User talk:Hazardous Matt/Archive 6

Yes
Yes it was messy, I was just helping him. I'm sorry if I shouldnt've. I'll revert it if you want.  Red Rooster  96   16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you.  Red Rooster  96   16:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matt. You know the templetes about replieing and all that? I don't really understand their use. Could you explain it to me personally? Thanks.  Red Rooster  96   20:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re
Yeah, my preferences section was screwed up. It didn't correct the format. I fixed it yesterday.-- Will C  19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, where you at? I haven't seen you around in forever.-- Will C  10:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, thats too bad. Yeah, there is alot of drama involved with WP:PW. I got use to it after a while. It makes things interesting. If dealing with drama will allow me to improve wikipedia, then so be it. Try simple pedia, it has very few articles and very few editors. I've been on there trying to improve it. About to open a wrestling project there and try to get it set up like on here. At the moment there are around possibly 4 editors total who work on wrestling related articles on there. What happened with Kalajan? Yeah he has a sock, forgot the name, but I will tell you he has a sock. Yeah I agree there is alot.-- Will C  15:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can be more pacific? What you working on? Well the one on simple should make you love it again. Hopefully you'll return to the one on here one day. Would be nice to have another editor. I heard it sucked. It went off in a complete story that was completely wrong. That it got hardly anything right and was only an hour and 45 minutes. Jarrett bash? Oh I got to hear this. How is that going?-- Will C  15:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Jarrett doesn't own and run TNA much anymore. Supposedly he sold his shares. Yeah Russo gets alot of shit. Hell all I hear today is fire Russo in TNA, but now that Jarrett is off the book and it is all Russo, Cornette, Borash, and Conway TNA has been really good. I wish they would have went more in depth though. No Invasion, etc. Near 30 years summed up in 1 hour 45 minutes is sad.-- Will C  06:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If I've ever been an ass to you, mention your grievance at Editor review/Wrestlinglover. Good bye and have a glorious day (I could really be a damn good advertiser or whatever the technical term is).-- Will C  11:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well considering it is me and TJ as the only main active editors on that section in a see of ips and newbies that know at least some of the rules, I could see how people say I own articles. I've got use to the whines on me. Might as well see what they all are first. If you want to comment you can. No big deal. I left a comment on alot of user's talk pages.-- Will C  14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha, fastest convorsation in which I've never said a word in. I checked that last night. Curtis is still young and has a long way to go.-- Will C  21:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, Hey! how have you been? I don't see you around much anymore.-- Will C  00:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, too bad. Yeah, I saw that episode. Was pretty good imo.-- Will C  04:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It varies, usually I just vote then ignore it.-- Will C  03:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Best to unwatchlist the debate. That way it shouldn't be a problem.-- Will C  03:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Judgment Day
The event in question is not Judgment Day. The event in question is the event that follows it which is currently listed on WWE.COM as Extreme Rules. I tried to update the pay per view chronology and the One Night Stand (the event's former name) page, but the Nazis in the "pro wrestling community" won't let me change it stating that WWE.com's pay per view schedule is not a reliable source. Can you please explain to me how the company's official website's schedule is not a reliable source. I am begining to get very frustrated by this website that is supposedly open for everyone. I try to present official, factual, sourced information and it keeps getting shot down by the same two or three people who seem to think they have ultimate control over all things pro wrestling. If a change doesn't reflect what THEY want the article to say (whether it is factual or not), they delete it.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rankor
I'm rocking him out. Thanks Tony2Times (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wednesday Comics
No problem - the important thing is to pitch in if you see there is something that needs doing (I've learned form experience you can never wait for someone else to do it ;) ). Someone will often drop by to pick up any typos or tighten up the wording (brevity is always best, so if there is a way to impart the information with less words then go for that). (Emperor (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Cyberfrog
Yes that looks pretty solid - the important thing is to have real world context and you have plenty of that. The plot looks a little lengthy and some of the plot subsections might need nesting (I assume the ones after "Harris Comics" refer to stories published at Harris and so should be made with four ==== to make them nest under that header.

I would like to see a bit more on the notability, reviews would be good for this or coverage in other publications, not just interviews. However, the date would suggest you are going to be lucky to find much online from the time so that'd be one to aim for.

Some more links for tertiary sources (so I wouldn't footnote them but add them to a reference sections separate from the footnote ones):

So I'd suggest formatting some of those links with (for sites like Newsarama, Comics Bulletin use the publisher field), move it into the mainspace and add an image. Perhaps leave a note on the talk page pointing out areas that need more work (like digging out reviews, etc.) but it is a good start. (Emperor (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC))

UX pics
Yes, very much so! They aren't in the greatest quality but that doesn't matter. They could both go in the main article and MCMG's. You load them up to commons and I'll be sure to use them when I start my expansion of UX soon. Thanks-- Will C  01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks alot.-- Will C  03:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hate to see you go man. You've been very helpful, but I can agree. I've grown tired on Pedia in general, do to certain editors. Just not been giving a shit at all for a week now. So I understand the reasoning. Sad to see you go, one less sane editor around here with only a handful left to begin with.-- Will C  23:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply
"Okay, let's try it this way -- If the article is Art Student Scam, why go on and on about these individuals? The focus of the article should be on the practice itself, and not give undue weight to these individuals. If these individuals are so notable, wouldn't they require a separate article detailing the ordeal surrounding them?"

