Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - ] (]) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - ] (]) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
== Help with a proposal ==
Hi JV. I came across when an admin was explaining why images used on the Muhammad article are used. The explanation is succinct, and sheds light on the censorship policy. It goes on to list other images that may be offensive. I find this a problem.
#This is technically still the talk page of Muhammad. So having these links is like having them on <insert religious icon here>'s talk page. It seems to add insult to injury. If I visited the Moses talk, or Jesus talk, and found this, it would be sort of like saying, well if you find that offensive, here's more...
#There is no discussion page for the FAQs -- consensus seems to be formed in the edit summaries. Anyone who has tried to remove the links to 'obscene' images get reverted, but there is no real discussion.
I want to stress that this is ''still the talk page of Muhammad'', and although the explanation of using his image seems quite in line with policy, I just don't see why 'what else might be inflammatory' belongs on the talk page of the article. In fact technically, I think talk pages are just supposed to be about article content, and I see this as not qualifying and in bad taste. I just think the links to image links should be gone. I don't really know the forum for this, so here you go. Sorry to pass off my mess, so to speak, but I could use some direction. <sup><small>]</small></sup><sub><small> ]</small></sub> 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It takes a lot of courage to release the familiar and seemingly secure, to embrace the new. But there is no real security in what is no longer meaningful. There is more security in the adventurous and exciting, for in movement there is life, and in change there is power.
PS- The World AIDS Day article is going to be hit hard by vandals today and I'm not sure how to do anything about it, can you help protect it? Thanks again. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The IP noted was last warned like three weeks ago. A final warning should not have been dropped as you did, as IPs change. So the user you warned is not necessarily the user who was last warned. لennavecia13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I see that there have been "disruptive edits" adn warnings on at least 5 occasions on that IP, to the Missy Elliot and Playstation3 and Sparta articles, all since September. I'm not the most experienced editor, sorry. How many warnings does a person get? 207.237.61.26 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Typically, a series of four escalating warnings. However, they need to be relatively close together as far as time issued. If a user is given three warnings in one day, doesn't edit for a week, then comes back and makes another poor edit, the series usually starts over, or goes back down to level two. It depends on the edits, the number of previous warnings, and (honestly) the mood of the editor issuing the warning. However, IP editors are a bit different than registered editors. IPs change, which is why we block IP for a matter of hours or a few short days, usually. So warnings to them really need to be in the span of a day or two. Otherwise, you may be warning someone else. لennavecia16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand. Sorry about that. PS- There have been several vandals on the World AIDS Day page, as predicted. Happend every year on WAD. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(<--) I think I reverted some vandalism while using Huggle earlier, but I also saw constructive IP vandalism. This is, in my opinion, sort of like the TFA protection policy, which is that we don't protect the main page article while it's featured, because it sort of defeats the whole anyone can edit thing. A lot of people are going to be visiting the WAD article today, so it's probably best not to protect as long as the vandalism is getting reverted quickly. لennavecia21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
But it's so addictive. I was telling myself, "Man, I really need to stop, just ping some people to take up the slack," but I was really thinking, "No way, man, don't make it stop, I'm on a fucking roll tonight!!" Damn you Gurch. Damn you to hell. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While I'm here. Double redirects are handled by bots nowadays. Not that fixing them is bad, just not really necessary. And blanking the page doesn't help anything. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Rubisco. Sorry about that. As Closedmouth sort of blunty noted, blanking pages with no edit summary is typically viewed as vandalism. Best to replace the link rather than blank and then fix. Either way, edit summaries are always good! I struck the warning, tho. Thanks for letting me know. :) لennavecia14:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for help with Thegreatestmoever
Hiya, I've been keeping an eye on User:Thegreatestmoever for a few days now, they seem to do some decent edits but mixed in with a load of vandalism. I've already given them a level 1 warning, as has another person, which they blanked (and I briefly restored, because I was under the mistaken impression that users weren't allowed to blank their warnings), and then as you probably saw gave them a level 3 warning today for further vandalism, as the second user to give a level 1 stated that they'd likely have used a level 2 if my warning hadn't been blanked before they came along. You've now added to this with a level 4 warning, and as you're an administrator I'm just wondering - do I still need to report this user to WP:AIV if they continue their vandalism, or are you now keeping an eye on them, ready to block? That, and thanks for the help! :) Xmoogle (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I apparently reverted my reply when I reverted Thegreatestmoever. Well, anyway, doesn't matter now, he's blocked indef. He did make a good point, tho... I need bewbs!! XD لennavecia15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Aw. I feel your pain, I could use being less flat chested myself! And I'm quite amused that he called Jac16888 the "big smelly lesbo bitvhhh" when I'm the very tall (but hopefully not smelly) lesbian who's been keeping an eye on him for quite some time, reverting his edits and giving him warnings, and I've suffered no abuse at all for it. I think his insult targetting system needs recalibrating! Xmoogle (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, just so you know, I fixed the unblock template that Thegreatestmoever tried to put on his talk page (which has since been declined)... I think I felt kind of sorry for him, even if the reason given appeared to be untrue... hope it wasn't a problem to be fixing this template for him, like, against any rules or anything? Xmoogle (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, with all these wikiwords flying about (wikistress, wikibreak, etc), there needs to be a new one if it doesn't exist already - wikilols... PS, I love how your talk page is formatted, I may just have to steal some of the code for my own! Xmoogle (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I found the "big smelly lesbo bitvhhh" comment very funny, certainly a new one I don't think I've ever been called that before, although he seemed to be a bit mixed up since I never gave him a last warning--Jac16888 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he knew what was going on. He just knew he was surrounded by females, and apparently thought they were all lesbians. >_> لennavecia18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Current revision as of 12:57, 1 December 2008 J.delanoy (Talk | contribs | block
m (→:O: I didn't realize how much I mauled this page with all those <big>'s. Sorry)
It was in the critical reception portion of an article, I assumed it was ok to post reviews of the comic. I was attempting to link the reference as well, I am a bit new at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.179.168 (talk • contribs)
Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Let's review what you posted:
:John Solomon of Your Webcomic is Bad and You Should Feel Bad has this to say about Sluggy Sluggy Freelance as "Sluggy Freelance is and always will be a bad webcomic. It has bad art, bad writing (despite a few good jokes and a few more good jokes that were turned into terrible jokes by overplaying them) and almost three hundred thousand words of backstory for you to enjoy before you even come close to understanding what the fuck is happening. That's pretty much the hallmark of a bad webcomic."
