User talk:SluggoOne

My edit count

Don't template the regulars.

Hello, SluggoOne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 05:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Jailbreak is NOT illegal. So don't delete it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugkakarot (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you were unable to edit recently, but as you can see at Special:Contributions/64.136.26.226 this IP has been vandalizing a lot lately. I'm afraid it is not quite as easy to just unblock a username and not an IP just yet. So I have unblocked the IP for now. Please be aware that if the vandalism persists there may be more blocks, however we will try to keep them to a minimum now that we know that your IP is used by many users. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) award you the Copyeditor's Barnstar for your top notch copyediting of Michael Vick. Keep it up! Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sleeping is very well deserved after copy–editing that massive article. Once again thanks for doing so,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SluggoOne ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that I did not nominate this for deletion in bad faith or to make a point. I made it as a test case, or if you will, for the precedential value, so that we can have a body of standard examples. There has been much talk about sourcing unsourced BLPs. Other than a very small handful of users, nobody had done anything about the problem, but you would not know that from the firestorm of whining. The emerging consensus has been to use the current system, with tweaks and reasonable exceptions. This and other test cases have proven that mass deletion will not work. BLPs of obviously notable persons can stay up with minimal sourcing. I am sorry that my comments were intemperate and upset you. However, I am satisfied with the outcome. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up with this [1]. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much stand by my words on the AfD page and would go a step further: A user may not nominate a potentially contentious BLP for deletion without explaining the steps taken to establish notability/provide sources/improve sources/etc. (I would not establish this provision when speedy deleting BLPs that obviously don't belong.) You may not be looking to go quite that far, but if I'm reading your attitude on this correctly, you would agree that given recent attempts at mass deletion, mass deletions need to be almost impossible to do. Şłџğģő 22:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 14:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just wanted to apologise for my personal opinion getting in the way of that genre earlier in the Avril Lavigne song. I found that source myself and aimed to use it specifically for pop rock as I didn't think anyone would really consider the song to be just rock. Anyway, hope we didn't get off on the wrong foot! Zylo1994 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Personally, I agree with you that that song isn't really straight ahead "rock," but per WP:V, it stays. Şłџğģő 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I don't know if this is the correct place to contact wikipedia but I tried sending wikipedia and e-mail in which they never replied and I wanted to tell you that yall have the wrong information on the population of Dallas Tx and I know because I live in Dallas. Google Dallas Tx population and see what you get it's close to 2.5 million not 1.2 like it says. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.56.53 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I emailed you back about this. Per your request, I Googled for this information and I found that the population of Dallas, the city itself, is about 1.2 million. The population of Dallas County, Texas, which includes several cities and towns (Irvine, Lancaster, Duncanville) that aren't part of the city of Dallas, is about 2.4 million. Şłџğģő 15:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SluggoOne. You recently changed the Doug Reinhardt article, including the removal of a section that indicated a particular children's book, written by his mother, was based on Doug's early interest in baseball. I think any book that is based on the subject person of a biographical article is relevant to the article, even if it happens to be a children's book. Possibly the deleted paragraph could have been more neutral. Can you explain why you feel it is not relevant? Thanks. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with reintroducing the information were it not so clearly on the wrong side of WP:NOTABILITY. Right now, Kelly Roberts's book is ranked 3,010,519 on Amazon, strongly indicating that any mention of it in Reinhardt's article would violate WP:SPAM. It's not that it's not relevant; it's that it's not notable. Şłџğģő 17:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening statement of WP:NOTABILITY says, "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article.". I don't believe the book warrants it's own article, but this article is about Doug Reinhardt, not the book. I think it does seem relevant to the Doug Reinhardt article that his mother wrote a book that was based on him. Even though it is a children's book, and may not be very popular, most people in the world do not end up being the primary character of any published book. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 66.240.30.150. We wanted to let you know that the case for the report you filed for 66.240.30.150 has been closed. Thank you again for filing and alerting us of this IP's abusive behavior. Rockyman512 (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTTR is not a policy, just an essay. You looked like you needed a reminder so I posted a template, a personalized message would've said the same thing. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 19:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IAR, I checked the "minor edit" box because I feel the minor edit policy doesn't contain an exception if one side of the dispute is composed entirely of whiny fans who hate the word "emo" and delete it in blatant bad faith. The essay, which I never said was anything else, might indicate why I got annoyed by that template.

