User talk:The Squicks/Archive 2

You...sire...
Are needed in ever single I/P article. Thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts..
..on how best to persuade Jimmi Hugh to play nice at Geert Wilders and comply with guidelines etc ? It looks like he's going to continue as before rather than just finding a source for Heckler's Veto or letting it drop. His behavior is bit puzzling especially the personal attacks and odd edit summaries. I'm holding off on escalating it in the hope that he might see reason eventually. Anyway, let me know what you think when you get a chance. Thanks.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Huey Lewis and the News
Yay! I am VERY happy to see other people using the userbox I created. Thank you Fore! adding it to your page! ;) Carpet Crawler  message me  21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Rock on. The Squicks (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar; your input on that page is likewise appreciated. Very difficult to keep a rational discourse going while personal attacks are flying but you keep a cool head under pressure. csloat (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No prob.


 * P.S. Given that the discussion at Talk:Juan Cole seemed ended (noone disputed the consensus, and noone wanted to put sanctions on any editor) I went ahead and closed it. The Squicks (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I did dispute consensus, actually, mostly because there wasn't one. You insisted on fighting with me, but I thought it be easiest just to walk away from it. As for the resolved tag, generally that's a poor idea on a very recent discussion that could still be live (if, for example, someone else wanted to weigh in). You're free to tag whatever you like; I can't promise not to edit in talk sections you tag, but otherwise, knock yourself out. IronDuke  03:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote But I said I wasn't going to fight over it, and I'm not, unless consensus should change at some time in the future, which I don't have any specific reason to anticipate will happen. Cheers.


 * So, you are taking that back? The Squicks (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No... what gave that idea? IronDuke  20:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Because you just posted "I did dispute consensus, actually, mostly because there wasn't one" and "I can't promise not to edit in talk sections you tag".


 * Which is it? Are you saying that the issue is at least temporarily closed (of course, you and I can't see into the future) or are you saying that you want to keep this going? The Squicks (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The two statements you quote do not contradict each other. IronDuke  21:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why can't you let this go? Either it is closed or it isn't.The Squicks (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see where I'm not letting this go. IronDuke  21:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay then. The Squicks (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lost in translation
Your post below bewildered me: 'Regardless of whatever prior feelings I had toward the Palestinians, the image that Sceptic linked to of a Palestinian man brutally mistreating a harmless pink fluffy bunny that only wanted to be his friend has torn it.

I bet they kick puppies in their spare time as well. / sarc'

Can you say it again? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Guardian news article that you linked to had a picture of a man throwing up a pink bunny up in the air. I then joked about the stupidity of the newspaper's picture. The Squicks (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

--1105김상희 (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I want to the precise picture information.

Cohen
No, I have not violated that policy. The policy you cited says "three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". So you are actually closer to violating that policy than me.--NewLionDragon (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You made three edits deleting the content in less than 12 hours. So, you broke it. You violated it.


 * I said that I did not care about this fact because I wanted you to actually comment about the issue on the talk page rather than making endless warring edits. The Squicks (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, WP:3RR does not apply to BLP-related violations. Secondly, I have 3 reverts within the last 24 hours, so I have not had a 4th revert within 24hr period, and therefore have not violated the policy you cited. If you, ShamWow, Whyzeee  wish to revert again in light of the administrator's clear ruling on the issue, go ahead, I won't revert you back this time. What I will do in that case, is calling Mr Cohen, and having him file a formal complaint with Wikimedia foundation about pro-Likud editors turning his biography into an an attack page, despite the opposition of neutral editors and several administrators.  --NewLionDragon (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pro-Likud?!! Are you kidding? After all the anti-Israel stuff that I've added in Gaza War and Avigdor Lieberman and King David Hotel Bombing and Arab Peace Initiative and all the other I/P articles I look at? It boggles the mind. The Squicks (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As for Mr. Cohen, you seem to be unaware of the fact that I added 5000+ bytes of positive or neutral background information in his article as well as starting pages for both of his books: Hearts Grown Brutal and Soldiers and Slaves.


 * If you are serious, than the number for the NYT editorial office is 212-556-1234. Go crazy. The Squicks (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you per se. I don't like to name names, but I was talking about the two editors who originally added the disputed material to that BLP (ShamWow and Whyzeee). Just take a look at their contributions, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what their points of views and positions are. --NewLionDragon (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The number is 212-556-1234. The Squicks (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't need NYT's number, if needed, I'll contact him personally. --NewLionDragon (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
No problem. Keep up the good work. You really put in a lot of work into that article and have been committed to maintaining a neutral point of view.

Still kind of new to Wikipedia. Do you mind if I ever use you as a resource for Wiki-related questions? Thanks. ShamWow (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. The Squicks (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle tags
Hi, thanks for the tags for TGGWS. Controversial and calmtalk should have been there a long time ago! I'm curious though, why is it C rather than B class? It deals with the subject at exhaustive length, prose is without obvious errors, and there are many inline citations. It's probably too long, but that tends to be the nature of controversial subjects where everyone wants to make sure their angle is covered. If you could explain why it isn't a B class (so we can look at improving it) that would be great. --Merlinme (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. I would prefer to talk about it there rather than here, though. The Squicks (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, 2009‎
Yes, the article needs to be expanded, and we are discussing it on the talk page. At least one section, the Speech, is already tagged. I don't see how tagging the entire article for expansion is helpful, as most articles require expansion in the first place. Generally, the tag is used to alert other editors to the problem, and we're already aware of it and working on it. I'm thinking of removing the tag you added as a result. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I agree that "most articles require expansion in the first place". The whole point of the tag was to draw attention from readers to tell them that the topic is both very important but at the same time is deeply incomplete. The Squicks (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia statistics, most articles are stubs requiring expansion. As I said above, we are already aware of the problem, and the reader is directed to the talk page to contribute to the discussion.  I don't see the need for the tag. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing. Happyme22 (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright
Hi, I got involved in your request at User talk:GHcool. Could you tell me (here) why you didn't put this on the JW-Talkpage? If no big deal, I suggest we take it to that page. -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. The Squicks (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)