User talk:Pellucid

Image of dinosaurs
Turned out it was on conservapedia after all. Andjam 04:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if it was, it isn't now. Pellucid 05:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreasonability
"Apologies, I'm just very used to dealing with unreasonable people and tend to assume that most people I have a disagreement with will be unreasonable about it. When I have the time, I'll look for a source, as I said below"

Translation: "I'm very used to considering people who disagree with me as being unreasonable, and most people I have a disagreement with I usually just call unreasonable."Yeago 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sending people private messages specifically designed to attempt to insult them, I see. Doesn't that strike you as a little unreasonable? I love it when someone's own argument proves itself wrong. -- Pellucid 03:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not insulting you. I'm pointing at something. Namely, that you seemingly write off everything that you disagree with as being 'unreasonable', just like you call me now that you have found something you need to defend about yourself. And yes, I love it when someone's own argument proves itself wrong. You haven't really explained why its unreasonable, you're content to condemn it as such and move on. Also, this message is far from private. Good day.Yeago 13:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, what is the REASON, then, for you coming here and insulting me? You don't even know me. You saw one conversation I had with one person who, in case you hadn't noticed, started whipping out the ad homs and sarcasm in an otherwise rational discussion. Based on this ONE conversation, and, furthermore, based on me APOLOGIZING for my tendency to assume that people are unreasonable until they prove otherwise, you have concluded that no argument that I am capable of putting forth has any substance, and that I am in denial about the validity of my opponent's arguments. Does that just about sum this nonsense up? Or would you like to have a few more moments of sarcasm before you go about your business? -- Pellucid 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I already said I didn't come here to insult you. But it didn't register the first time and I'm not sure it will the second. Also, no, that does not sum anything up. I never concluded that you're incapable of presenting an argument with substance. What prompted me to reply to you was an isolated glimpse of your behavior in a heated topic--far from comprehensive. Now, you're projecting motivations onto me which are imaginary. Its not entirely your fault that you're currently in defense/argue mode, but isn't there a surplus of that already? Do you see that this conversation is 1 part discussion to 3 parts arguing? (as opposed to the conversation in 1/2Hour:Talk, which started out bad and degraded to worse).


 * When you ask the opening question of your last message in a humane, nondefensive manner, I will answer it. If its full of the same defensiveness/imagination, I will just have to spend my time dealing with those, instead. We only have so much energy/attention, and I've already more than spent this round's.Yeago 16:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, what is the point of you coming here and being disrespectful? -- Pellucid 02:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, I cannot agree. I am simply making an observation, and I've been very respectful. If you could get passed the idea that I'm trying to be insulting, we could really talk. But you can't. Strike 3.Yeago 05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you're not trying to be insulting, then you're pretty bad at being respectful. I'm not going to get "passed" the idea that you're trying to be insulting, because you ARE trying to be insulting. That, or trying to talk down to me. Either way, you're being disrespectful. At any rate, if you don't have a reason for coming in here and being a jerk (and you don't), then you are being unreasonable, and therefore you are proving my original statement correct. Most people I have to deal with (including you) are unreasonable. -- Pellucid 11:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States revert
On your revert, you reverted a lot of my changes, and I think you were trying to fix someone else's change (I barely touched the liberal bias section). Could you, uhh, I don't know if there's an easy way to fix the edits, but I would like to see my changes there. 171.71.37.103 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The main problem I saw with your edits is that you made accusations of conservative bias in the accusations of liberal bias section. If you want to accuse Groseclose and Milyo of conservative bias, you have to put it in the accusations of conservative bias section. Plus, part of the stuff you added had already been said in other, more appropriate sections of the article, such as the Charlie Reina quote (which was in a section specifically about FoxNews). Pellucid 00:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's me, but a different IP. Double check my edits.  I didn't do anything with the Groseclose and Milyo section.  On that quote, I thought it I moved it to a more appropriate section (from the 9/11 section to claims of a conservative bias).  I think you just mixed me up with someone else.  69.12.143.197 06:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think maybe I do. Well, just re-add them and we'll find out, haha. Pellucid 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Media bias revert
Your revert on my Media bias... change was sloppy. Writing it, I just couldn't think of another word; that's it. Instead of being revert happy because of a single word, maybe you should fix it. Oh, it is concise; weasel words are chosen arbitrarily, so while there might be some level of bias to the word, the word itself doesn't have it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word seems to disagree on your weasel word definition, too.

