User talk:OohBunnies!/Archive 2

Easy A
Hello. I am not changing it because of my own opinion or for biased reason. To be honest I haven't even seen the film. I just keep changing it because at the top of the page it said it was met with nearly widespread critical acclaim. Which makes people think it did do very good with reviews. But then in the "Reception" part of the page it says that it only recieved generally positive reviews. But it's supposed to be into more detail. Which I believe throws simple readers off. Because "widespread critical acclaim" and "generally psoitive reviews" are pretty far away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterNoah2015 (talk • contribs)

Survey
Hi OohBunnies!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

RfA
I just  thought  I  would let  you  know that  it's a perfectly  normal and accepted process to  propose  adminship  to  a user by email or any  other off-Wiki  communication. Just because you  may  never have been proposed, is no  reason  to  to  introduce ambiguities in  the voting  process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Struck, I'm sorry  about  that, it  was meant  for another user. I've decided to make a comment  on the RfA anyway. Again, my apologies. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, not a problem :) Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 16:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Investable
Is, at best, a corporate buzzword that is a complete nonsense. It really does not belong here, but whatever you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.243.80 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

CU request for Pesky
Hey there. I'm coming to your page to ask about your reasoning behind requesting a CU for Pesky. I saw this comment, and the "What evidence do you have that Pesky isn't a sleeper troll account?" part seems to be very poorly researched. What evidence did you have to suggest that Pesky WAS a sleeper troll account? Maybe I'm totally wrong, but in my time here I came to believe that we do not request CUs for established, well-known editors only several hours after the first insinuation of sock-puppetry, especially after an admin (and WMF staff member) went to vouch for her identity in the very same ANI thread. A quick look at Pesky's contribs shows that every edit has been constructive. She's worked hard at removing copyvios, getting two DYKs and two GAs and recently New Page Patrolling. Thousands of edits, not a single one of them indicating trollish behaviour. How does any of this merit a CU? I hope you can see that I'm just looking for some reasonable answers, not an argument. Thanks, Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in hosting a conversation about a past dispute. Wikipedia is not for picking fights or prolonging disputes.  Please go do something productive instead. Jehochman Talk 21:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, clearly you can't understand the "looking for reasonable answers" part. I have very little faith in an admin who refuses to explain the reasoning behind his actions, but seeing as you don't care what damage you might cause by requesting CU on an established, well-liked user for next to no reason, I highly doubt you care about the effect your behaviour has on the trust levels of your fellow editors. Thanks, Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 21:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Jehochman  Chzz  ► 01:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I, frankly, didn't want to further converse with an admin so blindly unaware of WP:ADMINACCT, but I wish you luck in getting some answers, Chzz. Regards, Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 01:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think insults are a good way to engage somebody in discussion? Please see User talk:Chzz where I have posted further information.  Perhaps that will be of use to you. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did my original message insult you in any way? I asked questions, I did not question your intentions, I simply asked about your reasoning. And you removed it, accusing me of picking a fight (and asking "who sent you?"). If you have read WP:ADMINACCT, you would see that it says editors have a right to criticise or ask questions regarding your on-Wiki actions, which is all I did. It was you who did not reply very civilly. If anything, you insulted me by simply brushing me off, and not very politely at that. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 20:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi OohBunnies!, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is because after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly: for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Acalamari 17:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Acalamari :) Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 20:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Acalamari 23:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

my edit war
will you say something about why you reverted the other anon on Sexual fetishism? a registered user has started a discussion on the talk page. 107.20.1.111 (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

ok
ok removed my data and talk good spanish Carliitaeliza (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar award
It may be only a Barnstar to you, but it made my day. Many thanks. Bigjimr (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I appreciate.
Thank you for your very kind response. You are not asking for too much or something unreasonable.

The grade grubber business was supposed to be a joke. I was playing, and sorry that anyone might take offense. A college teacher friend had just been discussing that problem at length in humor at dinner, and I was amusing myself with things he had amused us with. I was reversing the roles, and "playing the student" who wanted to get good grades by asking for it, and perhaps without doing all the work the teacher wanted.

It is also true that some hostility towards Herostatus works thru the jokes, too. In part it's his name; He named himself after a God that destroyed one of the great wonders/Temples of the Ancient World. I need to clarify that, too. He comes in and destroys what other editors have spent hours working on, and chuckles on his way out.

I will work to clean both the length and quality of my edits up.

