User talk:Headlikeawhole/archive 2

archive 1 all new talk goes below thx.

January 2009
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Talk:Oath of office of the President of the United States. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. J.delanoy gabs adds 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Notice you are making a lot of edits to disambiguation pages recently --- go have a read over the manual of style for disambiguation pages. Cheers, cab (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Daniella Sarahyba has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

what does
"ce" mean as an edit summ? Codigo'll aka Huh? 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * copy edit. It is my usual "default" when making changes that hopefully aren't to feather rustling. If you have a specific edit, please let me know here or on the article talk page. Thanks, --Tom 15:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cogido
I have nominated Cogido, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Cogido. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Anshuk (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

D&D Wikiproject
Hi there! I noted your comments on the talk page for Plane (Dungeons & Dragons) - note that you weren't the first person there to question this. :) Anyway, feel free to resolve that in whatever manner you feel is most appropriate.

In case you haven't already checked it out, we've got a ton of resources at WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and could always use more interested editors to help us out. :) BOZ (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hi
I would actually bring the Rap/Rapping issue up on the Rapping talk page as that might be controversial...not certain. As for Rap (disambiguation)/RAP, I will make that move myself. I probably should have done that instead of moving Rap to Rap (disambiguation). Didn't realize that most of the links regard RAP and not Rap. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 05:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

=Judgmental messages below=

July 2009
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. ''This is not funny. Wikipedia is not a personal playground for you.'' &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

==


 * it's a non-personal playground? ok. let's look at your premises.


 * 1) a "silly" edit, in which the proper tone is not struck is necessarily "disruptive" and worthy of "disciplinary action".
 * 2) if a silly edit should be reverted, reverting it is a huge hassle.
 * 3) when in doubt about the intention of an edit or editor, the previous version must be preferred. revert.
 * 4) if a silly edit is not found to be funny by someone taking up the mantle of making all of wikipedia better, one reversion at a time, that makes the offensive edit somehow more egregious.


 * These premises seem pervasive to me, but I have not done exhaustive research. all above premises seem problematic or troublesome to me.


 * there are are in fact, 1000's of ppl who live to revert. and they seem to me to follow the "when in doubt about the intention of an edit or editor, the previous version must be preferred. revert" procedure. this gives little weight to the content of the new version. Only a cursory judgement as to whether the edit fits the reverter's idea of an edit made by a "good citizen" is applied. And of course, to avoid reversion and reprimand on behalf on the whole community, such a community member's intention to contribute constructively would have to be clear and apparent in a tone that shows forth in every edit.


 * many reverters seem to follow the "huge hassle" approach. I think they are seldom concerned with or not discerning with regard to the content of articles, but specialize in spotting ostensible troublemakers. lastly, wikipedia is fun. "not a playground" is the wrong story to paint to turn ppl around who we think are being unhelpful. By adopting this tone with those who are not conventional, straightforward editors or perhaps even have impure intentions at some articles, we are sending an implicit "we don't need you" message.


 * Lastly, I understand that real vandals exist. by the way, were there any sysattacks today? that's the real threat to a site these days.


 * ok, that's enough for now. BingoBob 23:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * O RLY? (read: I'm ignoring the above as it seems to be mostly circular logic)- you keep inserting pleasantries like these, into the Paris Hilton article. This is vandalism, plain and simple. Your own opinion of her talents notwithstanding, she has released at least one studio album and three singles (distributed by Warner Brothers, even) that I can see, on which she sings. Vandalizing articles to "make a point" is very much against policy. So, again, please stop doing that. And inserting silly headings like "Judgemental messages" around the standard warning I previously left makes me think you're a troll. You don't want people to think you're a troll, do you? Please stop. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * k, fair enough. now, the four words "plain", "simple", "mostly circular" notwithstanding did you have anything to say that is not
 * a description or further chiding of my devastating actions at paris hilton, disruptive stuff in general?
 * reiteration of 'pedia policy w/ which I'm probly familiar?


 * more premises I enjoyed:
 * paris hilton has x amount of singing talent, where x is a real number.
 * what I say about paris hilton's status as a singer or level of singing talent is merely my opinion (predicated on assumption that personal opinions still don't pass for wikipedia content).
 * warner brothers' involvement in releasing her media bolsters the case for the current version.
 * standard warnings are not judgemental
 * sillyness on one's own talk page suggests one is a troll


 * did you look at the video I posted, where she sings? you said that you see that she released an album and three singles. but have you watched her sing? the video has moments that would hurt some of my assertions, but soooo worth watching. granted, you don't seem unjustifiably or harshly judgmental. and I am not really up on policy, actually, so a reminder prob wouldn't kill me.
 * and when you use the term troll- where can I find the best definition for that, if I wasn't sure of the connotations of that term? I looked on answers.com, but the only internet-related thing on there was a history of usenet which was bo-ring. I would gladly accept the label "troll" if ppl would stop calling paris hilton a singer, stop putting in the first line of paris hilton where UNSUSPECTING f&cking googlers are bound to find it and might start believing that shit. anyway, thanks.
 * BingoBob 20:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)