They do require a separate article. The part about guys on the street in china selling fake art that they say is real is almost unnoteable and was added to sabotage the original point about israeli spying. Users deliberately colluded to change the topic from israeli "art student" spying to "art student scam" becaused they were offended that israel was suspected of spying.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights

 * Hello Hazardous Matt, I do hope that you understand what I am trying to say in the case of jandefietser. I am trying to point out that it is important to be able to speak freely, no matter what the system. I do agree with you that not just any opinion should be placed in the actual articles on the wikipedia (goes without saying I should think ;) ). As long as statement are made towards the community, away from the actual articles, the community can only get stronger by those critical notes. People who are interested will read them, others will shy away from them. It can only become an argument if a discussion will evolve from there, but that would be due to other users who wish to reply. They can state their own stories on their user page if they should want. Thereby the arguments are circumvented and the basic human rights are safeguarded.
 * Well, I assume you mean only good, but that you have not properly analyzed the situation. Please try to consider what you would want others to do if you were in jandefietser's situation. He feel unfairly treated and is merely saying so. Now he wishes only an unbiased referee to pass judgment on his freedom to defend himself. Would you want somebody making a case against freedom of speech? In fact: do you know of any situation in which any underdog individual would want anybody to make a case against freedom of speech? Since I assume you will arrive at the obvious 'no', I would like to point out that that means that such behavior is 'immoral' (because it does not universally apply).
 * Anyway, I hope you will reflect on this in a serious manner. This is no light remark you made.
 * --Faust (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I am trying to point out that it is important to be able to speak freely, no matter what the system". For the last time, Wikipedia is privately owned. There is no "Freedom of Speech" here, certainly not from attack pages.  Drop the stick and move on.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Hazardous Matt, I don't care about winning an argument. All I want is for you to acknowledge the fact that basic human rights apply everywhere, no matter the owner. That is the very point of human rights. Under article 12 of the human rights it is clearly stated that any individual anywhere has the right to appeal to international agreements. This is one such situation. The argument that discussions of this magnitude should not be held here I fully support. However, removing a log thereof is a different matter. It is not publicly visible I believe and therefore it should carry no weight in the sense of slander. Apart from that no serious accusations are made in it in the sense of criminal cases or something. The user does show that he has been treated in a way that is punishable by law though. Since he has not made a court case out of it he means to show that maybe the referee(s) in question are abusing their position. Deleting statements to that effect clearly depicts the bias of the referee(s) in question and deleting a log of that here on basis of remarks of the referee(s) in question simply goes to far from a human rights perspective. I will leave it at this remark and hope that you will reflect on the larger issue of human rights involved (which is now being trampled by the bias of dutch referees of the wikipedia). This is a serious matter from my perspective and I hope you will understand it as such. --Faust (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The U.S. Constitution, any Constitution, legal standings, precedent, the gorram Geneva Convention and whatever you were told Humans are afforded just by being born DO NOT APPLY HERE. Stop insisting that you have some right to continue to post whatever you feel fit to.  Users do not own their user pages. Users do not have the right to say whatever they want without reprisal.  Users do not have the right to host attack pages about other Wikis that EN has no control over.  And if you believe that Admins from the NL Wiki can't discuss the issue with you because they are involved, then you can't either, because you are involved.
 * I am going to insist upon this one last time. Stop bringing your drama regarding the NL Wiki to my talkpage, and preferably to EN altogether as numerous individuals have told you no one here can do anything about it.  MetaWiki is that way if you want to complain about NL.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Matt, please remember that the issue is not about me. I am merely defending the human rights issue. I am sorry to have upset you by the way. If you will, please point me towards the law that states that in the case of the wikipedia human rights do not apply. If you have no desire to do so, I will leave this a my last remark here. Again, apologies. I did not mean to make you feel this way. --Faust (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Drop it.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rules

 * Hello Matt, since you indirectly addressed me I thought it prudent to respond on this new issue. I was under the impression that asking for sources was normal behavior here on the wikipedia. Maybe I am mistaken. Apart from that I also thought that users should first try to work things out amongst themselves. These were my attempts at that. If I have behaved improper, please explain to me how I should behave. You mentioned 2 issues:
 * 1)Theobald Tiger's remark by which I feel threatened. I have not made an issue out of this, I only want it to be edited or removed. That seems fair to me.
 * 2)That I have somehow assumed ill intent on MoiraMoira's part. I do not think I have. I merely pointed out to her that I think a user has behaved in an improper manner and that I think that her support for the user should have been done in a different manner. It seemed logical to do so.


 * Please do explain to me how I should have behaved.
 * If you feel I should not respond to this matter any nore either, please say so. I will honor your request.
 * --Faust (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not indirectly address you. I addressed you directly .  If you continue to assume bad faith as it pertains to others it may very well result in an ANI report. As you refuse to listen to the advice others are offering, I am ending this discussion. Hazardous Matt (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Matt, I do not understand. What advise? Apologies if I have responded out of place again. Please be more clear to me. Since I am a relatively new user I do not know all the etiquette. --Faust (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)