I would like to write a bit, then let what I wrote sit a day or two, revise and shorten the text, and then send it. My writing would be much better and more concise that way. I am new and feel pressure to get my Wikipedia writing done and then save it and turn off the computer. I don't want to leave my computer on all night and come back to my old edit the next day. Is there a way to save an edit in process withou everyone seeing it, and come back to it in another day or two, and then clean it up with fresh eyes and save it to Wikipedia?

Herostratus has removed a lot of good and simple contributions with IMHO flimsy reasons. (like the size of a sample is a way to "valorize" the study. Nonsense. The editor who contributed the post is a full professor who teaches research methods, and the edit was genuinely neutral and innocuous!) Herostratus does not participate in our lengthly discussions, but shows up, removes something with a few clever and amusing words, and disappears. I do think we could work better with someone else from the Pedophile Article Watch, but that was an afterthought. Now that you mention that, it does seem disrespectful to an old editor here. Thanks for that perspective.

I appreciate your friendly message and advice very much.

Of course I am part of the problem, but it's not fatal... Actually everything is fine here, and I enjoy.

I'll try to find a way to tactfully apologize to Flyer22 for the joke, if she took offense. I have noticed before that in this kind of setting, what I think is funny is not perceived that way. If it's not funny, I certainly should not have said it. Radvo (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I read your gracious, accepting, and non-confrontational reply. The info about conflict resolution as a last resort is comforting to know. I'll read the Good Faith article. No more time now. Thanks Radvo (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You wrote that an interchange I had with Flyer was "not helpful". I repeated on the 'Rind et al. Controversy' TALK page some joking about college athletes who were trying to pressure a college professor friend of mine to give them better grades in their college course, without the college student athletes dong the academic work the professor required of them. I was so amused by the retelling of the silly arguments of the college athletes that I chose to repeat some of them, pretending to be a "grade grubbing" college student. I wrote Flyer22, pretending to be one of these college athletes, begging to get better grades, playing with some of their silly arguments:


 * How am I doing, Flyer22? Did I learn the specific lesson about truth vs. reliable sources well? I'm a grade grubber. Can I get an "A"? If I don't yet get an A, can I do some "makeup work" to improve my grade? For extra credit, how about if I get a former editor or two banned for making unverifiable claims? Can I get an A+ then? I have to do a few banishments before I can join the gang. What's my next lesson, teacher? I am receptive enough to learning from a long time expert?


 * Flyer22 responded seriously and thoughtfully. Her simple and honest response was actually "helpful" to me, as she gave me an idea about how to move forward with my problem with Herostratus. From what she wrote and what you wrote, I now have the idea that I must document the objectionable pattern of redactions, (past and future) and then, when the pattern is documented, make a complaint to a Conflict Resolution Editor about the objectionable pattern. Flyer22 responded:


 * No, editors who add material that does not support their text are not blocked/banned, unless they have a significant history of doing so. Sometimes, adding sources that don't support the text can be an "accident," after all. But after a certain number of these "accidents," the editor can be deemed harmful to the project and then blocked/banned.


 * Flyer also wrote:


 * I'm the experienced Wikipedia editor here, ... and I am letting you know that a piece of information you are trying to get removed from the lead belongs in the lead. [snip] It has to do with what I have witnessed on forums among pedophiles and those like them advocating for ages of consent to be lowered. I witnessed this with my own eyes. It was not by word of mouth. But of course we go by reliable, published sources here at Wikipedia, not by personal experience....


 * Fleyer22 also responded to my "joke" later in another edit:


 * "I never said that I was a "long time expert." I said [I'm the] "experienced Wikipedia editor [here]."


 * I responded to her (n.b) concisely:


 * "Flyer22: You're "experienced,' not 'expert.' That's cute; charming humility."


 * I may have a slight attitude problem. We were working collectively in the 'Rind et al. Controversy' TALK page on a NPOV revision of a few sentences in the Introduction to that mathematically demanding and controversial meta-analysis! And Flyer interjected that certain text that must stay in the introduction "has to do with what" she "witnessed with" her "own eyes" on an unnamed, undated pedophile forum. What she read there was very relevant and must be retained in the revision of the Introduction to that Meta-analysis and the controversy surrounding it between 1999 and 2001. She claimed there was a verifiable reference source but she offered none for our inspection. So I was impatient. I am busy, too.


