whut?... Alastairward (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What the two above IP editors are TRYING to say is "stop removing stuff because YOU disagree with it."--68.79.118.160 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Whut? Alastairward (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is like an episode of WWE Raw with Stone Cold Steve Austin saying "WHAT?!" to everybody.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WHUT?! Alastairward (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What?!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What you say? Alastairward (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

     What?!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're doing a lot of damage to the Wiki community. Please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.61.63 (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoi? Alastairward (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Anonymous IP, I thought the same thing--but he really is HELPING the South Park Wiki by getting rid of nonsense.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, get a fucking job or a hobby or whatever. People like you make me seriously sick, it seems to me like your whole life consists of, in this case, stupid rules that you obey without ever actually using your brain. Trivia, Cultural References and things like that are the sole reason I even read episode guides, but I always have to look at the talk page just because you didn't find anything better to do but delete everything that doesn't have a source. Except for, maybe the episode itself, ever thought of that? And I don't give a fuck if that doesn't fit the WP rules in your opinion, start THINKING for once. How hard is it to just watch an episode and get the facts right? 88.67.12.251 (talk)

So, your only answer is a link to the Civil page? I asked you to use your head for once instead of applying to the rules like a robot, but you seem to be either unable, or unwilling to even try. That's what happens when people get obsessed with something, in this case making the South Park episode guides totally uninteresting and boring, taking any point of them away. Thank you. You really achieved something in your life, my hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.33.194 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for not taking me seriously and linking me to the Civil page again. I'm asking you again to explain why in the world it is your hobby to destroy all those articles. What's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.15.234 (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't work this time, as I didn't attack you personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.143.33 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not stressing at all, just asking you politely to answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.143.33 (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah whatever

Second Intifada

I added five references at the talk page, three talk about a third intifada with the start of the israel-gaza war and two even say that the second ended way back in 2003 or 2004.BobaFett85 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I have been away from the computer for some time. But please accept my apologies for the vandalism warning placed on your page previously. I am (very) new to this and saw that a large chunk of the article had been removed without anything being put in its place, on the surface it looked like vandalism. Please be assured that it was done with no malice on my part but was simply a newbie mistake. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. This guy is a total dick - he should have been banned for vandalism a long time ago but instead huddles behind a few cherry-picked Wikipedia rules and smugly camps on a few articles until everyone gives up, at which point he acts like he's a God. Feel free to put the vandalism notice back on.89.10.27.174 (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OHMIGODIEDITEDANARCHIVEDPAGE89.10.27.174 (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Chill out dude, the faster the better

Are you trying to template me now? What's the deal with that? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please share your thoughts on the Pandemic Talk Page. I solicited a Third Opinion, and continued a discussion on it here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with you overall, I would've preferred to leave the passage as it was in order to give AliGFan an opportunity to discuss it first, since reverting while there is an ongoing discussion is against policy, and I figured it would've been a better sign of good faith to wait until he's had his say. Nightscream (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

BRD

You reverted my edit while the discussion was open. Civility or not, you're lucky this is the cyber world, you miserable stalker... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Towelie

Can you provide the relevant Diffs so I can see precisely what you're referring to? Nightscream (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude...

I don't really care either way, but you *are* being a control freak and a 'wiki-Nazi'. Lay off with the removals, or better yet, make yourself useful and look up the obvious connections yourself so that they work to your standards, don't just being an ass hole and remove something just because it bothers you and hide behind "it's not up to wiki standards". 129.107.81.12 (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you can't merge without any discussion

You've been on the South Park episodes list, and I see you've been merging some of the episodes. You've been doing it, however, without anyone's advice and open discussion. You need to have some opinions before you just merge it without anyone consulting with you. Got it? Keep doing it and I'll inform an admin. The Video Game Master (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll overlook the harsh tones and simply ask for any particular policy that your demands fall under. Alert an admin right now actually if you feel you must. Alastairward (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we continue this discussion here. I've given my thoughts on this matter there. Nightscream (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your position, but let's discuss this on the aforementioned Project page. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, have just done so. Alastairward (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I try to start a consensus discussion, I usually click on the History page of the relevant articles, and notify every registered editor. I usually notify about 12 - 20 people, but in the last one I started just a week or two ago, I notified 30 people. That way, I can say that I did not violate WP:CONSENSUS or more specifically, WP:CANVAS. Nightscream (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A well deserved barnstar

