User talk:Another-anomaly

For Your Information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alastairward#Please_Stop_Ruining_South_Park_Articles It'd be great if would comment on his page to show support. Thanks. HWD 69.120.7.167 (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. I clean my hands of this rubbish. If he chooses to be an absolute disgrace to the earth and continue editing/ruining SP articles, by all means let him ruin his own name in the process, hopefully with someone with more patience than I to put him in his rightful place (although I would say it is hell). I even informed Matt and Trey via the SP site of his doings, and I would not be surprised if they make an episode poking fun at lifeless WP nazis such as "him", and with that, I'm done with childish bickering. From this point on, I get all of my SP information from a better source than wikipedia (sadly enough) and I recommend everyone else do the same and to stop donating to this project if it means watching as this goes on without disruption. Another-anomaly (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Now back on. -- Herby talk thyme 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting Alastairward
Hey Anthony, i need you to testiy for me on the Wikiquette alerts page. I started a new section against Alastairward regarding his manipulation of Wikipedia articles and controlling the information that is put on articles such as the China Probrem. I really appreciate everything you have done to show Alastairward that he is wrong and now i think we can address it to the admins because he did the same thing again. I am also going to ask Stijndon if he can testify. I will support you to stop Alastairward from controlling articles  --J miester25 (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the wikiquette page. I hope I did it the way you're supposed to. Stijndon (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to. I'm at work ATM, but when I get off I will get to that. I'm honestly sick of this whole thing including the admin above choosing sides here, I have enough to worry about rather than some douche editing articles and being an ass to any opposition and I hope this puts a stop to it. Another-anomaly (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He gets a lot of credit for not using rude words, which I hope you will also avoid when writing your contribution to the wikiquette page. I am also heavily disappointed by all of this. Not only do I just personally want the cultural references to be in the South Park articles because I LOVED reading them after watching every episode (me not being american and all, thus not getting al the jokes), I also firmly believe that they should be there. What use is an article when it just states the story, in pretty high detail? You can rewatch the episode to see the story again. Or read a way shorter synopsis. The reason you would want to go to a South Park article is to check the valid and sourced cultural references. An I do believe that non-editable blogs hosted on newspaper websites count as sources for cases like this. Because valid references are obvious, you just need something to show you didn't think of it yourself. The China Probrem is just some sort of Vietnam in the cold war that is Cultural References in South Park articles. Stijndon (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a borderline speech on the page that I think accurately sums up this whole thing, including admin view of the situation and why the references need to be there. Support Wikipedia articles mentioning SP cultural parody, lest I completely stop using WP for any entertainment research at all. Another-anomaly (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your cooperation --J miester25 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to put this on the page before the section was deleted, storing it here in the meantime:


 * The South Park studios website (where Matt and Trey directly contact the outside world without Viacom/Comedy Central) is certainly a valid source, especially since primary sources should be even more highly regarded for credit than secondary sources, which many times are, in fact, user-editable websites, and even at that anybody with a job title editing a website for pay or as an official position is a USER, so even those can be disregarded almost as easily as any old blog or wiki, and many news websites are calling themselves blogs just to add to the confusion. But Alastairward is right on something for once: We are here to really discuss his etiquette on WP and his snide remarks in the removal edits of the content everybody so enjoys, despite his opinion against it for whatever reason. The issue of his removal of properly cited content is a part of this discussion because thats what everyone is so angry about, since (again) cultural references/parodies/satire constitute a large portion of south park episodes, and a decent list of them should be present on the actual article since it is just as (if not more) important than the plot itself because of Matt and Trey's emphasis on it. Moving them to the talk page as you stated still gets them to us one way or another, but seeing as they are a major part of every episode, why not move the plot to the talk page? Or the Picture? Or the episode number? I'm sure that constitutes a "compromise", since the only sources for the episode number is the South Park studios website itself and God forbid we place any primary sources for a major part of the episode. South Park acts very much like a median to parody popular culture in a satiric manner, so removing the cultural references is utter blasphemy to a SP article, and causing harm to Wikipedia's coverage of the subject, and Alastairwards hostility to anyone believing this not only gives me the impression that South Park goes completely over his head (he is a Star Treck follower/editor as well, a completely different breed of show), but also causes edit wars between him and a few too-literal non-specific WP policy followers and the rest of the South Park fans/WP users that actually know more on the subject and what it stands for than the opposition. At times its like an English major is editing an article on computer science, citing references without knowing anything about the article's target, although they (at least believe) they are "following" all the guidelines written for doing so for every article, not just special topic-specific rules. If we can use the actual episode as a source for the plot (which constitutes only roughly half a SP episode, the other being satire), why can't we use it also for the satire itself and add the cultural references to the article, not the talk page, where they belong alongside the plot so that the entire episode is thoroughly explained, not just a minute (completely secondary source referenced) plot description? Another-anomaly (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everything you have done. I have set a final destination to this problem. Since the admins in the Wikiquette alerts won't help us, it seems we have to take matters into our own hands. I am calling for a 4 party plus admin that includes me, you, Roger (admin who will help us), Stijndon, and Alastairward in the Talk Page of The China Probrem. The new discussion will be called Final Compromise and it will discuss this issue and it be regarding what Alastairward has done (we can copy paste what we posted in Wikiquette), have administrative guidance so that Alastairward will learn his lesson, include insite from Stijndon in this matter. I will be posting information from time to time, and i hope that you and the others will as well. Again, Thank you for all your time. --J miester25 (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Don't mind spending a little after hours time on this since I seriously hate this guy (though not personally) and his stupid edits to SP articles. I have watched South Park since the original unnamed at the time episode that circulated via email in the 90's (wish I still had it). I get annoyed when some Star Treck fan starts deciding what should and should not go into WP SP articles, since he obviously has no idea what south park is about. I go here a lot after viewing reruns and new episodes, which I watch quite a big online, to see which movie they were poking fun at, and Alastairward removing them takes away one of the reasons I visit WP in the first place. Wish he would just go away and leave things be. He has such a lack of a life as to follow WP policy to the point where he is the only one supporting his edits, and I really wish I can find the page where it says an episode is a good enough source for the corresponding plot, but I can't. I'll continue to fight this as much as I can.

Another-anomaly (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Stijndon found the link. Look under the discussion of The China Probrem. I think the link is there under Trivia is Incorrect. --J miester25 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Any time. Nightscream (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reported Alastairward today after he reverted my edit at least 5 times within less than 24 hours. I'll be more than happy to put a stop to this travesty. If I can be of any further help, let me know. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah this is kind of old, we already put him on the wiki etiquette page, had a looong discussion on the china probrem, informed administrators and yet he continues to screw south park articles over. South Park has its own wiki that he can't deface by removing cultural references (without fear of the admins there of removing him), so google it and just use that. Everyone here is sick of fighting him, and we all have better things to do.


 * I find it ironic that a South Park episode of all things is being controversial on Wikipedia since they reference Wikipedia all of the time only for others who don't get it to go and edit out everything except the plot on the WP articles regarding the episodes. But rules are rules, which he constantly reminds us of while silently breaking them himself here and there, so I'll just have to find the references somewhere else, which is sad because I use Wikipedia for quite a bit (easily 30 articles a day) although I edit very little.


 * Its over as far as me, JMeister and others are concerned, but feel free to argue the points we did on the various talk pages, including the china probrem since not only were they admin-backed but they have yet to have been shot down, and even Jimbo Wale's talk page confirmed one of them. In a nutshell I have too much to do rather than bicker on some website all day, which has already consumed way too much of my time. I will no longer use Wikipedia to research south park episodes, and if I ever get a chance I want to email the south park team the URLs to the pages with the worst arguments, with hopes they'll make fun of people like Alastairward in a future episode since they reference Wikipedia enough as it is.


