User talk:The Haunted Angel/Archive 10

November 7th, 2008
Please stop reverting changes on the basis of citation. You and User talk:Alastairward are awful for that. Thankyou. 192.197.128.21 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No - Wikipedia is based upon citation, and until you or anyone else can provide such citation, irrelevant and useless trivia will continue to be removed. ≈  The Haunted Angel  20:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and if you continue to act in this way, you will no longer be permitted to make contributions (or remove them, as it were) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.128.21 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't threaten me. It is you who is defying Wikipedia's rules, whereas I am enforcing them. ≈  The Haunted Angel  20:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't be ignorant. While you're at it, why don't you remove the entire episode's plot summary, because we can't be sure that they were mocking Barack Obama. There might be another Barack Obama in the United States. This need to be cited. The references are obvious an there doesn't need to be citations. Stop reverting the changes. Now. 192.197.128.21 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're splitting hairs - the idea that it could be about another Barack Obama is ridiculous and frankly childish - the so-called "cultural references" however, are mere speculation. There's no proof, until someone can provide it, about the references being true. Uncited material will be removed. ≈  The Haunted Angel  20:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm mocking you. There are references in there that are quite obvious, not speculation. What would you have me do? Cite a website with the Aliens script, and point out to the part where Paxton delivers those lines, in the exact same way? A video perhaps? 192.197.128.21 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because that'd be original research - as it happens, I'm quite the fan of Aliens, and I know the scene that the speculation refers to - but that's not proof, it's speculation, which is not welcome on Wikipedia. If the reference is so obvious, then it shouldn't be difficult to get a viable and reliable citation. ≈  The Haunted Angel  20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you're being immature and recoculous about the situation, then you find a citation for the reference and quit complaining abou it. 192.197.128.21 (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The onus is on the person who adds the speculation - it's not up to Wikipedia's editors to clean up other people's chaotic additions. If you wish to call me immature, then you're calling Wikipedia's very basis immature. ≈  The Haunted Angel  20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"attack"?
How is telling another user to get a life called "attacking" them? He has done far worse, and nothing has ever become of it. Anthony cargile (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant - two wrongs to not make a right here on Wikipedia. Telling them to 'get a life' constitutes an attack and defies WP:CIVIL greatly. If you continue to show an uncivil attitude, you will be blocked from editing, so if I were you, I would cease this feud now. ≈  The Haunted Angel  12:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle reverts
Just FYI, it's not appropriate to revert that IP's additions to the article as vandalism. I'd caution you two to not edit war over the introduction of trivia material in there but you (Haunted Angel) need to refrain from using semi-automated tools to revert. I don't want to step in and protect the article (because I'm inclined to leave out the OR), but I will if it keeps up. Also, to the IP editor, don't take this warning as some dire threat against Haunted Angel. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well, information noted. I must ask, however, what the reason is to not using Twinkle to revert his edits? Thanks ≈  The Haunted Angel  22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Twinkle part of it isn't too important. Basically, you have an "advantage" in reverting with things like twinkle or with tools like rollback.  With rollback, the issue is that reversion without an edit summary is considered rude.  but twinkle has the option to automatically insert "revert XXX version identified as vandalism" in the edit summary.  That is, in a way, an accusation that the IP you are reverting was vandalizing the article.  Whatever your opinion about adding in unsourced OR, what he did wasn't vandalism.  You can use twinkle (just like you can use huggle to revert non-vandalism edits, using a custom edit summary) to revert good faith changes, but be sure to use the "AGF" version, which allows for a specific edit summary.  That will let you communicate more effectively as you revert. Protonk (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah I see; thanks for the information :) ≈  The Haunted Angel  00:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia and uncited Cultural References
I appreciate the work I've seen you doing, I've been scrubbing the South Park episodes too.

I had a run in with a group of users who really badly wanted to keep some OR on the The China Probrem article page. One long drawn out exchange later and it was added, uncited with fact tags.

I think its timely removal should go ahead, but they're proving stubborn and I see that one of them is starting an edit war on Overlogging too.

Just to give you a heads up. Alastairward (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey mate; I've seen your work on the South Park articles, and I was going to say basically the same thing to you - good work! I've seen some of the absolutely hair-splitting some people have used to try to get random trivia onto The China Probrem -- but I'll keep an eye out on Overlogging as well: thanks for the heads up, mate! ≈  The Haunted Angel  21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

please for the love of god stop changing my south park edit. an idiot whos seen oceans eleven knows that that is a parody of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.216.18 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that that view is speculation and original research - as sure as you might be, it is not definite, until you or someone else can provide a source. ≈  The Haunted Angel  23:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Kenny's death
Kenny's death is a mini-plot occurring over the vast part of South Park episodes. While the essence remains the same (Kenny dies), the details change between episodes. It is just as important as the chalkboard/couch gags in The Simpsons or the Stoopid Monkey's antics in Robot Chicken. Therefore, it truly deserves a section of its own - please stop removing it. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My own opinion is that it's a minor plot point in the episode and so does not need it's own section. It can be mentioned in the plot synopsis perfectly well. What does its own section do, except go into more detail? Alastairward (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not just another minor plot point in a specific episode, but rather a consistently recurring gag, something that ties many episodes together and is vital for fans. If you were a real South Park aficionado (otherwise I can't see any reasons for you to emphasize on their articles for so long and so stubbornly), you'd agree that it goes without saying. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell us how it ties episodes together (an Admin has advised that episode continuity is not a cultural reference, only trivia and can be removed BTW) Whether or not I'm a fan is irrelevant, Wikipedia has policies in place to address these matters, please discuss them on the talk page for each article. Alastairward (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Us being 'real fans' is irrelevant, this isn't a fan site, it's an encyclopaedia. Just because other stuff exists that doesn't justify leaving this. Quite simply, it's irrelevant, and it is nothing that can't be explained in the plot details. The "Kenny's Death" sections is a collection of information that counts towards trivia - which should be avoided in articles where the information can be mentioned elsewhere, such as in the plot section. There is no justifiable reason to include it in any article. ≈  The Haunted Angel  14:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude
RfA is bone dry. It's been over a year since your last RfA; methinks a third attempt is in order... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not too sure, personally. I'm not even that active anymore (the past few weeks less so due to certain reasons), but not even a great deal before that anyway. That coupled with the fact that I was blocked a few months ago for edit warring makes me doubtful that a 3rd RfA would go well -- at least not for a while. Thanks for the support, though :) ≈  The Haunted Angel  14:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Informative
Why, hello, again Richard, due to our edits coming across one another's I think it would be generally nessesary to inform you for my new username, my username has been switched from "Ya Boi Krakerz" to now "Gunmetal Angel". Good day. And happy editing! -- GunMetal Angel  22:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for the information - good day. ≈  The Haunted Angel  14:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oriental metal
I just throught, since you were the one who proposed the original deletion of the oriental metal article, that you'd be interested to know I've started a merger proposal for merging it into the folk metal article. It contains nothing like enough info, sources and bands to warrant it's own article, and any contribution you have to make to the discussion would be welcomed. Prophaniti (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Meetup/Birmingham_3
As you're local, just thought I'd let you know that a meetup's in the planning stage. If you could join in and share your thoughts about a possible date for it and so on, that'd be great.:) Sticky Parkin 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooh, this does look interesting - thanks for the link, I'll be sure to keep an eye on the page and contribute! ≈  The Haunted Angel  17:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)