User talk:Felt friend

Speedy deletion nomination of Visual Novel Database


A tag has been placed on Visual Novel Database requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eeekster (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * okie dokie ♥  ♥  ♥  21:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Felt friend, you are invited to the Teahouse
Passing remark from a friendly stranger: good work on picking up on 'metamodernism' propaganda. Can't believe they got to Wallace, too. Gah!!

Nomination of Visual Novel Database for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Visual Novel Database 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/Visual Novel Database 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article.

Youth Lagoon
Please clarify why you have tagged this as a copyvio. Thank you.--ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Lil B, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you.  STATic  message me!  21:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Cornet
Wikipedia requires reliable verifiable sources. The edits I removed had none. The edits you referenced all link back to parent articles that are sourced. Please do not add content to wikipedia that isn't sourced. This is a warning. Rklawton (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting and fixing the Grimes (musician) article
Please keep an eye on it if you can.

WP:OUTING and WP:AGF
Nearly every single post of yours on the Talk page of metamodernism has violated these WP policies flagrantly. Please don't leave messages on my Talk page wagging your finger at me for being cross at your WP policy violations until you've ceased violating WP policies in all your comments. Festal82 (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like he's not the only one who's suspicious of your behavior. Your name appears to have been brought up at the conflict of interest noticeboard before. Seriously dude, take a chill pill. Inanygivenhole (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, Inanygivenhole, I've never had any run-ins with Rhododendrites (for instance), a WP editor who self-admittedly has no vested interest in the topic of the article we're all now editing. My name came up once on the COI noticeboard as part of what was later deemed (by a neutral arbiter) a substantive edit disagreement with "Esmeme"--we had both accused the other of a conflict of interest, and we both accepted the neutral arbitration that we should follow WP:OUTING and simply handle our disagreement as a content dispute. Which we have, with the help of Rhododentrites. Then, simultaneously, the two of you came onto the metamodernism page that several people had been working diligently on for months and did the following: (1) you called the primary website for scholarly investigations of metamodernism "unreliable"; (2) you called the entire article that all of us had been working on "advertising"; (3) you claimed that all of the people working on the page were acting in a "self-aggrandizing" way (violating WP:AGF and WP:OUTING); (4) you started making false factual claims about metamodernism (like that Vermeulen and van den Akker "invented" the term) even as you admitted to having no background in metamodern studies; (5) you alleged, without proof, that "the authors/editors/bloggers themselves" were editing the page, once again violating WP:AGF, WP:OUTING, and (not for nothing) WP: NOR; (6) you alleged that a section listing notable metamodernists and _linking to articles explaining why those artists were metamodern_ "never rationalized why any of the list entries were relevant to 'metamodernism'"; (7) you then began, with the sub-header "This article is in SERIOUS need of help," getting into ad hominem attacks: calling the article "hogwash," misstating an old and divergent usage of the term as a current one (e.g., "the metamodernists claim William Blake as one of their own"--no, they don't), created a new standard for inclusion in a WikiProject:Philosophy article (that any _artist_ associated with a philosophy must have publicly stated that they intended to be associated with it), then called the article "worthless" and "purely masturbatory" and accused two men of writing a Wikipedia article that has already had _dozens_ of editors working on it. That wasn't enough, so (8) you called the article, which had dozens of citations from dozens of media outlets, a "vague mishmash of meaningless babble," and then said "tl;dr" as if to emphasize that your presence on the article's Talk page is merely a lark for you both. You then softened your inflammatory language a bit, saying merely that "Anyone who looks at this article and sees anything other than what would happen if WP:FRINGE and blogspam had a baby is severely deluding themselves." You then called the article "absolute nonsense" and went from saying you wanted to "help" the article (the title of the subheader "inanygivenhole" added) to saying you wanted it deleted. I say all this without having added up all the outrages from your _last_ ten comments. But the best part was the two of you going around telling everyone to be civil and follow WP policies you've shown absolutely no respect for. Check yourselves, you two, because you're acting horribly and then--worse--being hypocrites about it. Festal82 (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) A blog is not a scholarly resource, no matter how many mental gymnastics you run yourself through. 2) The citations amounted to metamodernism.com claiming that random artists were "metamodernists" in order to puff itself up, and either way weren't reliable, the article itself amounts to puffery: the attempt to connect the disjointed uses of the word (which you have yet to even address) speaks for itself. 3) No, I said that the page was self-aggragandizing, for the reasons I've already stated. If you're going to argue against what I said, at least have the decency to slow down and read what I say carefully. 4) I said that they invented the sense of the word which is the subject of the article. Again, stop straw manning me (intentional or otherwise). 5) Where did I make this claim? You're just straw manning me again. (I suspect you're using the COI tag as an excuse to put words in my mouth again.) 6) This isn't a point, this is just you restating what I said. Did you intend on adding anything to what I said or disagreeing with it in any way? 7) That's not what an ad homenim attack. Please don't throw around words when you don't know what they mean or how to properly use them, it's getting very tedious. This isn't a new standard, and you're straw-manning me again: I said that metamodernism.com was not a reliable source for these claims. 8) How does this contribute to your argument at all? Did you just need another point to add?
 * Not a single thing you said properly represented what I've said so far. You're so angry that you can hardly read. Seriously, calm down. It's just an article. Inanygivenhole (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

