Misplaced Pages

User talk:Theserialcomma: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:22, 25 August 2009 view sourceJéské Couriano (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers40,182 edits →Inappropriate talk page comments: Re← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:42, 15 April 2023 view source MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(144 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Pp-semi-usertalk}}
'''Welcome!''' '''Welcome!'''


Line 7: Line 8:
*] *]
*] *]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</span><sup>'']''</sup> 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


== ANI Reports about other users ==


==kvirc==
Please note, you are REQUIRED to notify other users if you post about them on ]. ] (]) 14:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:It's at the top of the page - "As a courtesy, you must inform other users if they are the subject of a discussion (you may use <nowiki>{{subst:ANI-notice}}</nowiki> to do so)."
ok, thanks. ] (]) 18:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


I just saw that you want to delete ] after 5 years and 9 month. Seems like you visit every page Tothwolf has edited, and even if he only corrected some upper/lowercase words. That's the spirit. Destroy everything someone you dislike done, No regard to collateral damage, YOU ROCK! --] (]) 02:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
== Topic banned on Koalorka ==
:tothwolf has edited virtually every single IRC article. it's impossible, therefore, to edit an IRC article that doesn't have his minor changes in its history. and i added a notability tag to ]. that doesnt mean it will be deleted, or that it's been nominated for deletion. if you think the article is worthy of inclusion on wikipedia, however, you should add some third party, reliable sources to the article before it does get nominated. as the article stands, i don't believe notability has been established.


== ] ==
:(Copied on ] and the users' talk pages and ])
:I'm going to one-up that. Every location in which Koalorka and Theserialcomma are butting heads has multiple uninvolved administrators participating. Their interactions have overwhelmingly been either baiting or attacking each other, and completely unrelated to article content, for a while now. Given that there's always an admin looking over their shoulder, they have no need to be reporting each other to ANI or WQA (or 3RR or anywhere else - someone else who can act will notice), and that they are unable to interact in a constructive manner, and that both have risen to the level of disruptive in responding to the other...
::''Koalorka and Theserialcomma are topic banned on each other. Broadly construed, neither may revert each others' edits, follow up a talk page comment by the other, comment on the others' talk page, or report the other to noticeboards.''
::''If one violates, and no response is forthcoming within twelve hours, the other may make a single line notification to an uninvolved administrator with a link to the topic ban and the diff of the particular edit which violated it. If no response is forthcoming within 18 hours, a second admin, and if no response is forthcoming within 24 hrs a post to ANI with the same information. In no case may either party engage in additional discussion unless asked direct questions by uninvolved admins.''
:You both go to your corners and stay there. If one comes out swinging, they go down. If you both start swinging, you both go down.
:Lest there be any question about it - this disruptive behavor on both of your parts has at this point exceeded community patience and the sum of your positive contributions to Misplaced Pages. Stop, or your tenures on Misplaced Pages are at the end. ] (]) 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
* get an uninvolved admin to do this. you have a conflict of interest here. i complained about your unfair admining to another admin, koalorka shows up, attacks me, and then you topic ban me? Conflict of interest. i will accept this topic ban from someone else. please start an ANI thread if you wish. also, please provide diffs if you are going to accuse me of anything, or i won't accept it - especially from you. Thanks. ] (]) 23:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:: I only have a conflict of interest because I've been trying to resolve the conflict. I am really not on his side or any such preference for one of you or the other, which would actually disqualify me.
:: You two do not get along. You can still edit articles alongside each other, as long as you avoid talk page discussions with each other or reversions. If either of you attacks the other, then it's a violation. If either of you attacks someone else, the pages you edit on have many admins watching, and someone else can report or deal with it. You lose nothing by this, if you really have no intention to annoy or harrass the other and just want to edit Misplaced Pages. Nobody gets away with anything.
:: If you fight this, you're essentially admitting that you want to keep getting in conflict with him. If that's your intention, that's what the topic ban is there to end. If that's not your intention, think about it. You really lose nothing under this, other than a safety separation to prevent incidents which have caused both of you significant negative impact.
:: He's not going to get away with anything, anywhere, against anyone else just because you can't report him for it. Trust me. He's watched very closely.
:: Please just think about it and accept it. Ultimately this is protecting you - a number of admins, completely excluding myself, are on the verge of indefinitely blocking both of you. If you want to keep editing, whether you're topic banned from interacting with him or not, your future here depends on not interacting with him. As does his, on not interacting with you. Better to make that formal and out in the open rather than leave it ambiguous, and the next time one of you complains about something both of you are gone forever.
:: ] (]) 23:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I am uninterested in negotiating with you. you are aware of how i feel about your admining ability. yesterday i said i had no confidence in your ability to be fair, two days ago i said you were harassing me. now you topic ban me because he was uncivil, unprovoked. Get an uninvolved admin to make this decision. I don't have faith in your ability to be fair, but i will accept another, uninvolved admin's opinion. This is not an argument about the accepting a topic ban, just accepting one from you without input from someone without a conflict of interest. also show diffs or go away. i certainly do not accept this from you especially without one single diff ] (]) 00:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:] discussion is the proper place to get this overturned, or another admin to confirm if that is what will make you feel ok about it. The topic ban does not preclude your discussing the topic ban on ANI, and fortunately Koalorka is blocked for a bit so you two won't even have a chance to incidentally butt heads over it on ANI at the moment.
:You have said how you feel about my admin actions, yes. But administrator conflict of interest and admin powers policies do not hold that an individual holding themselves to be in somewhat in conflict with an administrator, or having been sanctioned by an administrator, does not mean the administrator has a conflict of interest and can't use admin powers. The administrator has to be involved in a two way dispute or content dispute, or otherwise been disqualified somehow. If you feel that I should be disqualified from admin actions regarding you going forwards that's another legitimate question for ANI. If a consensus of other admins conclude that I am conflicted in some way I'll abide by that, but I know current policy pretty well, and I really do not feel that I'm in conflict with you in any way that is a disqualifier. ] (]) 00:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
i have no faith in your ability to be a fair admin, as i've been complaining about since July. as a wp:guns member, and someone about whom i've been actively complaining, you have had no legitimate place to take this upon yourself to topic ban me. you out of all admins should have stayed away. but, you took this upon yourself, without any diffs, without any support, and with a huge COI, and you still went for it. i am pretty sure that you will be desysopped in the near future, especially if anyone reviews what shenanigans you pulled by unblocking koalorka, blocking me for 30 days without diffs, trying to topic ban me without diffs, or whatever shady dealings you've done in the past. i await an uninvolved admin's input. as for your input, i really dont think the community is going to keep turning a blind eye to your abuse. ] (]) 08:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


