User talk:Donthaveaspaz

I'm a student at the University of Florida currently studying Architecture. My name is Sean McCaughan.

i've edited a few things so far, however none actually logged on as donthaveaspaz. this was a mistake on my part. they have been on Dorothy Draper the interior designer (i actually created the article on her), a few things about the Medici family, and a few little things on Arrested Development. One of my edits actually appeared on the main wikipedia page pertaining to arrested development. However i have no proof.


 * You can feel free to correct it yourself, but I'll probably revert it, as I'll explain shortly. I will remove the warning from your page, as your edits were made in good faith, and any subsequent changes would be a content dispute; but it seems pretty clear that the term fails WP:Profanity: Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. While Wikipedia is not censored, I didn't think that this contributed anything much to the article, and only served to make it more vulgar. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But the omission does cause the article to be less informative, relevent, and accurate, considering that's one of the most commen slang phrases for it. This is a common case of censorship for the easily offensible versus completeness of information. It seems like everyone should be a little more mature then that. Donthaveaspaz 03:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Wikipedia standards say to assume good faith with your fellow editors. You didn't assume good faith with me, and in order to have my warning removed i had to actually prove my good faith to you. If you've honestly never heard the phrase 'Fuck Buddy' before, I may be able to understand your actions. But assuming that you have heard it, doesn't this all seem a little overzellous?Donthaveaspaz 03:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I didn't assume good faith. To be honest, what happens is, as a recent page patroller, we see very quickly what the changes to a page are, and immediately revert it (and warn) or ignore it. But the process is very quick (there is LOTS of vandalism). Please realize that 98% of the time when someone adds certain vulgar words to an article, it's just a group of 15 year old boys goofing around. But there are good edits, and occasionally and I will misread the situation and err - I even have a userbox on my page that says so. Again, sorry about that - it was an error on my part.
 * the omission does cause the article to be less informative... I guess I just disagree with you. I realize we ought to be more mature, but I think that Wikipedia ought to be both professional and mature. If, for example, you look under a standard encyclopedia, under the definition of penis, you will find a diagram. However, if you look under "close relationship", I don't think you'll find the term "fuck buddy". Normally, under professional standards, some sort of profanity is accepted, but it is usually only added when necessary. So I disagreed with your edits, and it's just a content dispute, I guess.
 * in order to have my warning removed i had to actually prove my good faith to you Thank you for being mature and handling it that way.-Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, i do understand the 15 year old boy situation. I didn't realize that was as common as you say. Honestly I think actuall wikipedia vandalism, if i were to ever do such a thing, seems pretty boring. but hey, i'm not 15, lol. Anyways, your right, it is just a disagreement over a content issue.

Also, to promote my opinion: According to Britannica.com, the word 'Fuck' Didn't come up at all when i searched for it, nor does an article on casual relationships. If there was however, would it include fuck buddy? definitely not, but in instances like this wikipedia becomes it's own entity divergent from old school encyclopedias. along with being factually up to date, it's also culturally a lot more up to date, and maybe that should include a more mature use of swear words.

An Example: Britannica would NEVER have an article on doing it Doggy style. ;-)

Donthaveaspaz 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OMFG
We can't unblock you at this time, because you haven't given us the information we need to even look into your block. You yourself were not blocked; if you were prevented from editing, you must have been autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. I'm removing your unblock request because there's nothing we can do without this information. If you are still autoblocked by the time you read this message:


 * 1) Try and edit the Sandbox by clicking [ here].
 * 2) Copy the {&#123;unblock-auto&#124;...&#125;} code generated for you under the " Autoblocked? " section.
 * 3) Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you do not need to do anything more. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged for speedy deletion. It probably was not your intent, but it comes across like an attack page and may be unsuitable in its present format. -- Armadillo From Hell 00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)