And on that note, an empty edit summary box in a revert edit is a roundabout accusation of vandalism, so seriously, go away. Şłџğģő 19:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threat?. Thank you. CIreland (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article happened to be on my watchlist because I looked it up once to see what he is doing now, and perhaps I did a minor edit. You cleaned things up a lot--much appreciated. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recognition. It's always nice to get credit for something I did. Şłџğģő 03:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sluggo, I've added three months semi-protection to your talk page because of vandalism. That means IPs and new users won't be able to post here, so if you'd like it undone before the three months is up, please ping me or ask on RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was sent this by "[email protected]:"

Hehehehehehehe from ur favorite IP address

BTW, I can change the IP every 5 mins.... unplug the router for 5 mins, then plug it in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IINININININNININ UURURURUU FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SUCKKCKK IT!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, my IP address is 74.71.78.246.... or is it? Im at a local starbucks, so its not my home one!!!!!

I'll be vandalising ur page on wikipedia at 9:46 eastern time! see ya, beaitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MICHAEL VICK!!!!

Hey remember u said dis a cupple munths ago????

Thank you for your entirely useless efforts at Talk:Michael Vick. My response took lot more effort than you deserve. Believe it or not, I actually encourage you to get an account so you can vandalize that page. You'll see why it's not something to worry about. Şłџğģő 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WELL SCREWWWW U!!!!!!! Slug!

good day!!!

And believe it or not, I've asked SlimVirgin to unlock this page. Who's afraid of the big, bad 11-year-old? Şłџğģő 17:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's an appropriate email address if ever I saw one! It was me that requested semi protection of your talk page Sluggo, thought it was best as the page had been vandalised loads and the IP was threatening to carry on even if blocked. Can't vandalise a locked page - hope you're well :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email'd. Thank you for your efforts. Şłџğģő 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went to User talk:24.171.61.51 intending to post a warning against vandalism, only to find that you had already posted his third strike warning. So, I guess this means he's out.--*Kat* (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just reported him about one nanosecond ago. I'd like to point out to him that his vandalism wasn't going through since Halo 3 is subject to reviewer approval, but nah. Şłџğģő 00:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked for a week. Şłџğģő 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Şłџğģő 20:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why you're reveritng my edits, when you clearly haven't seen what I've done.

Because you're a moron. Şłџğģő 21:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited that page in months. I made one recnt edit which you described as "edit warring". That is not assuming good faith. Cranmer is indeed a martyr according to the CoE, but he was also a traitor according to the Queen's court, and was subject to execution on that ground regardless of his religious status. Even Catholics agree he was executed. That is the NPOV statement. Your reversion of my edit amounts to taking the POV stance. I have an edit history on that page as wrotesolid but do not have access to that account at this computer. Please agf and act neutrally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.143.28 (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply.

