User talk:Vacuum/Archive 2

For old talk, please see the archive. Subpages: User:Vacuum/sig User:Vacuum/Netoholic RfC

User:Vacuum/Netoholic RfC
I'll give you the option. Have someone delete this improper copy of an uncertified RFC, or I will open my own RFC over your harassing conduct. -- Netoholic @ 18:46, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

My archive of Netoholic RfC
Hi Fvw. Would you be willing to support me if Netoholic succeeds in getting the copy speedied or lists it on VfD? By the way, thanks for reverting Netoholic's < notices. Vacuum c 02:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll support your right to keep that RFC as a flat copy, yes. I'll vote against its deletion on VfD, and I'll keep removing speedy notices. Should the community decide to delete it on VfD I'll abide by that and expect you to do the same ofcourse.


 * However, in the interest of cooperation and not escalating matters and all that nonsense, have you considered putting it somewhere off wikipedia? Keep it somewhere on your computer or if you want to link it or show it to others, put it on a web host somewhere (heck, I'd be willing to host it somewhere if that'll stop this senseless bickering). Should you need it for wikipedia evidence later, you can always paste it back in at that point. I think you have a right to keep it in your user space, but I also think that all things considered it's not a wise choice.  --fvw *  02:33, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

I think you both fully realize where this situation puts me. In order to delete this page (as it should be), I would have to advertise it further. This RfC failed, should be deleted completely, and yet I (the subject of the failed RfC) am backed into a corner. Vacuum - do as Fvw says, copy it offline, nothing stopping you. But do so and then request deletion of the page. Keeping it is an insult to the RfC process, and is done only to harass me. Please consider doing the fair thing, learn from this, and go back to editing an encyclopedia rather than persist in personal actions which are not supported by the community. -- Netoholic @ 04:40, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)


 * Since my name has been mentioned I think I'd better chime in. Please delete your copy of the RfC, Vacuum. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proper procedure
Proper procedure is for users not to create copies of deleted material. My listing on VFD does not change my intention with regards to the page you maintain, nor my intention to file an RFC against you for harassment. I'll need a day or two to ensure that the second (more more) certifiers are ready, and then I'll file. The only amicable alternative is for you to request deletion of that page. -- Netoholic @ 03:35, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

VFD
Thanks for letting me know about User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC. Maurreen 14:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic RfC
Sure, no problem... if you can explain to me what transcluded means. Do you mean ? That would probably be best, since I mostly am interested in it as a potential resource. - Amgine 22:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clitoris
Hi, Happy New Year.

There was a vote on talk:Clitoris, mid-November I think, as to whether there should be a further content warning (there is already a very uncompromising site-wide content warning) and the votes were massively (around 85%+) against a further notice of the kind you inserted.

People who use the WWW know what to expect. If anybody wants to add censorship they can either learn to use their browser or use a different site. These are in my opinion the minimum reasonable expectations that one can have--that people are capable of deciding what they don't want to see and, having made the determinaton, not looking at it. Avoiding looking at articles with names like "Clitoris" would seem to be reasonable method of avoiding looking at pictures of the vulva with the clitoris depicted. Avoiding downloading pictures would seem to me to be a reasonable precaution to adopt if random photos in article about the clitoris are likely to offend on account of containing depictions of female sexual organs. Remember, we're talking about what happens *after* the prude presses the word, or types in the word "clitoris". This person is not an innocent. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

deleteagain
Heya, Anthony's violated the 3RR on on deleteagain, I've given him one warning before asking an admin to block, however that does mean the template needs to be reverted again. Are you around? --fvw *  20:13, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)


 * It is decidely lame to go around soliciting help in a revert war. Try compromise. -- Netoholic @ 20:23, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Vacuum, please don't revert the template again. It is permitted to re-create articles that are deleted, so long as they do not have the same content. It's repeated content that is a criterion, not repeated articles. Creating a template that says otherwise is a breach of policy. Fvw, and you, may wish a change of policy but this is not the way to achieve it. Discuss it on the talk page. Writing that it's not good enough for you in an edit summary is not discussion, by the way, and simply outreverting the "other side" is not a way to build consensus.Dr Zen 03:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Irate's message on my user page
This user is a dishonest editor who does not care about votes or democracy. Noone should take anything they do at face value.--Jirate 17:11, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Careful!
Hey there. Just warning you about the 3RR, it states that you can't revert more than three times within 24 hours. I have no doubts that you didn't mean to do so, but it would be prudent to be careful, especially when your asking for somebody else to be blocked for violation of the 3RR on the same page. Why? Because sysops have to treat both sides equally, so you would be blocked for the same period of time. If you look at the history for Clitoris, you should notice that you've reverted 4 times within 24 hours. You can revert again after 19:01 UTC (today). Sorry about that, I understand it can be a pain sometimes! -Frazzydee|&#9997; 15:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Banned
Vacuum - I have banned you for 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on Clitoris. You reverted at:
 * 11:04, Jan 22, 2005 (EST)
 * 15:19, Jan 21, 2005 (EST)
 * 15:01, Jan 21, 2005 (EST)
 * 12:35, Jan 21, 2005 (EST)
 * I would have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and overlook this, but seeing as how you have continued the edit war on into today, I've gone ahead and blocked you. &rarr;Raul654 01:38, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