 * Another-anomaly (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 5 times? That's just warming up. You'll get your "My edit got reverted by A.W. 25 times and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" shirt when you've earned it :)
 * Yeah, it's thoroughly annoying. But you cannot do anything about it, since we do not own the articles in question, whereas others do. Also, you cannot question others' behaviour, since they are right and righteous. We are vandals with malicious intent. Yeah, you didn't know it, but we're the dark side o_0 Thanks for chiming in, though. Keep up the good work. R-E-S-T-E-C-P! Stijndon (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehe... indeed could've been a nice episode, telling the story of Alastairworm on Wikipickia, maybe teaming with Professor Chaos or something. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * lol, I'm really going to look up matt and trey and send them these links, telling them to really name names! Given that ProfessorChaos is butters' alter ego, it would make it perfect! Another-anomaly (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Check this out - care to contribute? Wouldn't blame you if you didn't... I guess you really grew tired of this $#!+. Still, I'd like an opinion. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat Funny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stijndon#New_edit_war

Just reusing his own arguments. Thought you might get a chuckle out of this.


 * Little troll likes to watch this page, yet accused me of stalking him once (here). Just find it ironic, especially when I found a link to this section in 2 places (so I renamed it). Needs a job or something. Another-anomaly (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Harassment + My apologies
Harassment - you've broken this several times now, whereas the only thing I've done is a very indirect personal attack in a conversation on another user's talk page. I don't live in New Jersey, don't wish to, but even claiming that I do is harassment, and that gives me enough grounds to bring in an administrator regarding your constant edits (in addition to the personal attacks you pointed out).

We've both made mistakes, we're both humans, but I don't by any definition other than your own owe you an apology, so find something better to do that doesn't involve editing my talk page or sandbox. Let it go, since for someone under editor review you should watch this kind of behavior more, don't you think?

There are still some rules you can't ignore.

Another-anomaly (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi AA,


 * First of, my apologies. I wanted to say I'm sorry already, but before I could left you the message I had in mind, you already responded on my talk page. I was getting real sick of myself acting like a moron. So in a way, I'm apologizing to myself as well. This is my last message, so let me say this one last time: don't ever resort to personal attacks. But that doesn't justify my actions. I've learned from this conflict, and I hope you did too. -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  10:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. I do find it pretty funny that you feel that claiming that you live in New Jersey is harassment alone - It can't be that bad, can it? -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  10:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And two final pieces of advice: instead of using external links to Wikipedia, you can also use WP:HARASSMENT, its a lot shorter than Harassment. About the subpages, if you put on top of /Apologize (and /uicclf, if you'd like), and admin will delete them without questioning. -- Soetermans  |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  10:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Itanium-arch.svg
A tag has been placed on File:Itanium-arch.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Q T C 20:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

South Park
I'll try and look for them later, but I really don't see the point anymore. I haven't been logged in for over a month, mainly because I got tired of fighting some bitter high-tech dads whose day's highlight is going around Wikipedia assigning "parking tickets." Moreover - even when you do find sources, rest assured this twat will repeatedly challenge them as well, making you puke blood to prove yourself worthy. Yup, it sucks, but that's the way WP is right now and frankly, I'm more worried about real life politicians.

P.S. Nice template :)

NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic (South Park)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the conflict described here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Priceless
Check this out. 87.69.131.47 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet somehow the need to cite the "goo" in Over Logging escapes Alastairward, as seen in his statements here (further down the discussion). We are dealing with a contradictor, a liar, and possible politician here, and apparently his outrageous claims as far as citing every word within an article are discarded by himself, depending on whether or not he started the discussion.


 * Just sit back and let him continue to get himself blocked, as he has done two or three (or more) times in the past, while most of us on the opposing side (like myself) have block-free histories. Justice will follow through, but as I've said, I don't have the time nor the patience to continue bickering like children over this. If he has that much of a lack of a hobby (or two), then so be it - others will notice his claims and edits and block/remove him accordingly. A҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ N҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ O҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ T҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ H҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ E҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ R҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙- A҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ N҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ O҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ M҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ A҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ L҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ Y҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙ 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is no justice here. 87.69.57.241 (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What's up?
Hi Anomaly, how've you been? Its been quite a while since our falling out and I wondered how you've been. I still regret my actions way back when, it is against everything I hold dear, here on Wikipedia. I hope that your editing is going well, and hopefully, you are too. Kind regards, from that bastard who kept on harrasing you. -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  01:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Nikki Dubose for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nikki Dubose 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 Articles for deletion/Nikki Dubose(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Michig (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)