		The Redirect Barnstar
		For taking on the 800 pound Gorilla of "cultural references" to improve the concentration of encylopedic content!-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

South Park Cites

Just for reference, where can I find some reliable sources for cultural references?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

try news.google.com or books.google.com

Most of the results for those searches are generally considered to meet our reliable sources standard.-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Red Pen. I left some comments on the merge proposal section.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I left an admonishment on his Talk Page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Season episode guide codes

I know a lot of people like using the episode table template, but have you ever looked at this setup? It uses significantly less space than the other code, and looks virtually the same. I used a similar code for the "List of" tables in my sandbox, and the original season 1 table took up about 6.5 kb. When I implemented this code it only took up about 2.5 kb. Just a thought.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I could go with that, tables in Wikipedia aren't my forte so I just took what was already there and ran with it. Alastairward (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions to rules

Please explain why you can use WP's rules and exceptions to your liking, when at the same time you refuse to admit the legitimacy of WP:COMMON SENSE, WP:NOTOR, WP:IAR and so on when it comes to my edits. Now that is bordering on personal attacks. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to me reverting your edits to my sandbox, my userspace is my userspace, simple as that. Alastairward (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still Wikipedia though. You are more than welcome to create a blog elsewhere (that is, where these rules do not apply)... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Coon cultural references

Hey Alastairward. Regarding your recent edit to the cultural references section of The Coon, I know cultural references can be sort of a tricky subject, and there's often disagreement over what goes in here, but I think these items should stay in that section. I can understand the "plot reiteration" argument, but I don't really agree (particularly since these particular items are not currently in the Plot section). These items are specific references to real-life people or places, so it seems to me as long as there's a secondary source to back them up (which in this case, there is), there's not reason not to include them in the cultural references section. By the end of this night, I'll be nominating "The Coon" for a GA, so what I planned to do was add this stuff back into the article, but mention to the reviewer (I'm going to ask someone who has done lots of tv episode reviews) that there was a dispute over that specific bit of info and ask him to weigh in on it. If he agrees with you that it should be dropped, I'll let it go and drop the issue. I think this is a fair compromise, but I wanted to let you know rather than simply adding it back without telling you. Fair? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 04:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland flag in Northern Ireland article

Hello,

Please could you take a look at my edit here. I feel this is a reasonable compromise edit, but is being reverted without proper discussion here.

Regards 89.217.188.221 (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not every anonymous edit is vandalism

Edits like this one are just bullcrap. Don't act like a F***ing retard. Kind Regards Jan on IP:212.45.52.248 (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

IP has been notified of our no personal attacks policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay. Let me ask it this way.

"Why the hell where you removing my contributions on a talkpage?" JAN-IP:212.45.52.248 (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Satellite tornado

I have no problem with you merging that article into tornado.

I just have one question.

If I found some more sources and expanded the article, could I un-merge it?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I didn't merge it, just suggested it and another editor agreed with me and did so. Alastairward (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I though you merged it. Sorry.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

I agree we should all be civil.

Blocks regarding South Park

• Blocked for revert warring on South Park Episodes.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alastairward&diff=prev&oldid=253183467#Block_for_revert-warring]