Twinkle did not complete the nomination. Please create the ] with <tt><nowiki>{{subst:</nowiki>afd2|pg=-zilla (suffix)|cat=I|text=''Your reason for deletion''}}</tt>. Thanks, ] (]) 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
== RE:Tucker ==
:Ha. Sorry about the bad link. I deleted the page and fixed the header of the correct page. ] (]) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
::i lol'd when i realized what page i had accidentally created. ] (]) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


== Arbcom ==
Hey, I've replied. Thanks for telling me. Sorry that I hadn't checked back myself; I was under the impression everything was sorted out. ] - ]</sub> 08:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Do you know how long the case lasts? ] (]) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
== Inappropriate talk page comments ==
:i have no idea. past cases seem to have taken around a month, but i don't think that's indicative of this one. i do think it's almost over, but i don't know for sure ] (]) 23:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


== ] ==
Please do not follow editors you are in a disagreement with, as it can be considered harassment. There was no reason whatsoever to add to ]'s talk page as it did not relate to the issue in any way. If you have an issue with ], take it up on ''his'' talk page, not a third party's. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 17:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

:weird. he followed me to an AFD he had no business being involved in, just to oppose me ]. I guess you get that kind of leeway when you are an admin harassing a user, and when you tell the user things like . and , and basically, "shut the fuck up" ] but never provides a single diff of any abuse. I am sure you are also a fair admin who will look into both sides. ] (]) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
::Your contributions history is full of them, chummer. There's enough there to justify a community ban if I were to pursue one; your butting into others' unrelated affairs is not the behavior of a user who's innocent of several accusations of harassment. Stop making yourself out to be the victim, chummer, nobody's buying it anymore. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 21:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that your nomination has been altered by commenting out by Hm2k. This may not be a bad thing but you may want to check your intent has not been altered. The guidance of ] probably applies here if we AGF by Hm2k withdrawing his/her prior accusation personal attack.—] (]) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:i don't think it's appropriate for him to edit my comments. if he has a problem with something i've said, he can take it to ANI. thanks for the heads up. ] (]) 13:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