In the past, per WP:IAR, I've refused to extend WP:AGF nearly as far as recommended. It strikes me as a waste of time, suffering people who are obviously bad faith actors. Thus, when I read garbage like your edit summary, which makes it clear you are aware of consensus and accuracy and plan to acknowledge neither, I smell an edit war. So what happened? Son of a gun, you went right ahead and edit warred, violating the spirit of WP:3RR, ignoring consensus, ignoring NPOV, etc., etc. I was right as rain to fear you were an edit warrior, and that's not even taking into account the fact that your claim is wrong. Şłџğģő 19:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have read WP:YouTube, have you read WP:CIVIL? The tone of your last message was rather inappropriate. Groin strain (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure have. CIVIL doesn't apply when the user in question (you) repeatedly makes false accusations of vandalism. Şłџğģő 17:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're talking about the edit summary on Klicic's article, it wasn't a civility violation anyways. Şłџğģő 17:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here Cheers, · Andonic ^Contact 19:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first incarnation of that twit's page read, in its entirety, "My pants. My pants are my pants." Since the material I deleted was blatantly dishonest (it sure as hell is a hoax), are we thinking there's going to be a worthwhile conversation at some point? Şłџğģő 19:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed that the first time the page's contents were different. Still, though, please don't delete messages from my talk page. =) Cheers, · Andonic ^Contact 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-doke. Şłџğģő 19:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this user was obviously operating under a misconception about what Wikipedia is and how it works, you warned them [2] for removing content from their own user page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely unlikely, given the content, that person knew that wasn't article space; they removed a speedy deletion template from what they obviously intended to be an article. If there's a "don't remove speedy deletion templates" warning template, I don't know about it. If there isn't one, there ought to be. Şłџğģő 21:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a full series. If you intended to warn for removing a speedy notice you can use Template:uw-speedy1, Template:uw-speedy2, Template:uw-speedy3, and finally Template:uw-speedy4 for the really thick headed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much but couldn't find them. (I admit I didn't look very hard.) Thank you. Şłџğģő 22:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you maybe don't like automated tools, but if you use WP:TWINKLE it has a very comprehensive menu of user warnings. You can activate through the "gadgets" tab in your preferences and test it out at User talk:Sandbox for user warnings to see if you like it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. I don't really like reviewer, but rollback is very useful. Şłџğģő 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to let you know I removed the speedy deletion tag from this article. It was previously nominated for AfD but the result was "keep". In my opinion that suggests that the deletion would be controversial, and so speedy deletion under A7 would be inappropriate. You might like to consider taking it to WP:AFD if you still think it should be deleted. Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My speedy deletion nomination claimed the article is purely promotional material. A quick read of the article indicates just that. It's miles from encyclopedic. A million people can show up and vote otherwise and it shouldn't matter, since non-encyclopedic pamphlets like that ought to be deleted on sight.

MarkGallagher, the closing admin at that almost five-year-old AfD, apparently didn't bother counting or reading the votes; by my count, there were 5 deletes, 5 keeps, and 4 votes reading, basically, "shorten and move to a subsection in a list of articles about bridges." That absolutely does not indicate "no consensus" or "consensus to keep." Gallagher, who appears to be mostly retired, essentially admits in his closing statement that he has no idea if the rankings information is accurate or dependable. (Click the still-working Alexa link for a more recent number, not that Alexa rankings are worth anything anyways.) Şłџğģő 18:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably !vote 'delete' at AfD, for what it's worth. Still, WP:CSD does explicitly say "if a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations" and I don't think the case for deletion here is so strong as to justify IAR. Thparkth (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presently trying to nominate. I've never done it before and the step-by-step instructions are not good, so this might get ugly. Şłџğģő 19:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've nommed something but if you can't sort it, I'll have a look later and try to help out. ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It actually looks okay but for the "previous AfDs" box, which isn't working and I'm not sure why. Şłџğģő 19:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing wrong was that the incomprehensible templatey stuff is case sensitive - you needed to say Pghbridges.com, not pghbridges.com. Fixed now. Thparkth (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. Şłџğģő 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I just tried to list it, apparently successfully, so I think I'll quit Wikipedia forever now. Şłџğģő 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? :) Doing one of those even semi correctly (these days) is a feather in your cap! ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding these "People from Almaty" in. I can imagine that you thought they were meant for the German wiki. They are actually copies from that list. I will try to correct them as I go. I know that some of the names have German spelling. Is that OK? Thanks. Wallie (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. It's just that a list like that needs a reason each person is well-known, and here, the reason needs to be in English. Şłџğģő 06:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make the Florence House page more encyclopedic? It is NOT meant to promote a "company, product, group, service or person" it is a notable building in Portland, Maine and should be in the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feetplanted (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the page. At the top of the editing box, you'll see "{{db-spam}}." Underneath it, add the text {{hangon}}, go to the article's talkpage, and establish how it's notable. Şłџğģő 18:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this page, please note that the editor indicated that he was from Nigeria, which might explain the fact that his writing in English was unclear. However, there was nothing about it that read like spam or patent nonsense, and speedy deletion should probably not have been requested per WP:BITE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I accidentally removed the semi-protection template at Kevin Durant while reverting some vandalism that had been missed. Sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 20:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I came off as brusque. I have no idea why I thought it might have been anything but an edit conflict. Şłџğģő 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Zagalejo^^^ 20:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you welcome someone - as you did on User_talk:Wtf305 - please can you use {{subst:welcome}} instead of just {{welcome}} - so that the welcome is a permanent entry on their page, not a transclusion that might change. Or, you might want to enable WP:FRIENDLY, which does it all for you. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  10:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first time I ever welcomed someone, and it wasn't a welcome per se; it was more of an attempt to gently help Wtf see what he was doing wrong. Not that it helped, but I tried.