TfD removal
Vacuum, I don't mean to start an edit war, but please don't remove templates from templates for deletion, and don't remove deletion notices from templates. I agree with User:Frazzydee: "I added the second template template because it's virtually identical to the first, except uglier. It's saying almost the exact same thing, but if anybody feels that it warrants a seperate entry, [feel free to] go ahead and move it there." Your simple removal of Template:Content dispute doesn't fly; if you want to open up a new TfD section on it, fine, but don't just remove it and then remove the tag from the template page. Timbo ( t a l k )  19:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Athletics to Athletics (British usage)
Please explain?--ZayZayEM 00:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

TfD removal x2
rm dup? I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but if you thought that you could just go ahead and delete a perfectly a valid TFD candidate from the TFD page, you're quite mistaken. Just because you vote keep doesn't mean that you can immediately assume that other have chosen to do the same. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this behaviour, but please stop. Removing TFDs presumably just because you don't agree with them is stupid, POV, feckless, and not to mention obviously bad-faith. I don't approve of you deleting my comments and nominations. Please never do that again. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 23:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I caught it and reinstated your comments, Frazzydee. See my talk page for a detailed chronology of this issue. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  23:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I was overly abrasive, I'm going through some personal problems right now (although that's not much of an excuse). While I don't apologize for my accusations, I'm sorry for not approaching you in a more polite way.  I said on the TFD page that you can feel free to create a new section, not to completely remove it.  Next time, please just allow the democratic process to happen.  If consensus says 'delete', then so be it, it would've happened whether you removed it or not.  Also, next time please don't delete the one that was created before, if you look at the timestamps, you'll see that the one you created was the duplicate.  Thanks. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 14:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sollog template
I thought the photo adds some interest and humor to the pages. It made me laugh, so I though it could brighten the moods of the users who deal with Sollog's sockpuppets. No offense meant, of course. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 02:41, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't "categorize" sock puppet user pages. The best mechanism is to create an evidence page listing the ones you suspect. Using the category system this way does not seem appropriate, and may lead to abuses. -- Netoholic @ 18:01, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
 * Another fight, eh? I no more "unilaterally" removed the category than you "unilaterally" added/created them.  Categories are not a good mechanism for this function. Better to put that information on a single page, where you can also explain why you believe that person is a sockpuppet. -- Netoholic @ 19:24, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Don't be a troll. Personal attack whited out. I removed the category before making the listing, if such a thing even mattered. You tend to break out these weak "procedural" excuses rather than make solid justifications for keeping your odd creations. -- Netoholic @ 04:45, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

Wiki-debate
Hi, I saw your recomendation for a Wiki-debate. I have already set up a wiki for this, but I have no community for it. If you are interested, check out http://forum.for-pgh.org/wiki. We need to get some content and figure out how to organize it. AdamRetchless 20:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RFC
Hi, thanks. I also recently noticed that jguk deleted your note to him on his talk page. Maurreen 05:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia
Vacuum, this may come as a surprise to you, but since I see you care nothing for me, I'll be blunt. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We want readers, we want contributors, but we don't want trolls. Looking at your contributions it is crystal clear from your contributions that they are almost all in the Wikipedia space and User space, and that all you do is troll and put in your oar on things that do not concern you. Since you are making no useful contributions to the project and just get in the way, I really must ask, why are you here? To my mind, it seems only to cause trouble. I'm quite sure Maurreen does not wish for a relative minor disagreement we had 3 months ago to remain visible in perpetuity. Why do you wish this? The page you wish to keep has no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. There is no reason to keep it other than to meddle in other people's affairs. Please stop doing this, jguk 06:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)