==]==
Why did you remove the commonscat template from the above article? Thanks! ] (]) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
:it was inadvertent if i removed anything legitimate. i was trying to undo the sockpuppet's changes ] (]) 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I'll readd it. ] (]) 20:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, Theserialcomma
I saw your comment about AFD for OptiPNG. I'm afraid the deletion discussion is '''not''' closed in error. The discussion is closed as '''No consensus''' not ''Keep''. ''No consensus'' exactly means what you commented: No valid argument is made, neither in favor of deletion nor in favor keeping. ] (]) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
:there were no third party, reliable sources presented and the keep arguments were along the lines of "but lots of ppl use it!!!". it should have closed as deleted, since afd is not a vote - it's a collection of arguments based on policy. "lots of ppl use it" is not a policy-based argument.

the keep votes were just that, votes. while it's true that a vote can help establish consensus, the keep votes were not policy-based arguments and should not have been weighed as heavily as the delete votes, which were completely valid, policy-based arguments for the software being non notable. there were no third party, reliable sources presented then, now, or otherwise. it is a non notable piece of software, per wikipedia's standards. the AFD was closed incorrectly ] (]) 20:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

== Nico2010 ==

This user keeps reinserting reverted material in which you have reverted without explanation. Perhaps this is a sock? ] (]) 03:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::this is an indef'd blocked sockpuppet who used to edit under the name http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/OmegaXmutantX, which was banned. then he came back under a few different names, which were all subsequently banned. see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OmegaXmutantX/Archive
:::Perhaps we should go ahead and report it at ]? ] (]) 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::::if you don't get to it, i'll do it tomorrow. ] (]) 03:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

== Please be more careful ==

You my edit on the MFD. Please be more careful in the future. ] (]) 19:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
:my apologies. it was unintentional ] (]) 19:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::i figured out what happened. apparently we were victims of a bug in the software, which occasionally causes inadvertent deletions during edit conflicts. the only workaround i'm familiar with is refreshing the page completely and trying again ] (]) 20:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

::: This happens to me ALL THE TIME... well I have been editing here for a couple years now, but this is becoming more and more prevalent as of late and I wish they'd fix whatever bug is causing it. Just throwing my spare change into this convo, don't mind me. ] (]) 08:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

== AfD behavior ==

Re. you comment on my talk page. The problem is actually that Joe Chill votes "Delete" on ''every'' software-related AfD. He's usually the first vote, and always uses the same stock phrase. Some of these are arguable both ways, but many of them are unanimously "keep", with the single exception of his !vote (well, also with JBsupreme often weighing in the same way, or having made the nom). I think this behavior is generally ], and that in the large majority of cases Joe made no effort whatsoever to check notability. In truth, I think JBsupreme has been even more extremist in this regard (and another user Miami31333 who has some sort of vendetta against FOSS); however, JBsupreme, although highly argumentative about conflicting "Keep" !votes, at least uses different words in relation to different article topics.