Either way, I got it. It took me a while to start to wrap my head around subst-ing, and now I know. Thanks. Şłџğģő 12:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with Zynthosdruid! --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Trolls need to find an easier website to wreck if they're going to go on a tear like that. Şłџğģő 00:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My addition of a new section to psychology of religion was not ad copy. Is this a field that you know anything about? I do. His book is one of the more important books in the field. Please do not remove. Thanks. Health Researcher (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was badly malformed. Is editing Wikipedia a field that you know anything about?

Oh, and..."I'm an expert, you're not, so leave me to keep inserting bad edits" is not a good approach. You're welcome. Şłџğģő 07:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving it be. Yes, it was malformed, which I hadn't noticed when it was inserted (sorry). Question: By "ad copy" do you mean "advertising copy"? That was how I interpreted your change-log entry -- which was why I asserted that I knew enough about the field to make that judgment. I might have reacted differently if the change-log entry had said "rv misformatted entry" or something like that. But leaving aside this tempest in a teapot, thanks for your contributions at copy-editing Wikipedia. Best regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that you've been doing a lot of work with tagging pages for speedy deletion. May I recommend you use Twinkle which is a Wikipedia plugin for reverting and tagging pages. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay. You're not the first person to ask me that. Now I just need someone to create a bad article so I can try it out. Şłџğģő 08:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty! But now I won't improve my typing skills by banging out the template over and over any more. Şłџğģő 08:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you like it! But isn't it a good thing that you don't have to type out those template? :P Thanks, Stickee (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. It'll be a hard habit to break. Şłџğģő 09:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very much, for your kind words during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my efforts to improve the quality of the article, The Most Hated Family in America. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SluggoOne, I appreciate your time and mission to edit for accuracy. I am little confused, as I added a speaking engagement he did for Walmart with a link and a change to developing the social media technology to it has been developed. If you feel it is too promotional, feel free to edit, as that was not the intent. The intent was to add current information. And according to the Wikipedia instructions "If promotional content was simply added to an existing article, do not mark it for speedy deletion." Please advise. Thank you SluggoOne and have a great weekend! Greenopedia (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Greenopedia[reply]

The whole article reads like an advertisement, and I think that if I took out all the promotional material, the page would be pretty much blank. Şłџğģő 22:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate the work that you are doing in screening wikipedia articles, but do not see why you are trying to remove the article that I put up. I'm not advertising or spamming, so if you could remove the notice it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The sheed (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been speedily deleted, and rightfully so. Not much I can add. Şłџğģő 05:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As her very first edit, new user Darya Gorbyatuk posted a general knowledge question on her talk page. Clearly, she is not familiar with our guidelines for talk page use, nor is she aware of the best place to get an answer to a general knowledge question (the reference desk, of course). Summarily deleting her question with the terse edit summary "Not how that works" is one of the rudest possible responses to a new user looking for help. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BITE and try to be more welcoming of new users.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'd take this crap more seriously if it came from a user with fewer issues than you. I mean, come on. You're coming off a block for "disruptive editing" and you're telling me, a never-blocked user, how to be civil? Really?

