Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:09, 27 October 2011

ISS article workspace · M3 Project workspace · Fleet workspace · sandbox

Welcome to Penyulap's Museum of Yap and Waffle, current exhibits.

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

talkback

Talk: Tooth fairy

I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Tooth fairy are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the purpose of talk pages. If you have specific questions about what talk pages should be used for, consider visiting Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

can we still discuss your personal life which you brought up, re "I'll have to look into this further after tomorrow's lecture that I am woefully unprepared for and will have to find some way of getting through. " Just wondering... Penyulap _talk 04:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Check your browser settings. You seem to be missing most of that post: "I'll have to look into this further after tomorrow's lecture that I am woefully unprepared for and will have to find some way of getting through. Actually, I'll probably focus more on the ages of children believing/no longer believing. We need some data on that." - SummerPhD (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind that part, honestly I'm happy with you discussing your lecture as well, I have no problem with any of it really, I was just pointing out gently how far out on the hypocrisy limb of the tree you've climbed that's all. Also, it's ridiculous for you to be popping up a resolved tag on an open discussion, doubly amusing because you're the person who's actions I am discussing. Penyulap _talk 04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You're selecting a portion of one sentence of my entries as being off topic. I'm saying your entire entry had nothing whatsoever to do with improving the article. You're comparing apples and apple seeds. The talk page Talk:Tooth fairy is for discussing improvements to Tooth fairy. It is not for discussing changes to our talk page guidelines in the hopes that such changes will allow us to see enough off-topic chat to make some assumptions about who is editing the talk page so that we can assume they are representative of who is reading the article and, based on this nonsense on stilts, write the article so that this presumed audience can be addressed in language they will understand. If you have further comments aimed at improving the article (not changing guidelines to aid research to make assumptions to possibly improve the article), feel free to take it to the article talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the boy who cried wolf ? you seem to think that telling everyone about talk page rules is something other than a complete annoyance to experienced editors. Like the first time is a reminder, cool, but going on and on and on about it is like a car alarm, who listens or acts when they hear a car alarm saying someone is breaking into the car. How would anyone know if they were violating policy when you say that about everything. Even if there was a problem, I am NOT about to take advice for someone so abrasive. I like to be liked. I don't think implying that half the readers and editors of wikipedia are retarded or brain damaged is a great idea. But hey, that's just me. You do what you want. Penyulap _talk 08:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not crying wolf. I've given you two formal warnings for violating talk page guidelines. After two more, the warnings stop and the blocks begin. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Copycat. That was my Idea from the beginning. Plus, you are so totally avoiding the issue completely. You announce to everyone on the talkpage this huge important thing and then you leave it as a cliffhanger, and now what? your not even going to tell us ?????? Fine. Don't tell us how the lecture went. 8-P

October 2011

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Tooth fairy for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Colds7ream (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Bgwhite (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Tooth fairy

I do not know what your agenda or vendetta is at Tooth fairy, but I severely suggest you drop your actions and attitude there. You are walking very close to a block from the purposefully disruptive actions you seem to be taking there. Your ANI posts have been out of line and almost let to your block today. As thumperward said, you are digging yourself a hole right now. Please reexamine your attitude and actions there. only (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wake up to yourself. Get real. Take a look at that article and who is holding it back. I am improving that article whether you, or SummerPhd like it or not. I am not the problem. SummerPhd just wants to sit on the article and stop it's improvement. I had a similar situation with the ISS article soon after I started there too. Admins sitting on the article lecturing it is FA and don't touch it. I pulled the FA chair out from under them, and have been improving the article ever since. Block. Oh I'd like to see that stand. A topic ban, maybe, I asked for that myself in the beginning. Have you ever been to a farm or had chickens ? If you want to get to the eggs, the hen will try to peck at you and stop you. Whatever. I'll end up fixing that article if it's the last thing I do. I'd really love to see you accuse me of anything that SummerPhd hasn't already done three times over. I'd love to see a decision that doesn't perfectly describe hypocrisy. Have you been over at SummerPhd's talkpage telling her to pipe down ? I'd be surprised if you have, let me look. Just looked at your contribs, can't see a thing. Knew it. Love me, hate me, I don't care. I am here to improve wikipedia. I suggested the topic ban in the first place, how can you do anything but agree with me ? besides it was rejected. That article is a 'Disgrace to the tooth fairy' and thats a quote from another editor. Read up on the subject. Oh yes, you'll have to search history, as there are plenty of overzealous deleters on that talkpage. Even my own remark was deleted once, in an amusing act of double standards. Penyulap _talk 20:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason no topic ban was put in place is because you suggested the topic ban...if you think a topic ban is needed...ban yourself. Stop trying to disrupt to make a point here. only (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you still here ? sorry I was off improving the article. What topic ban ? yes, I tried that at ANI didn't work. The pesky blighter got around it somehow, hey, maybe we can team up and hatch a plot to get him thrown off the project eh ? after all, I have it on good authority that 'WE' don't like him. eh ? know what I mean, (nudge) and, while we are trying to do that, lets see if we can keep him busy ok? you know, slow him down, lets take turns typing on penyulaps talk page, to waste his time, ok ? I think it's a brilliant stop-gap measure until we can get some kind of genius master-plan worked out. If only I had more brains I could come up with something I'm sure of it. Dam, curse my over-pedestrian 'god-given' according to 'WE' intelligence. I'm such a lack luster genius I can't think of a anything better right now, but I know I'll think of something, we have to keep up the fight. We are only two people, but together with WE we can do it. Go WEwe !!!! Penyulap _talk 20:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