I don't object that some editors (most even) lean towards a demand for more prominent notability than I do, on software topics. I'm probably moderately inclusionist in general, but I think there is a flaw in applying the same standard to software as to biographies of persons or articles on (minor) corporations. For example, Pohta ce-am pohtit is an editor who has been active in the software AfD noticeboard, and who !votes "Delete" more often than I do. In contrast to Joe Chill, Pcap always states reasons (in either direction) that are specific to the particular nomination, and clearly makes a conscientious effort to locate source... even in those cases where he then concludes that the sources located are insufficient for "Keep". I simply do not believe that JC, JB, and Miami are using ''judgment''--not even with a different underlying attitude--but rather they simply want software (but especially FOSS) articles deleted generically. ]×] 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
:I don't !vote delete on ''every'' software AfD. It would be most of them. I have even saved software articles from deletion multiple especially ones nominated by Miami, JBsupreme, and Smerdis. I always search for sources so stop calling me a liar! '''Why can't you accept the fact that I disagree with you when it comes to notability?''' ] (]) 02:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::Sorry, Theserialcomma, to put this on your talk page, since you just made a passing comment on mine. But anyway, to Joe Chill: It would '''really''' help if you would stop using the same boilerplate every time. It's fine (as I've said many, many times) if you have a different opinion than I do (about notability, or about anything else), but ''please'' try to tailor it to an individual AfD. Do a search or look at the existing refs, and give some explanation for ''why'' you feel like those are inadequate. If you say something individual like "These sources are blogs, and therefore not ]" or "This external review seems to have a COI" or something else individual to a topic, then that is genuinely helpful to the discussion. Just to automatically stick in a auto-delete--which might as well be done by a bot--is not cooperative behavior, but indeed seems like ]. ]×] 02:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
:You do realize that I'm not here to make every single user that has a problem with me happy, don't you? There are a lot of users that hate how I do things. If I did all of that, I wouldn't act like me anymore. If I try to make everyone happy, I'd be in between deletionist and inclusionist and change almost every single one of my opinions. I will take your advice though. If you ask me to change anything else, screw that (not meant in an uncivil way). I don't !vote delete automatically so please stop with that comment. ] (]) 02:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

==Congratulations==
...on making the New York Times Best Seller List several times in a row!!!

I'm just kidding. and a little drunk.

Cheers, ] (]) 08:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

== Topic banned ==

You are not welcome to edit my comments on my talk page. You were previously topic banned from my userspace and you should not even be editing there. If you do not stop editing my comments I will push for an interaction ban on the administrators' noticeboard. --] (]) 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
* you certainly don't have the authority to topic ban anyone from anything. you've just been reported for violating your arbcom restrictions], and part of the process of reporting you requires me notifying you that you've been reported. so if you wish to stop me from notifying you of your imminent block, you should stop violating your restrictions. arbcom has been very unambiguous about your admonishment, and you've been sanctioned accordingly. please act civilly, and don't attempt to fool anyone with fake topic bans which do not exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Allegations_against_other_editors ] (]) 22:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

==Ridiculous==
I find irony in the fact that Tothwolf only logs in now to harass and stalk the editors he once alleged were stalking him. Its pretty sad really, but quite obvious now when I look at his contributions. (Which I just did as I realized he was following me around a set of articles and undoing my edits.) ] (]) 18:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
::it's also ridiculous that his talkpage has become a soapboax attack page. he links a diff on the top of his page that calls us 'wikistalkers, harassers' and other allegations that arbcom specifically restricted him from saying, but since he is linking an old diff, it's somehow ok. allowing that is one of the most blatant gaming of the system ive ever seen ] (]) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

== ANI report ==

I have made a report on the current incident to ANI. I have requested that you and Tothwolf both answer questions regarding the off-wiki email claims. See . ] (]) 02:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

== Reliable source ==

is a chat forum, please find citations of a higher quality or simply don't add the content
:it's a self published source of uncontroversial information, posted by tucker max to tucker max's own message board. a self published source like this is an acceptable and uncontroversial source for a person's age or middle name. ] (]) 20:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

== Review Big data CFD ==

You voted on the delete debate for the original entry ] that was rm by admins. Please reenter the debate? ] (]) 04:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, Theserialcomma. Because you participated in ], you may be interested in ]. ] (]) 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

== You are now a Reviewer ==

]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|1=reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a ] scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not ] to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only ], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at ].

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious ] or ], and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see ]). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found ].

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> ] (]) 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

== ] nomination of ] ==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.<!-- Template:Adw --> ] (]) 10:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

==Calling whine one one! Waaaambulance on the way==
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.

Call the Waaaambulance that same old someone had a fit again. There is a ton of whining about us going on with his usual supporters chiming in. It is so nice of the same to give us the ''required'' courtesy of letting us know, isn't it? ] (]) 04:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
==page==

Hi. I'm recruiting people to help me try to remove the blatant promotional tone of ], and as you may remember I removed his blogs from the page, per WP:SPAM but it's all back. All the work is undone and it won't revert back! Errg! I'm sure you may have better things to do then fight this uphill battle, but the last thing WP needs is another awful page full of promotions. Any help appreciated!] (]) 22:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

== Tucker Max discussion page ==

I am a completely new, separate, and non-bias reader to the Tucker Max page and archives. I read through the entire talk page and archive to check and make sure nothing I wanted to add was previously discussed.