If there is a rule about linking to WR, someone can bite me. As far as that thread, hahaah... well, when I read "disgustingly uncivil", you are not the first to come to mind, however, when Alex is speaking about prolific content contributors who happen to be appreciated by SandyGeorgia, you do come to mind. :D <3 لennavecia16:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PS. It's certainly true that I don't understand a world in which a comment like "Bigger amount of posts, wouldn't make your claims look more credible, actually" results in a warning for a personal attack. (No, it wasn't me who said that.) --MalleusFatuorum16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Given who's saying it, I kind of assumed your "disgustingly uncivil friend" was me. Although if he's refering to an uncivil friend of Sandy's who gets leeway not granted to others because of his contribution history, I think I might be able to work it out. (Speaking of civility, read this lurch over the line into insanity. Even by the standards of my talkpage, this is above-and-beyond.) – iridescent16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Malleus: Who issued an NPA warning for that? I srsly need to lay a smackdown with a clue-by-four.
Iri: Hmmm. I would think a reference to my disgustingly uncivil friend would be someone else entirely. But, yes, he was speaking of Sandy's friends. Your talk page is a circus, by the way. لennavecia17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The world has gone mad. Sandy and I have had our disagreements, even recently, over the behaviour of a certain administrator in relation to this article. So I'm not entirely certain she would count me amongst her friends anyway; I'd settle for not being on her list of enemies. :-) --MalleusFatuorum18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(EC x3) I'm not an employee. I don't think machines normally get paid. :/ Please add the tildes to the end of your post. لennavecia18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
are you all like proper geeks that edit wikipedia all day? no offense but i'm just interested! :D woops forgot the 'tidles'78.145.221.112 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) nobody reminded me before jenna did.
why have other people joned the converstion? i only want to talk to jenna! i'll call you nerd if you prefer it (: where you from then? like what country? x 78.145.221.112 (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Tildes at the end, tildes at the end! Sing it wit me nao! Tildes at the end! Heeeey! Hoooo! Tildes at the end!
Uhm, why do you think I should feel obligated to answer personal questions, particularly when the answers are on my user page? لennavecia19:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
personal? its just a country, and i thought my friendly manor may have welcomed you to tell me. i'm willing to answer any questions you may have for me. do you even know my name jenna?78.145.221.112 (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Because I'm not just a mechanical Barbie, I'm a psychic mechanical Barbie... er Ken. لennavecia 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC
(EC) IRI = Me screaming a nickname for Iridescent. I've always considered us like... bees or ants. Massive group working together for a Queen... not that I'm calling Jimbo a Queen, I'm just saying... lots of workers under one leader... ya know. لennavecia19:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ECK! I was just going to say, "Who sits GCSE's in the beginning of December? Exams are in late January and the Summer". Oh well. — Realist19:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Arh! Another person who thinks "consensus" is more important than fact. This issue has even sunk a few recent RfA's I can think of. I swear that whole consensus thing is overrated. To clarify I'm talking about the seriously boring Michael Jackson saga. — Realist22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's one of the images you have a 1/27 chance of seeing each time you visit my talkpage. You obviously don't visit enough.☹ – iridescent23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm easily entertained, I thought they were good, I had seen most of them but the consensus image was a new one for me. I'll just stick to an image of two girls fighting on my talk page. — Realist23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I screwed up the history of the Wyss AfD; I was removing that edit manually while you were doing so administratively, it seems. Can you fix the history for me? Muchas gracias, Skomorokh22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Help with a proposal
Hi JV. I came across this when an admin was explaining why images used on the Muhammad article are used. The explanation is succinct, and sheds light on the censorship policy. It goes on to list other images that may be offensive. I find this a problem.
This is technically still the talk page of Muhammad. So having these links is like having them on <insert religious icon here>'s talk page. It seems to add insult to injury. If I visited the Moses talk, or Jesus talk, and found this, it would be sort of like saying, well if you find that offensive, here's more...
There is no discussion page for the FAQs -- consensus seems to be formed in the edit summaries. Anyone who has tried to remove the links to 'obscene' images get reverted, but there is no real discussion.
I want to stress that this is still the talk page of Muhammad, and although the explanation of using his image seems quite in line with policy, I just don't see why 'what else might be inflammatory' belongs on the talk page of the article. In fact technically, I think talk pages are just supposed to be about article content, and I see this as not qualifying and in bad taste. I just think the links to image links should be gone. I don't really know the forum for this, so here you go. Sorry to pass off my mess, so to speak, but I could use some direction. shoot!03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