Alastairward's personal attacks and edit war comments regarding South Park

• "All you seem to be capable of doing is leaving abuse and non-sensical messages." [1]
  • True for a while, check the other editor's edit history.
• " It would be easy to take the lazy way out and say "hey, they look the same!" as you suggested."[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stijndon&diff=prev&oldid=248222761]
  • Yup, I spent some time reverting the addition of OR to articles by that editor.
• " you'll see that Aspiring chemist used the time that you spent ranting, stalking me, being abusive and nonsensical, to come up with a thoroughly decent cite for this article (which you'll see I've added!) Don't you think you could spend your time more appropriately too? "[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breast_Cancer_Show_Ever&diff=prev&oldid=248503946]
  • Again, this editor spent a lot of time leaving abuse on various talk pages instead of actually making useful edits to articles, check his edit history.
• " Cited articles are much more satisfying to read than someone's angry assertion of fact."[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alastairward&diff=prev&oldid=247975250]
  • Statement of fact, I had a few angry warnings using the [2] on anon page for changing the name of the episode.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackovasaurus&diff=prev&oldid=247516564] <--11:00, 25 October 2008 --> which another editor had pointed out was incorrect, and reverted.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alastairward&diff=prev&oldid=247657535][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackovasaurus&diff=next&oldid=247562873]
  • And? I checked and accepted the later editors findings.
• Unblanking another editors page he is edit warring with.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Another-anomaly&diff=prev&oldid=246748502][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Another-anomaly&diff=prev&oldid=246830492] [3][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Another-anomaly&diff=prev&oldid=248702426] [4]
  • Amusing to see the warnings that this user received while trying to get admins to dish out warnings to me.
• "What references do I have to cite and why do you think admins will give you credence when you're trying to hide insults that can be clearly seen in the edit history?" [5]
  • User above was using that 87.69.176.81 (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny... I came to leave the 3RR template here but apparently others have done so already. In any case, please stop your nonsensical attempts at Towelie. I have given a valid argument and you just keep asking for a cite where it's clearly not needed. I remember you saying many times about how plot is seen on the screen and does not require citations. What goes for sight, goes for hearing as well as these are our basic senses. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, please stop. AliG, it is not appropriate to put your arguments to other editors in invisible text in the article. State your arguments on a Talk Page, and if necessary, solicit participation by other editors for a consensus discussion. And Alastair, I do not see any "threats" to other editors, as you indicated here. Please work through your conflicts in a civil manner, or take a step back and cool down before continuing editing. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Alastair, I believe I indicated above to AliGFan what my feelings were about the coded message. And please note that I left the above message on both your Talk Page and his. Nightscream (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Uhura

I found your reply to my honest and relevant question to be rude and counterproductive. There's a dictum Don't template the regulars; in Star Trek parlance, "Don't cite regulation to the regulars". They are well aware of the proper use of Wikipedia talk pages, and you ought to be capable of inferring the article-improvement significance of a simple question without it having to be explained to you. Robert K S (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It may surprise you to learn this, but there are people who know everything about Star Trek, and people who know little about Star Trek. I fall into the latter category. What should be done with by my query is it should be answered by a person who knows the answer, and ignored by anyone else. As for whether it is notable that on occasion one actor or actress isn't in the script, I've no idea, but I think if you watch the episode in question again, you'll see that there is a role for a communications officer, but that this role is played by a white actress. Robert K S (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's compelling or not, but since you're in the same boat as me (i.e., not an expert), I'm not sure why you felt your opinion was meaningful enough to be voiced. Perhaps you just felt like typing, and that is the misuse of article talk space, not asking a simple question. Robert K S (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

BTW, I doubt I have to say this, but I intended no offense with my comments on the Gordon Brown thing. I tend to agree with you 9 times out of 10, so I didn't mean anything personally when I stated my opinion this time around... — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 16:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AFDs

You just glitched four of your AFDs. You're supposed to replace "PageName" with the name of the page you want deleted. I fixed it for you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good evening. I'm aware that I was harsh on you on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Star Trek, but there seems to have been some confusion that needs to be cleared up.

AfD nominations are not meant for for merge suggestions, unresearched use, or anything other than a tool of last resort. Your seven new AfDs are already receiving these kinds of responses:

If you're for a merge into a list of Star Trek games, what is the point of this AfD? Are you actually proposing that anything be deleted? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reject AfD per procedure. AfD is not the place for merger proposals, the talk page of a given article is. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that some editors use it often as a first resort, but those editors tend to be more interested in what's deleted than what's left and have other dubious distinctions. I saw one such nominator kill a wikiproject by tearing its coverage apart while refusing all negotiation. Not even the created redlinks were cleaned up - the wikiproject members no longer saw the point, and he certainly wasn't interested in improving articles. This wasn't one of our proudest moments. Or a net benefit.