Like I said above, I have no idea who you or anyone else on that page is or was, but the following words I would most definitely use to describe '''your posts''', not you yourself obviously, on said discussion page:

''Petty, argumentative, hypocritical, obnoxious, arrogant, disruptive, un-encyclopedic, territorial, ad hominem, and the big one; presumptuously declarative ''


Nothing positive at all came to me from reading your previous posts. I believe if you were to work on your posts not coming off as such, the discussions would be much briefer and less trouble, and you could edit far more easily.

Best regards,
Public PC User #767 ] (]) 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
::why is "<i>presumptuously declarative</i>" the big one? i want arrogant to be the big one. ] (]) 01:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:::On a more personal level, it seems to me that you accept others opinions and criticism well and have a good sense of humor. I am only humbly suggesting that you carry that practice over to all your posts.
::::Public PC User #778 ] (]) 17:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I just read all the serial commas history in tucker max and he discovered tuckers assistant and lawyer was secretly editing tuckers article to remove criticism and whitewashing. The Whole thing is very messy. For example I used to be a mod on tuckers board and he used To ask us to edit this article favorably for him. Peace

== Blocked ==

For personal attacks, baiting and hounding per the evidence posted on my talk page.

Admins, do not unblock without discussing with me first to make sure you are fully briefed. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

: Block length = 2 x length of prior block for same offense. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
::block review requested for this bullshit. thanks. ] (]) 08:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
just so you know, my password has been scrambled and i have a new account. pardon the incivility, but you can go fuck yourself. did i mention that you can go fuck yourself? thanks. ] (]) 08:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Talkpage access removed for abuse. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


:Theserialcomma, I replied to the message you posted at ] . --] (]) 08:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:42, 15 April 2023

Page semi-protectedEditing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled to prevent Theserialcomma (talk · contribs · block log · arb · SPI suspected) from using it to make disruptive edits, such as abusing the {{unblock}} template.
If you cannot edit this user talk page and you need to make a change or leave a message, you can request an edit, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

Welcome!

Hello, Theserialcomma, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


kvirc

I just saw that you want to delete KVIrc after 5 years and 9 month. Seems like you visit every page Tothwolf has edited, and even if he only corrected some upper/lowercase words. That's the spirit. Destroy everything someone you dislike done, No regard to collateral damage, YOU ROCK! --84.56.213.21 (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

tothwolf has edited virtually every single IRC article. it's impossible, therefore, to edit an IRC article that doesn't have his minor changes in its history. and i added a notability tag to KVIrc. that doesnt mean it will be deleted, or that it's been nominated for deletion. if you think the article is worthy of inclusion on wikipedia, however, you should add some third party, reliable sources to the article before it does get nominated. as the article stands, i don't believe notability has been established.

-zilla (suffix)

Twinkle did not complete the nomination. Please create the AfD subpage with {{subst:afd2|pg=-zilla (suffix)|cat=I|text=Your reason for deletion}}. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha. Sorry about the bad link. I deleted the page and fixed the header of the correct page. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
i lol'd when i realized what page i had accidentally created. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

Do you know how long the case lasts? Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

i have no idea. past cases seem to have taken around a month, but i don't think that's indicative of this one. i do think it's almost over, but i don't know for sure Theserialcomma (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of shell providers

Hi,

I note that your nomination has been altered by commenting out by Hm2k. This may not be a bad thing but you may want to check your intent has not been altered. The guidance of refactor probably applies here if we AGF by Hm2k withdrawing his/her prior accusation personal attack.—Ash (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

i don't think it's appropriate for him to edit my comments. if he has a problem with something i've said, he can take it to ANI. thanks for the heads up. Theserialcomma (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nurse practitioner

Why did you remove the commonscat template from the above article? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

it was inadvertent if i removed anything legitimate. i was trying to undo the sockpuppet's changes Theserialcomma (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll readd it. FieldMarine (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/OptiPNG

