User talk:Coop41

Diapers
Hello there Coop41. I have reviewed the links you gave meet and I think that with the exception of the first two, you seem to have found some reliable and informative sources. This is not to say that the ones on sharepost were not informative; actually I think that out of everything there, they had the most intelligent things to say. Unfortunatly, one of the biggest limitations one faces on wikipedia is the [Wikipedia:No original research|rule on original research]. These posts were written by someone obviously quaified to speak on the subject from personal experiance. By the standards set by wikipedia, this kind of experiance is research. An encyclopidia article needs to be able to be verified; since they are really just very professionally written forum posts and are not really "published," we can learn from what he says but not use it as a reference. However, we can get around this, because what he has to say is very good. One way of directing people from the article to the relivant sharepost pages would be to put them under the external links section rather than the sources.

I am glad you have decided to help improve our little corner of wikipedia. I would be glad to give my vote of support to your merge proposal. Perhaps you could repay me by voting in opposition of the proposed deletion of the Wet Set page? It is another diaper related article I created. The discussion is here.

Anyway, welcome to wikipedia and good luck! Don't hesitate to ask if you need any more help. Fsecret 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Regards this edit, asking an anon IP why they removed information is almost always an exercise in futility in my humble opinion and experience. You're unlikely to get an answer, and often from the wrong person.  I usually revert, warn and leave it at that.  Just trying to save you a bit of time :)  WLU (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not having looked into the situation, I don't have much to say, but any deletion of legitimate talk page discussion is vandalism and should be reverted. If someone deletes swaths of discussion just to remove the discussion (showing a shocking ignorance of the history tab), that's vandalism and I stop caring what their opinion is regards anything else.  But that's just me, and I've got a spotty block log.  WLU (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mario characters
I notived you reverted my edits and wondered why. I believe Mario is just as much a baby as he is a baseball or a soccer player. He appears as a baby in about 9 (?) games and has an entire section of his article devoted to Baby Mario. So what is wrong with categorising him as one? Coop41 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking another look, I sorta see what you're saying. Most people don't really think of him as a baby, though. I make mistakes vandal-fighting, and this was one of them. Sorry. Gscshoyru 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fsecret's edits
I am sorry if you felt that my message to Fsecret was a personal attack. It was not intended as such. Indeed, I told him that he was welcome to his fetish. What I took issue with was his use of WP to indulge his fetish, when we all know that we're trying to compile and organize facts here.

As for the diaper discipline section, 'Netsearches made it quite clear to me that it was a load of nonsense, and that the newsgroup from which the invitation came was a fetish site, despite its claims to the contrary.

As for the Daily Mail article, that had nothing to do with diapers.

Don't lecture me about fetishes, please. I know about them and have nothing against them, as long as they're kept in the proper place, and that's not here. Kelisi 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for reporting it, it was indeed a mistake on my part. Please accept my apologies. Happy editing,  Snowolf How can I help? 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)