See, AfDs are not free or cheap. They drain and aggravate our volunteers, foster confrontations instead of the cooperative spirit Wikipedia needs to live, and take effort that could've gone into improving articles. These are non-trivial problems in a project that needs to create and uphold a positive spirit of teamwork, entirely online, to survive.

Furthermore, AfDs are explicitly not for merges, which have their own process. They're awful places for merge discussion, with weightier issues on the table and a needless time limit hanging over everything. We now have five to eight discussions of the same merging going on independently, and there are already calls to merge "Netrek" and the "Begin" games to the "text game" article, despite the fact that they're not the same thing at all!

You can withdraw AfDs by saying so in them, which I believe is a good idea for those you started without intend to delete, but it's too late if they have any votes to delete (votes to merge don't count.) --Kizor 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand, I'll change my request to plain delete for all then. I find that half hearted unnotable articles are the real drain. I hate browsing and finding the minutae being pushed to the forefront. Scrub it, I don't care if Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of infinite pages, there are limits. Alastairward (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. I'll get back to you on that missing paragraph, which is about research, after I've slept. It's past 2 AM here now and I have an essay in Japanese due Friday. --Kizor 23:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me stress the main point of Kizor's post: AfD is a heavy handed tool that needs to be used as a last resort. It has nothing to do with the articles in the AfD process, it has to do with the editors, the sense of pointlessness they have after dumping effort into an article only to have it removed through an aggressive process they makes them feel helpless. Many leave the wikipedia forever as a result. This hurts the entire project. I re-iterate Kizor's call to rescind these AfDs. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Bit late for that, isn't it? Anyway. Hi Alastairward, I'll be with you soon as I can get the essay done, but there's one urgent thing. I saw you say to Markowitz that he's "taking the opportunity to tout his own fan sites of the games." His contribution history over the last few days shows nothing of the sort. I was the one who found his website, I made the connection between its author and MM, and I contacted him to ask for help in dealing with the Super Star Trek article (after its AfD but before the other seven). During these few days he has only mentioned his website as a response to my questions. He has not promoted himself or his work, nor has he shown an indication to strive for fanboy content instead of factual accuracy on Wikipedia articles.
There's the beginnings of an unnecessary argument in here, so I wanted to make this clear. Back to work I go! --Kizor 20:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek 2009

I can't believe what they did to Vulcan. Aye carumba! Erikeltic (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Seen it at last then? Yeah, just to rub it in that we're definitely, absolutely, positively in an alternate time line :) Alastairward (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not sure how I feel about it at this point. From a film standpoint, I think the movie was too much like Star Wars. I kept thinking that as I watched it and then saw this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUUhTgWpjSc and realized that I was not alone and certainly not crazy.

From a Treker point of view, I have really mixed feelings about the entire thing. The time travel story itself seemed too contrived. I know the franchise needed a reboot, but I can't get past the fact that not only did JJ Abrams blow up Vulcan (and Romulus) he erased all of the events of every Star Trek episode after Kirk took command of the Enterprise. So basically the only franchise that "counts" now is f'ing Enterprise!? Mother-of-God. Enterprise!?

I didn't like how easily Kirk took command, how fast he and all of the other cadets assumed major positions aboard ship (without any actual experience), or how their lives seemed so interwoven at such an early age. Hell, at least Picard had the Stargazer and a life before he met Riker and company. I thought that the kid who played Chekov was trying to hard to be Walter Konig and that with the slight character changes to Chekov, he seemed like a cross between Jar Jar Binks and Wesley Crusher. Very annoying. Zoe Saldana is hot, enough said. Now I know people will say, "It's an alternate universe" and all of that jazz... it still seems messed up to me. I mean, don't you think that at some point (given all of the Temporal Prime Directive BS as seen in Voyager and Enterprise) that somebody from the actual future would have come back with some bad ass weapons and blown Nero to kingdom come? Erikeltic (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That particular paradox (why doesn't someone come back from further in the future?) has already been very well parodied too...

It was fun at least, better than can be said for the TNG films. Alastairward (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help... and you're right--the new movie was definately better than any of the NG movies. Erikeltic (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erikeltic/sandbox Erikeltic (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)