 * It's my impatience. My attitude and impatience, perhaps tactlessly expressed to you, would speak like this: Flyer22 probably hasn't read, and even if she did, she most probably would not understand, the Rind 1998 meta-analysis. What is she doing trying to write an introduction, for an encyclopedia, to such a complex mathematical effort? What is her academic standing? Does she present herself as an academic peer who has given this meta-analysis a thorough and thoughtful reading? Has she ever calculated a single meta-analysis? Has she spent the time to cultivate the required skill? Who gets to control the discourse for the encyclopedia when writing an introduction to the meta-analysis?


 * Any advise for straightening out "my bad attitude"? I'll work on this as best I can, or find another place to share "several samples" of information I have from a unique historical perspective that few others have. Thanks again for reaching out to me with your thoughtful and kind intervention. Radvo (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe this conveys the controversy at Rind et al., as I currently see it. A full College professor, who claims he teaches statistics and introductory science research methods, has submitted some revisions to an introduction to Einstein's Theory of Relatively. Some survivors of the nuclear destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki insist that the experiences of those who did not survive the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on those cities in 1945 have a perspective that belongs in this peer written Introduction to Einstein's Theory for an Encyclopedia. They are passionately insistent that the experiences of their families in that tremendous nuclear destruction belongs in the introduction to Einstein's theory of relativity. The mathematicians say the views of the survivors does not belong in the Introduction to an article in the Encyclopedia, as they have not read, and do not understand, the Theory that Einstein developed (though they may have been victims of it by some accounts). They have no business writing an introduction to the Theory of Relativity. Period! IMHO, they are both making a valid point. Nothing I have seen from Herostratus's redactions, and his reasons for them, show that he qualifies as neutral and knowledgeable to negotiate between the mathematicians/scientists and the survivors of the nuclear destructions in Japan. Do you know of anyone more sensitive and expert who could handle this delicate intervention? Are you presenting yourself as such a person? Or do you know of such an appropriate neutral mediator with such skill and tact?
 * I revised and added to the above, as I did not have time to finish my earlier edit. Radvo (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My letter presents my views on the Controversy? NOT
OoBunnies!: I received and read your message. Thanks for your clear and prompt response.

You wrote:

"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." The second sentence there is precisely what your post is, your views on a subject. Your post had absolutely no place there."

nahah! "Precisely" and "absolutely" nothing doing, OoBunnies! You make my earlier point perfectly. Editors, like you, OoBunnies, sometimes imagine there are rules that justify arbitrary actions, but they are 100% wrong! There is no such written rule! In this particular case, there is a comprehension failure!

We do not understand these sentences from the TALK page guidelines in the same way, OoBunnies! This is a matter of getting the TALK page's authors' meaning from the page, a matter of comprehending what has been written. Maybe the authors of that sentence could have made their meaning clearer by using "the" instead of "a". What was the meaning the author of the TALK page guidelines wanted to convey? The sentences you quote, Oobunnies! mean that the talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms to express their personal views on the subject that is dealt with, (with verifiable sources, not individual editor views), on the main article page. In my case, the article page is about a controversial scholarly publication by Dr. Rind et al. I have not violated this rule at all, OoBunnies!, as I understand these sentences. And my understanding is the way the guideline was meant to be understood. You, Oobunnies read into the guidelines what you want to see, but you do not understand them as they were meant to be understood by the author(s). I am quite confident that you have justified your action improperly.

You were 100% wrong to remove my post from the Rind et al. TALK page. You're now justifying this to me with your faulty comprehension of the TALK page guidelines; this reinforces my hunch that there is way too much capriciousness in throwing rules around here, in ways that they were never meant to be used.

There is not one sentence in that section/welcome letter, that you improperly removed, Oobunnies!, that give my personal views on the subject of Rind et al. Controversy. Not one iota of a clue can you find, OoBunnies!

Check with others how they understand the meaning of those sentences in the Talk Page Guidelines. You are dead wrong in this, OoBunnies. My letter is about how new editors can contribute productively to the project, and cope with editors like you here, that wik-lawyer to "own the page" and dominate the New comers with their imaginary comprehension and their biased interpretation of the rules.

Find a 4-6 th grade reading teacher and get a professional opinion. When you are convinced by others, whose reading comprehension you trust, that what I say about the TALK page guidelines is indeed what I explained above, please return my letter to the place where I originally posted it.

