User talk:Herp Derp/old stuff 001

Gaza flotilla raid addition of categories
I've removed three of the contentious categories you recently added to this article pending consideration of consensus opinion. Could you please see the talk page for that article (section <> ) to discuss. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rossi
You appear to be edit warring with more than one user. Please wait and see how the noticeboard and talkpage pa out. There are too many objections and BLPs need to be treated with caution. Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

what noticeboard

Removed addition of Category:Domestic terrorists in the United States to Deepwater Horizon oil spill
See article discussion page. Paulscrawl (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits of Don't ask, don't tell
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Don't ask, don't tell, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at FN P90. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Leivick (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Florence Cameron
I actually created this as a redirect and had no idea it had become an article. Nonetheless I've added my thoughts to the discussion. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

 * }

Continued POV editing
This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of bondage-related articles
You have nominated a number of articles on bondage-related topics for deletion on the basis of lacking notability.

As several commenters on those deletion debates have stated, the required published sources for these topics are easy to come by, by using mainstream search engines such as Google. Google Books, Google Scholar or Bing. Could you possibly do this WP:BEFORE performing any more nominations for deletion? -- The Anome (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Page moves
Hi, I think I agree with your name, but please drop the POV-pushing and 'flat out dumb' language. Reasonable people disagree. Let's keep it civil... Ocaasi (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry. Can you please back against these people that are violating the group's agreeing with the choice? They're acting like 1-2 people have some mystic power to overrule the rest. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The name had no consensus in TWO places, yet hes warring. that is liable for block/reprimand.--Lihaas (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's go back to talk and discuss the options. There is definitely not a consensus yet. Ocaasi (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't need to ever at the time owe to the minority. Majority rules. If concensus says, in a roll call, roll it back (and 50%> more want a more technically accurate name than mine) why would I fight it? But calling it Africa/Middle East is beyond wrong and will not stand. May as well call it the Australian/New Zealand protests for accuracy. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not merely minority/majority, it addresses the underlying issues rather than just the numbers. Only in situations where there is no further chance for discussion do pure !votes happen.  We're not there yet. Ocaasi (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
, your current actions, as well as your language, are clearly detrimental to building consensus on the issues that are being discussed. I am prepared to report your activities for review, should you continue to act in this way. The purpose of blocks is to prevent damage to the project, and this will like be seen an as instance in which further damage needs to be averted. Cs32en  Talk to me  21:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look again, man. Accuracy owes nothing but accuracy to itself, and no one else had the balls to breakout that discussion session or get the ball rolling. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this place is based on building consensus, there are no bonus points for getting the ball rolling against consensus. Cs32en   Talk to me  21:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * you are edit warring, being uncil, refusing to discuss and pertain to consensus. the grain is against YOU here.--Lihaas (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What grain, fiber? This is beyond daffy--our duty is to accuracy, nothing more, and I began this section for everyone to argue for their preferred present title. How is that refusing to discuss? Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He means the grain of discussion. We don't invent our own truths here, but we do form our own consensus.  Consensus matters, even if accuracy is at stake, mainly because people have different ideas of what is accurate.  Titles are accurate relative to the content they describe.  If we call it Greater Middle East protests, but have a separate section on Protests outside the region, that works and is accurate.  Or we can go with a broader title like Global democratic protests.  The first one is too narrow, since many protests are outside the region.  The second is too broad, since the major protests are in the region, and not all are for democracy.  But either one can work. Ocaasi (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * furthermore, ease and desist from refactoring others' talk pages cmment.--Lihaas (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it was mine that was refactored without my express approval. Merrill Stubing (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote
hey, sorry, i tried to refactor your comments. would you just list them in a single paragraph next to your vote, rather than in 5 separate sections? Ocaasi (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I want people to discuss the merits of each title.
 * Right, they'll do that in their votes along with a comment. Otherwise we create a bigger mess, I think . Ocaasi (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Typically we just put a Discussion Section after the vote as well, to breakout issues. Ocaasi (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)d

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to United States has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. -- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  05:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agenda
I don't have any agenda, other than enforcing BLP (e.g. "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment"). I'm not affiliated with Santorum, if that's what you're suggesting. These sorts of questions are best asked and answered at user talk pages instead of article talk pages, though I'll refrain from reciprocating here, at least for the time being.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dino D-Day


Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Dino D-Day, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Dino D-Day. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Dino D-Day. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dino D-Day for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dino D-Day 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/Dino D-Day 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Merrill Stubing (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Dinosaurs
Please don't use the AfD process to escalate a dispute with another editor. Instead, de-escalate, negotiate, and compromise. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did try to discuss it, but all he would do is accuse me of vandalism and then use some rollback tool, even though i listed like 3 dozen sources
 * It can be tough to deal with these disagreements sometimes, but when you take it to AfD, lots of editors are looking at your petty bickering. Do you really want that? Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dino D-Day is already on the table on the List of Steam titles page, so I removed your edit. Kevinmon•talk•trib 05:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dino D-Day
Hey, I just want to say that your Dino D-Day article has come a long way from when you first made it. The quality has improved immensely, and other editors have taken notice, particularly in the AfD discussion that you created. I encourage you to continue making articles in the future. In this case, the conflict is what made the article better. Kevinmon•talk•trib 20:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your BLP question at AN/I
Hi, Merrill. Give my love to Julie. ;-) Curious about your posts at BLP/N and AN/I asking whether our BLP policy applies to dead people. Did you mean to post that in the context of the thread I started about Rklawton's behavior around the Prescott Bush article? –  OhioStandard  (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Julie is well. and yes. Merrill Stubing (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sanger
In reply to your comment that wikipedia was a glimmer in Sanger's dreams...Sanger was an employee - To quote Sanger - To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative/encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee.diff

Thanks for the laugh with your comment and removal of content in reference to the democrat Weiner scandal - edit summary - "flash in the pan already gone from news cycles, BLP BLP" - diff - you were so wrong there.Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on santorum
I saw your comment noting the lack of consensus for the move. I agree. There is a new section where editors are adding their preference for a title here. In position 21 is santorum (neologism), which looks to be the best option (IMO). Gacurr (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik AfD 2
See WP:DRV; an AFD isn't appropriate here. Prodego talk  18:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the correct process is WP:DRV, not another AfD. Also you need to read WP:SNOW and WP:SK to know why it was closed "early" - AfD do not have to last seven days if it is a snowball situation or speedy keep. Also, please assume good faith - no one is gaming the system here - and avoid personal attacks such as those in your nomination. Lastly, I point you to this in WP:BLP1E: If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. Reliable sources are giving this dude immense coverage, so I suggest you give it some thought before you become one of those people. :)--Cerejota (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Theory of relativity
i'm not sure what you're trying to prove by nominating this for deletion, but you should stop trying to prove it this way, and stop trying to prove it on wikipedia. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Beekeeping_in_New_Zealand, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. See [this edit -- [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] (talk) - 04:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello there
Hello,

I've noticed some of your recent edits. I am wondering whether your purpose here is to improve the encyclopedia, or is it to irritate other users? If my question seems insulting in any way, then I apologize and invite you to explain your editing philosophy. This is a collaborative project, after all. Thank you, and I hope that you will be a productive editor in the long term  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing AfD templates
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with No-Shave November. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined at Male gaze
That criterion is not meant to be used to delete pages that are tagged and blanked as possible copyright violations, that would defeat the entire purpose of having that procedure to use to temporarily remove possible violations while the situation is looked into. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass nominations at AFD with boilerplate rationales
You've just nominated 18 articles for deletion in the space of 10 minutes, with identical nomination rationales. It turns out that they're almost all from Category:Conservative American magazines, and that you've seemingly paid no attention at all to the prior AFD discussions at and  that were closed mere days or weeks ago. What are you doing? Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 11

"Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing"
You've used that as a deletion nomination rationale repeatedly. Have you looked for any possible sources for any of these articles? WP:BEFORE? Lady of  Shalott  00:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate
This. Whatever the IP did, you need to find a more constructive way to upbraid them. Lady of  Shalott  00:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD
We are here to build an encyclopedia, not disassemble one. While many articles need to be reviewed and even deleted, dumping large numbers of articles at AfD without first looking deep enough to even provide a rational reason for nominating them will be viewed as a bad faith action. Please don't do that. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 01:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've closed them all--speedily--after thoroughly investigating a half a dozen of em. Clearly these were not properly done and it raises questions about your point of view as an editor here. Your comments and explanations are appreciated; without them this episode will certainly remain a stain on your record since you've caused a bunch of editors (not just me) a bunch of work and aggravation. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from such activity again. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I already gave you a final warning, so the next such burst of deletions will result in your being blocked. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)