November 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Rklawton (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

unban request
This edit speaks for itself: Rklawton (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've raised a question on the blocking admin's talk page,as I see no evidence of harassment. But could you explain the edit in question? Optimist on the run (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an expression of a personal opinion, which I hope is in line with WP's user page standards. I'd be happy to revert that edit if need be, it's just a user page after all. Thanks. felt  _   friend  21:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's called wp:soapboxing and it's not permitted. It's also ignorant, bigoted, and offensive to many of Wikipedia's contributing editors. If you want to express your bigotry, you are free to do it elsewhere. You are not free to do it on Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps you're the on being ignorant here. And using "perhaps" is a completely unnecessary modifier.73.133.22.46 (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Listen IP, I don't know who you are but I can tell you the wikipedia community disagrees with you. It's only through their strength and support that I come to you now in the open and say that I sexually identify as an A-10 Thunderbolt II.


 * I prefer non-triggering gender pronouns (BRRT/BRRRT/BRRTS/BRRTself) and I need wikipedia as a safe haven to dominate low airspace and engage hard and soft ground targets. It is also a good forum to communicate with my other warthogkin, and friends, infantrykin, and closeairkin. I hate those of fighterkin, but am neutral with smallarmskin.


 * I like to discuss my ammoqueer fetish of 30mm depleted uraniumphilla. I believe in operationality at any takeoff weight, as I am a proud 51,000lbs of sexy hogkin.


 * Surface-to-air missiles and airburst artillery are my triggers, please respect this and help keep this a safe place for me to provide close air support.


 * Are there any other Wikipedians who would like to self-identity as straight, queer, or bi weaponkin? 107.107.63.172 (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've raised the matter at WP:ANI Optimist on the run (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have no idea who the IPs are. felt  _   friend  01:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to AN/I
The edit in question is a reference to an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia I was watching at the time. I get that it's probably not the best use of a user page, but I honestly don't really care that much about what's on my user page; I'm here to edit the wiki. I can also acknowledge that saying "real girls have vaginas" could be seen as hurtful or intimidating to other users, which is in no way my intent. I don't have any issues changing my user page if it means moving on from all this debate and getting back to editing. felt _   friend  21:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you striking that phrase from your statement above which just compounds your mistake by repeating it again. To do it once is an error but then to repeat it again? Less than smart. Liz  Read! Talk! 00:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm using it only in context to the situation in which it is relevant. felt  _   friend  01:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What is less than smart is giving credence to trogloydyte's getting their tits stuck in a wringer.69.255.112.208 (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Xinlisupreme (March 27)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joe Decker was:

The comment they left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Xinlisupreme and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Xinlisupreme Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Decker&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Xinlisupreme reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

joe deckertalk 01:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved from wrong user's talk page by —Cryptic 01:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of triple parentheses
Please don't tag names with triple parentheses like you did in this and this edit. If you're using a public computer it may have software installed to do it automatically. — Strongjam (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It was an accident, sorry. felt  _   friend  05:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * Briscoe Cain
 * added a link pointing to Democrat
 * Stan Brakhage
 * added a link pointing to Director

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * that is the stupidest fucking shit I've ever heard felt  _   friend  15:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Briscoe Cain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democrat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)