171.71.37.103 19:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You also added an assumption, as per your statement "If it isn't neutral and it isn't liberal, that means it must be..." If he explicitly states that it is a conservative bias, then it's acceptable to add. We can't put words in peoples' mouths. Pellucid 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit that I didn't read the book, but the Amazon editorial review says:
 * "Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman."
 * Ok, so maybe that's not the best source. What about Alterman's own website for the book, which claims "...Alterman finds the media to be, on the whole, far more conservative than liberal?"
 * I didn't make an assumption. It's simple set theory, and in a political sense, conservative is the opposite of liberal.  171.71.37.103 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the main deal here is that we need to find a direct quotation we can cite. Really, we shouldn't even be mentioning his book without a good citation. I had a lot of my edits reverted by people who cried "that's original research and we can't use it" in the same situation. Maybe you can find a review of the book that is more thorough that could be used as a source? I'm not against the change, I'm just against adding it without an appropriate source to back it up. Pellucid 08:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your newest change actually looks fine. You still might want a more thorough source, but I think it could stand as-is for at least a good while. Pellucid 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's weird is the double standard for OR on wikipedia. On one hand, William Sledd (a youtube celebrity isn't notable enough for wikipedia and his page gets deleted because youtube isn't a real source.  Then there's the penny-arcade article that extensively cites the webcomic's site.  It's clearly a double standard--the wikipedia nerds just like penny-arcade more than a gay guy talking about denim. 70.135.100.175 05:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

stuff
At least you are being consistent in taking my suggestion and applying the changes to The Daily Show as well. I have added your "liberal" citation to The Colbert Report just to see what happens.Yeago 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

!
I want to tell you I think the HHNH is not a very good show but I do want the article to be fair. --The Emperor of Wikipedia &amp; Protector of Wiktionary 06:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I think the pilot was awful. I don't think it quite deserves the 14/100 MetaCritic gave it (I'm thinking more like 22/100), but nobody's arguing there that the pilot wasn't at least poor. I just seek to present professional-level encyclopedic content. --Pellucid 11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

well i think i am going to put the mention of the current ratings back in. In my opinion it rounds out that section --The Emperor of Wikipedia &amp; Protector of Wiktionary 05:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Prickly City
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not violated the 3RR. Most of my removals of the link to Shrubville were just oversights of anonymous posters editing earlier versions without realizing that the link had been removed. I see you've posted this on the other individual involved's talk page as well, however this is your second warning to him. How many warnings before action is taken? --Pellucid 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These warnings were just to get the attention of both of you, not to lay blame for a particular action. As an involved party in the editing dispute, it would be improper for me to block other participants except in the most extreme circumstances. If you wish to report a 3RR violation, you can do so at WP:AN/3RR and an uninvolved administrator will investigate. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, you are aware that anyone can look at the edit history on that page and see that you have violated the three-revert rule twice in the last couple of days, right?


 * Namely:
 * 2007-06-28 13:37
 * 2007-06-27 23:06
 * 2007-06-27 21:23
 * 2007-06-27 18:04


 * 2007-06-25 18:21
 * 2007-06-25 16:05
 * 2007-06-24 21:56
 * 2007-06-24 20:50


 * (All times EDT.)


 * And yes, I did violate the rule once myself. Only once though. --Orat Perman 22:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I added links to better illustrate my point above. I notice you have deleted previous 3RR warnings from your talk page. --Orat Perman 00:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you actually look at what each of those edits was, the vast majority of them were not reverts. About two or three of them were removal of the Shrubville link after someone else edited a previous edit and simply failed to notice (or didn't care) that the version they were editing still had the link in it. Suffice to say, you've violated it far more times than that. --Pellucid 03:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Every single one of them is a revert as defined on the WP:3RR page: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." In your case, it was the same material each time. Someone else posted the Shrubville link, and you removed it — four times over a 24 hour period. I have no idea what distinction you believe you are making, but I invite you to show those links to any Wikipedia administrator and ask whether they constitute 3RR violations. --Orat Perman 04:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I invite you to show the bullshit you're trying to post on Prickly City to anyone who actually understands WP:EL or WP:Relevance or WP:NPOV and get them to agree with its inclusion. --Pellucid 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bootstrapping (science fiction)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bootstrapping (science fiction), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. B. Wolterding 14:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bootstrapping (science fiction)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bootstrapping (science fiction), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Crossroads Tavern


The article Crossroads Tavern has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable internet chat room. Article does not establish notability. Obscure nature of subject further illustrated by article's orphan status.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)