User talk:Userpd

A Sound of Thunder (film)
It does not mater what I think the film is about, the page has now agreed that only films that have RS saying they are apoclayptic should be included. Not whether you or I think it is, nor does the quality of the film make any differance to its inclusion..Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IGNORE, it doesn't necessarily should be me, but also other persons who, when asked, could confirm that yes, this film features post-apocalyptic world. No need to cling to the rule, because you should realize that sometimes rules can only drag it to the back. Although I don't think there would be a serious objection from someone who had watched the film as they would understand that it's not a fabricated fact made by some wikipedian. Userpd (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So if there will be a serious objection from someone, who would wholeheartedly disagree, then we simply remove it. Userpd (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would susgest asking for opinion on the lists talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're not objecting? It's not like I'm adding a controversial content, if someone would leave a reasonable objection on the talk page, it'd be deleted, not a big deal. Userpd (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I beleive I have said that content should only be aded if RS say its apocalyptic. I have susgested (I should habe been clearer) that if you wish to invoke WP:IGNORE then you need to take this to the lists talk page in order to establish that this edit will improve the list. Hopefully others who edit the list will have seen the film and can comment better then me on that aspect of your argument.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR
I think you need to read up on this policy. You've addressed my specific point at the IDF article and it was therefore fair enough that you reverted me while inserting the English language ref, but other editors are still arguing with you. Someone aggressive might choose to report you for now having made a fourth revert in 24 hours. Just say you didn't know about it and stick to the talk page for a while. It's 4 reverts on any page in any 24 hours (even if it is different parts of the article that you are reverting) or a lot of reverts over several days where it is apparent that you are just slowing things down just to avoid the 3 revert rule.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The last one didn't provide any arguments nor collaborated in talk page before removing, and I think he read talk page and saw the dispute and, however, removed it. Userpd (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You added a quote and referenced it with an article that doesn't use the quote. In short, it looks like you made it up to push your WP:POV... again.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 06:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Miss Guatemala winners
Category:Miss Guatemala winners, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Blind (film)


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GILO ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY  21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see the message to the nominator. Looks fine now. --Canley (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Palin
AGF is not a suicide pact. You are creating a connection where there isn't one. Wikipedia's BLP standards are very high and rightfully so. If your claim had even a scintilla of verifiability it would be all over the media not hidden as brace for someone else. You are entitled to your POV...you just can't spread it around like manure. Buster Seven   Talk  12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * >"You are creating a connection where there isn't one." It's only you that can't see the connection. However, I will revert your edit, which is original research, you're deleting it assuming (opinion) there's no connection, so until we reach the consensus it should be there. If you find it debatable you may consider putting it up here. Userpd (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Make your point at Talk:Sarah Palin. Buster Seven   Talk  13:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's you who have problems with it, so you do it. Userpd (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You probably want to look at timestamps before pronouncing that my revert of your nonsensical categorization was at Buster's urging. Fcreid (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Jujimufu
With regard to this edit: in the summary you say "grammar, he's welcoming it". How exactly do you know that, if I may ask? I suppose you are aware that editing other user's comments is highly discouraged under most circumstances, and that grammar/typo corrections for talk page comments are discouraged in general (see WP:TPO if in doubt). --78.35.212.131 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * he's not against it. Userpd (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did he explicitly state that he "welcomes" it, as you claimed in your edit summary? If by "he's not against it" you mean that he didn't revert, then your edit summary at the time you edited his comment is clearly before the fact and thus wrong. If you mean that he explicitly stated that he is fine with your editing his comment, where did he say so? At any rate, do not edit other people's comments, and never dishonestly claim they are "welcoming" it when they did not explicitly say so. I gather you know that what you did was wrong and just have difficulties admitting it. --78.35.213.132 (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your problem? I said you he's not against it. If he was he'd say it already. Now let's close this useless debate. Userpd (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

NPA warning
At the NPOV noticeboard, I commented that "we discuss content not editors". You appear to have misunderstood the point because you mentioned that the NPOV noticeboard is not the place for content disputes. Since I had already linked to WP:No personal attacks I did not think it necessary to spell out that my comment was based on policy, however I will do so now. The nutshell of the NPA policy expresses the idea as "Comment on the content, not on the contributor". That applies to all pages on Wikipedia (with the exception that at noticeboards specifically intended to discuss editor behavior, it is acceptable to assert that a certain editor has violated certain policies, with evidence). At all times, neutral headings should be used ("Category for Sarah Palin", not "Double standards by [name of editor]"). Furthermore, if you are going to discuss an editor on any page of Wikipedia, you must notify that editor. If you do not understand some aspect of Wikipedia, you should ask questions, and should not repeat violations of standards expected of editors. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * >"That applies to all pages on Wikipedia" Rly? Let's go over recent archives. admin noticeboard's page, admin incident's board. So you're wrong, or you're selectively suggesting me to use another title. Userpd (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "Comment on the content..." applies to all pages on Wikipedia.
 * I then said "neutral headings should be used". You are correct that many people use inappropriate headings, although on a noticeboard like ANI it is probably fine to use a neutral heading that names a user to save everyone time in wondering what the report is about. ANI attracts a lot of miscreants and it should not be used as a model of ideal behavior. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re title it then, but keep his username. Userpd (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are mentioned
A discussion has been initiated regarding recent attempts to edit the Sarah Palin article. Please see the newest thread at Talk:Sarah Palin. Buster Seven   Talk  20:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian protests
I made a comment here that I think you should address. Thank you. Silver seren C 21:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Promoted FS

 * >"If you would like to nominate a sound file" - but someone already did it, no? Userpd (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gwen reaction.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gwen reaction.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)