Hi, Theserialcomma I saw your comment about AFD for OptiPNG. I'm afraid the deletion discussion is not closed in error. The discussion is closed as No consensus not Keep. No consensus exactly means what you commented: No valid argument is made, neither in favor of deletion nor in favor keeping. Fleet Command (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

there were no third party, reliable sources presented and the keep arguments were along the lines of "but lots of ppl use it!!!". it should have closed as deleted, since afd is not a vote - it's a collection of arguments based on policy. "lots of ppl use it" is not a policy-based argument.

the keep votes were just that, votes. while it's true that a vote can help establish consensus, the keep votes were not policy-based arguments and should not have been weighed as heavily as the delete votes, which were completely valid, policy-based arguments for the software being non notable. there were no third party, reliable sources presented then, now, or otherwise. it is a non notable piece of software, per wikipedia's standards. the AFD was closed incorrectly Theserialcomma (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nico2010

This user keeps reinserting reverted material in which you have reverted without explanation. Perhaps this is a sock? Connormah (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

this is an indef'd blocked sockpuppet who used to edit under the name http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/OmegaXmutantX, which was banned. then he came back under a few different names, which were all subsequently banned. see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OmegaXmutantX/Archive
Perhaps we should go ahead and report it at WP:ANI? Connormah (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
if you don't get to it, i'll do it tomorrow. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be more careful

You deleted my edit on the MFD. Please be more careful in the future. Killiondude (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

my apologies. it was unintentional Theserialcomma (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
i figured out what happened. apparently we were victims of a bug in the software, which occasionally causes inadvertent deletions during edit conflicts. the only workaround i'm familiar with is refreshing the page completely and trying again Theserialcomma (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This happens to me ALL THE TIME... well I have been editing here for a couple years now, but this is becoming more and more prevalent as of late and I wish they'd fix whatever bug is causing it. Just throwing my spare change into this convo, don't mind me. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD behavior

Re. you comment on my talk page. The problem is actually that Joe Chill votes "Delete" on every software-related AfD. He's usually the first vote, and always uses the same stock phrase. Some of these are arguable both ways, but many of them are unanimously "keep", with the single exception of his !vote (well, also with JBsupreme often weighing in the same way, or having made the nom). I think this behavior is generally WP:POINT, and that in the large majority of cases Joe made no effort whatsoever to check notability. In truth, I think JBsupreme has been even more extremist in this regard (and another user Miami31333 who has some sort of vendetta against FOSS); however, JBsupreme, although highly argumentative about conflicting "Keep" !votes, at least uses different words in relation to different article topics.

I don't object that some editors (most even) lean towards a demand for more prominent notability than I do, on software topics. I'm probably moderately inclusionist in general, but I think there is a flaw in applying the same standard to software as to biographies of persons or articles on (minor) corporations. For example, Pohta ce-am pohtit is an editor who has been active in the software AfD noticeboard, and who !votes "Delete" more often than I do. In contrast to Joe Chill, Pcap always states reasons (in either direction) that are specific to the particular nomination, and clearly makes a conscientious effort to locate source... even in those cases where he then concludes that the sources located are insufficient for "Keep". I simply do not believe that JC, JB, and Miami are using judgment--not even with a different underlying attitude--but rather they simply want software (but especially FOSS) articles deleted generically. LotLE×talk 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't !vote delete on every software AfD. It would be most of them. I have even saved software articles from deletion multiple especially ones nominated by Miami, JBsupreme, and Smerdis. I always search for sources so stop calling me a liar! Why can't you accept the fact that I disagree with you when it comes to notability? Joe Chill (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Theserialcomma, to put this on your talk page, since you just made a passing comment on mine. But anyway, to Joe Chill: It would really help if you would stop using the same boilerplate every time. It's fine (as I've said many, many times) if you have a different opinion than I do (about notability, or about anything else), but please try to tailor it to an individual AfD. Do a search or look at the existing refs, and give some explanation for why you feel like those are inadequate. If you say something individual like "These sources are blogs, and therefore not WP:RS" or "This external review seems to have a COI" or something else individual to a topic, then that is genuinely helpful to the discussion. Just to automatically stick in a auto-delete--which might as well be done by a bot--is not cooperative behavior, but indeed seems like WP:POINT. LotLE×talk 02:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You do realize that I'm not here to make every single user that has a problem with me happy, don't you? There are a lot of users that hate how I do things. If I did all of that, I wouldn't act like me anymore. If I try to make everyone happy, I'd be in between deletionist and inclusionist and change almost every single one of my opinions. I will take your advice though. If you ask me to change anything else, screw that (not meant in an uncivil way). I don't !vote delete automatically so please stop with that comment. Joe Chill (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

...on making the New York Times Best Seller List several times in a row!!!