Unless you've got something worthwhile to add, stay off my talk page. Şłџğģő 07:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just a matter of civility. Not biting newcomers comes down to about basic social skills, hospitality and--dare I say--human decency. Your ad hominem attack on me as an editor does not invalidate this message.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask how "Not biting newcomers comes down to about basic social skills, hospitality and...human decency" isn't an obvious violation of WP:CIVIL, but I've found that if a user is violating policy, no matter the extent, that user will not see how they are in blatant violation of said policy. There's a chance you're completely illiterate, but, for your sake, I'll assume bad faith and suppose you see how you're violating the same policy you're trying to enforce but are getting into it with people because you're bored and Wikipedia is fun.

Since you seem to have ignored my edit summary for my previous response to you, I'll reiterate here: Go. Away. You have nothing to teach me, you're about to get indefblocked either for trolling or for being a sockpuppeting dunce, and that's that. Şłџğģő 08:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I probably was being uncivil. You deserved it. The new user, however, did not deserve to be treated rudely; so I hurt your feelings, don't take your aggression out on the noobs. Anyway, I created an ANI section about your appalling behavior--but only because I don't want to violate 3RR by attempting once again to assist the new user.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he isn't going to be indefblocked. From my perspective, he was trying to help a new user who was unfamiliar with Wikipedia. I don't care what his history is, he was doing the right thing on Darya Gorbatyuk's talk page. I can't begin to figure out why you would outright delete the contents of that talk page in the first place. That is disruptive and entirely unhelpful. Bad edits, I would suggest doing at Sluggo requests and do not post on his talk page. Sluggo, in the future, do not blank the talk pages of editors who are legitimately requesting help. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That the new user was never treated rudely, was never bitten, and was in no way chased from Wikipedia doesn't seem to matter. Shows my comprehension of rules I've known for years.

"From my perspective, he was trying to help a new user who was unfamiliar with Wikipedia." I want to give you a pat on your naïve little head, whoever you are. See that link up there, the one appropriately marked "sockpuppeting dunce?" Give it a click and, unless you've got something worthwhile to add, go away. Şłџğģő 08:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were in the wrong here, you'd be better off accepting that and cutting back on the lip to other editors. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it on ANI. This thread is closed. Şłџğģő 08:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC, and responding here since it was stated here) Sluggo, since you seem to be fond of using times in service as a measuring stick, I'll point out that I've been here even longer than you. Please don't be patronising. You are correct that the new user was not treated rudely or bitten, but your actions did nothing to help her, and I'd like to think that Wikipedia is still a place folks can go to try and learn something. Call me an idealist. This said, I'll "go away" unless I see something further that is actionable. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it on ANI. This thread is closed. Şłџğģő 09:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are aware that an user is allowed to remove comments from his talk page, so I'm not sure why you decided to do that to a user's talk page. An user is allowed to remove comments from his talk page, no explanation needed. Doing do acknowledges that the user has received the messages previously posted. If you have any questions, feel free to message me. Netalarm^talk 12:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SluggoOne, in regard to the recent AN/I thread (permalink), I have removed your access to Twinkle and Rollback. There is a consensus at the thread that you have abused these tools, and can not currently be trusted with them. Please remember that rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism, which does not include good faith edits made by other users, or edits which are useful to the project (such as helping a new user find their feet). I also warn you that in future you need to make sure you are kind to any new comers, remember that they've only just joined, and aren't likely to understand how anything works, and you need to not disregard criticism because of the user it comes from. Remember to treat things on their own merit, rather then that of the users who support it (similar to the "comment on content, not the contributor"). Regards, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]