_{'WE' is explained here}

You sound disappointed that you weren't topic banned. Therefore, let me, as an administrator, declare you officially topic banned from Tooth fairy (and, therefore, its related talk page). If this topic ban is not acceptable to you, we can go to ANI (and waste everyone's time) to get a more official one. only (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it is tradition to take it to ANI, I haven't heard of these private little talkpage deals before. There have been some wicked little things people have tried to influence me into on my talkpage. I've learnt not to wander off with strangers into private places and do strange things I'm not comfortable with. So go tell on me in a public place. Penyulap _talk 21:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion opened

Since you desire to have this talked about at ANI, here is the link: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Penyulap_and_disruption_at_Talk:Tooth_fairy. only (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure why we are going through the ANI discussion if you said you've wanted a topic ban, I've offered you one, and now you're saying you don't want one unless it's an official one. Seems like a time sink to me. only (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey! your a genius, that's even better than us taking turns on his talkpage to keep him busy. Nice going ! Penyulap _talk 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A topic ban related to the tooth fairy and other mythical figures - broadly construed - is being discussed in the AN/I thread at the moment. If you have anything that you would like posted there you can post it here and someone will move it over. Nformation 02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your comment

Since you've been blocked, I'll reply to your comment, here.

Quoting, for reference:

Let's try this: please explain, in your own words, why other editors are objecting to your image proposal at Talk:Tooth fairy. I certainly hope you can do better than "Some people do not like the idea of improving the image". – Luna Santin (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To which you replied:

Santin, I think that people make too many inappropriate and cryptic remarks, like SummerPhd, refers to 'Please stop beating the straw man.' and invited me to view graphic sexual material, which I did not, I was very offended by that inappropriate behavior and requested that SummerPhd remove such a remark on her talkpage, which she wouldn't. Is Beating the straw man masturbation ? And wanting other editors not to collaborate on her article saying "So, as I understand it, those who want to go forward with this art project wish to ignore WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, Misplaced Pages:Image_use_policy#Content and so on. " I have no idea what she is trying to say there. Thumperward says 'Penyulap, if you're attempting to inject humour into the discussion with your repeated flippant replies then Id advise you to stop.' am I supposed to be breaking a rule by being a naturally humorous person, can I change that any more than the color of my skin ? Being funny is better than being a pervert. Am I supposed to stop the proposal because thumperward says 'In any case, there is absolutely nothing in the new proposal which addresses the concerns presented: namely, that this is an independently-created image which has no obvious ties to reliable sources on the supposed appearance of the tooth fairy. Quite frankly I very much doubt that such a thing exists anyway.' So thumperward is objecting because he feels excluded from the creative process ? but this image is improving according to suggestions by editors who have researched the appearance of the Tooth fairy. He suggests that no reliable sources exist, but google has 461,000 hits for tooth fairy, so how can that be.

I warned SummerPhd that the word 'fantasy' would attract vandals, and it did, it's not a necessary word, as 'Folklore' will do, but she teases the vandals in her writing style, and displays a scorecard on her userpage in a contentious manner and claims there is no connection between the state of the article and vandalism, despite so many editors saying otherwise and vandalising it too. She just keeps pushing her Pro-Vandalism stance.

She also claims or implies anyone who doesn't agree with her is retarded or brain damaged. Penyulap _talk 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to introduce you to two popular phrases in debates: "straw man" and "beating a dead horse"; it looks to me like SummerPhD was trying to say that (in their opinion) you've been repeatedly countering arguments which haven't been made. To the best of my knowledge, there is no common erotic or obscene interpretation of either phrase. Furthermore, I don't see anywhere that they've expressed "wanting other editors not to collaborate on her article", or indeed anywhere where they've thought of it as "her article". You may want to click through and read some of the links provided: site policies and guidelines regarding original research, synthesis of sources, verifiability, and image use. Applying site policy to discussions here is not normally thought of as a bad thing.

Regarding your repeated allegations that SummerPhD "invited to view graphic sexual material", I believe several of your fellow editors have tried in vain to clarify your misunderstanding of their intentions. It is common, in discussions, to offer a counterexample to someone's claims. You seemed to be arguing a position that Misplaced Pages content should always be appropriate for children; in fact, the site's policy is that this is not the case, and SummerPhD provided a very powerful example proving that. I'm sorry that you were offended, but please understand that was not their intent.

Finally, we come to your analysis of Thumperward's statements. You seem to think they feel "excluded from the creative process", but I'm not sure why that is. If you invited Thumperward to create their own image, how do you think they would react? Their comments on the talk page indicate quite clearly that they don't believe it's appropriate for Wikipedians to create their own image for use, here -- to wit, "this is an independently-created image which has no obvious ties to reliable sources on the supposed appearance of the tooth fairy".

I'm not sure how you conclude that anyone is advancing a "pro-vandalism stance". Who is advocating vandalism, and where? There is a much simpler conclusion that we can draw: it's not that they are advocating vandalism, but rather that they are not convinced by your argument, and do not believe the wording is problematic in that way.

I'm concerned by your analysis; you seem to have trouble identifying the motivations of your fellow editors; whether caused by or resulting from the above, you've repeatedly accused other editors of attempting to "own" the page (kettle, pot), ganging up against you, or simply wanting to harm the article. It would be much better if you could read and actually address the many concerns other editors have raised regarding your proposals.

If you can't reasonably consider what I've written, here, then I can at least say that I tried. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)