I'm just kidding. and a little drunk.

Cheers, JBsupreme (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Topic banned

You are not welcome to edit my comments on my talk page. You were previously topic banned from my userspace and you should not even be editing there. If you do not stop editing my comments I will push for an interaction ban on the administrators' noticeboard. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous

I find irony in the fact that Tothwolf only logs in now to harass and stalk the editors he once alleged were stalking him. Its pretty sad really, but quite obvious now when I look at his contributions. (Which I just did as I realized he was following me around a set of articles and undoing my edits.) JBsupreme (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

it's also ridiculous that his talkpage has become a soapboax attack page. he links a diff on the top of his page that calls us 'wikistalkers, harassers' and other allegations that arbcom specifically restricted him from saying, but since he is linking an old diff, it's somehow ok. allowing that is one of the most blatant gaming of the system ive ever seen Theserialcomma (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI report

I have made a report on the current incident to ANI. I have requested that you and Tothwolf both answer questions regarding the off-wiki email claims. See . Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source

this is a chat forum, please find citations of a higher quality or simply don't add the content

it's a self published source of uncontroversial information, posted by tucker max to tucker max's own message board. a self published source like this is an acceptable and uncontroversial source for a person's age or middle name. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Review Big data CFD

You voted on the delete debate for the original entry Big data that was rm by admins. Please reenter the debate? jk (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net

Hi, Theserialcomma. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paul Vunak

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paul Vunak, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paul Vunak. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling whine one one! Waaaambulance on the way

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Call the Waaaambulance that same old someone had a fit again. There is a ton of whining about us going on with his usual supporters chiming in. It is so nice of the same to give us the required courtesy of letting us know, isn't it? Miami33139 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

page

Hi. I'm recruiting people to help me try to remove the blatant promotional tone of Tao Lin, and as you may remember I removed his blogs from the page, per WP:SPAM but it's all back. All the work is undone and it won't revert back! Errg! I'm sure you may have better things to do then fight this uphill battle, but the last thing WP needs is another awful page full of promotions. Any help appreciated!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tucker Max discussion page

I am a completely new, separate, and non-bias reader to the Tucker Max page and archives. I read through the entire talk page and archive to check and make sure nothing I wanted to add was previously discussed.

Like I said above, I have no idea who you or anyone else on that page is or was, but the following words I would most definitely use to describe your posts, not you yourself obviously, on said discussion page:

Petty, argumentative, hypocritical, obnoxious, arrogant, disruptive, un-encyclopedic, territorial, ad hominem, and the big one; presumptuously declarative


Nothing positive at all came to me from reading your previous posts. I believe if you were to work on your posts not coming off as such, the discussions would be much briefer and less trouble, and you could edit far more easily.

Best regards, Public PC User #767 12.86.230.202 (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

why is "presumptuously declarative" the big one? i want arrogant to be the big one. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
On a more personal level, it seems to me that you accept others opinions and criticism well and have a good sense of humor. I am only humbly suggesting that you carry that practice over to all your posts.
Public PC User #778 12.86.230.202 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I just read all the serial commas history in tucker max and he discovered tuckers assistant and lawyer was secretly editing tuckers article to remove criticism and whitewashing. The Whole thing is very messy. For example I used to be a mod on tuckers board and he used To ask us to edit this article favorably for him. Peace

Blocked

For personal attacks, baiting and hounding per the evidence posted on my talk page.

Admins, do not unblock without discussing with me first to make sure you are fully briefed. Jehochman 08:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Block length = 2 x length of prior block for same offense. Jehochman 08:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
block review requested for this bullshit. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

just so you know, my password has been scrambled and i have a new account. pardon the incivility, but you can go fuck yourself. did i mention that you can go fuck yourself? thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage access removed for abuse. Jehochman 08:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


Theserialcomma, I replied to the message you posted at User talk:Amalthea#theserialcomma here. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)