In the future, please leave my posted material where I place it! That is good Wikipedia etiquette and will keep you out of trouble. Thank you in advance, OoBunnies! for your cooperation with the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia rules and my second request. --Radvo (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, no. I passed 6th grade successfully, though I have to admit some difficulty reading your long diatribes. But the bottom line is this: that material was not acceptable for an article talk page, and that's the end of it. Threatening OohBunnies with "trouble" is specious, especially if you care to look at the ANI discussion about your edits--and you should look at that, since your future as an editor here may hang in the balance: a possible outcome is a block, another possible outcome is a topic ban. Finally, as for your talk about how the rules here are applied--you suggest that you know better what the proper rules and guidelines are. I'm sorry, but you are wrong in your interpretation of the rules and even in your interpretation of your own "welcome message", which was confrontational, did express opinions, and did so in unacceptable language. Now, I urge you to leave Bunnies alone and to make your case (succinctly, without suggesting pedophilia accusations and "Fascist state" stuff) at ANI. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@OohBunnies: Thanks for your help with this issue, and no problem regarding the timing business mentioned at the ANI discussion you started: I was very glad that another editor had moved Radvo's post. You will have noticed the outcome (Radvo has an arbcom indef block), and we will have to leave that fact as another interesting but unfinished story. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, Bunnies: thank you both very much for your effort and patience in trying to work this out. No good deed goes unpunished, unfortunately: another indef block for someone who could have been a contributor but chose differently. Much Wikilove on its way. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Kitties are cute but impatient. You are possibly cute and certainly patient. Thanks on behalf of all, or many, of us. BTW, cats do eat bunnies: stick with the monkey, he's harmless.

Drmies (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC) 
 * Thanks, Drmies, I like kittens just as much as I like rabbits. Monkeys scare me though. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Knowing Drmies, he probably wants to have your bunnies for dinner. He also feeds kittens to ravaging editors for fun. :) I saw your notes on Pesky's page and just wanted to say I love your user name.  Brings a smile to my face everytime I see it.  I'm a previous owner of Rex rabbits and French Lops. Bgwhite (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks! Glad it made you smile. I love lops, with their velvety ears. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 02:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You
Hi OohBunnies!,

Thanks you have been very helpful for a newbie super thanks can i email you if i have questions - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeemm54 (talk • contribs)

Fluffy bunnies!

 * Bunnies! That cheered me up, thank you! :D Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 20:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

AfC
Hi OohBunnies!

You have just rejected my revised submission for the History of Onoto on the grounds of it not being 'neutral'. I understand why this is necessary and have attempted to remove all words which 'inflate' or over-emphasise the qualities of the pens made by this company. It's an honest attempt to provide a concise historical overview of the company - as one does not otherwise exist.

I can't change the fact that I am connected with the present company, but I see this as a positive factor in that I am likely to have more facts and figures at my disposal than a casual observer. If there are still areas of text which need to be amended I'd be grateful if you give me some help in removing them - or at least pointing out a couple of examples and what needs to be done to correct them. Many thanks

Strathendry1927 Strathendry1927 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

AfC
Hi, the importance about my article is genius IQ. Now, I'm not sure of how common that is, but it is notable, along with referenced by sources acquitting the knowledge of a genius IQ. Along with that, natural ambidexterity is extremely rare, and also in my opinion notable. The article is about a polymath, not anything I've heard of in a while, so that also stands for something. The only matter is the lack of recognition, which would formally start with this article.

JediMindPimp JediMindPimp (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability
I just don't have any sources, in the media, about the person in particular, but I'd say the story'd be famous. I have facebook & youtube content, but I don't think these are viable references. I think my full story is notable, just not properly accounted for as a secondary source. Here's a link: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1BFNWwYFn-KNnIovR-XKZcQ7f7PQ5WCmD0G2hwUUart8

It's been a week, have you read the story yet for credibility?

JediMindPimp JediMindPimp (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

HI, you might join Nigel Keay composer from New Zealand and also violist. We have just recorded some of Geoffrey Grey's works on a CD in Germany. (The title is Diversions for oboe). Geoffrey Grey is famous in France!! How curiously he might be deleted??? I really not understand. As composer, Geoffrey Grey has writen numerous works and he is just composing an oboe concerto.

I hope I can vote to keep Geoffrey Grey on Wiki.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.121.253.83 (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)