User talk:StaticGull/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Please

It took me one whole year to do that article(Siily Willy), I would apprectiate it if you did not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillywilly123456789 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 September 2008

Hi! And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't vandalise my talk page. StaticGull  Talk  11:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:Coren

Your first edit was right, and you shouldn't have reverted yourself. This poor woman is a clerical worker instructed to replace our stub on her employer with a panegyric out of the college catalog, and now since we've trimmed it back for WP:COI and WP:NPOV/WP:SPAM reasons, she wants to erase all signs of her efforts here and remove the employer River Parishes Community College from Wikipedia altogether. As you know, we don't do that with a notable topic. I've restored what she deleted, since it's in Coren's userspace, not hers. Thanks for your vigilance. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for notifying me. It wouldn't be the first time that some unfortunate employee is ordered to create a promotional article on Wikipedia. Her edit seemed suspicious, but I must have reverted myself because she was the only contributor to the section. Nonetheless, I reverted her page blanking[1] though. StaticGull  Talk  11:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Quinn Jacobson article

nominated for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelly No (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert

It's impossible to move the page Mate (beverage) to Maté (discussion at Talk:Yerba Maté; the long and the short of it is that it's currently located at the Spanish spelling instead of the English) at the moment because there is a revert at the Maté page. I thought removing the redirect would clear it up, but apparently not?

If you can tell me what I need to do or move the page yourself, that would be lovely. Thanks. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how removing a redirect temporarily is vandalism and you could certainly give me some time to reply to you or finish what I was attempting to do before lobbing insults. Thanks. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about it? You keep repairing the deletion before I can move the page, and without the deletion, I can't. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi! You can move the page here, but it seems as though you've already filed a request. However, I noticed that there isn't a broad consensus on the proper spelling yet. Please also note that page moves automatically overwrite redirects, so there's no need to blank the target page before moving. Happy editing! StaticGull  Talk  14:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What can I

what can i edit then because i didnt add anything bad and it was context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkish88 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! If you wanted a serious answer, it was a bad idea to launch personal attacks against me. StaticGull  Talk  14:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why ??? lol

You keep editing my posts lol. The first two were a joke and I WAS going to delete them but ah you beat me to it but but but the last one was true lolol. Reply :D


Friends4eva (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)!4eva!Friends4eva (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ROFLCOPTER :-). StaticGull  Talk  14:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

GRRR at Huggle

your bot is interfearing with the removal of un-encyclopedic content [Upper_St._Clair_High_School] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endogenous -i (talk • contribs) 13:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

StaticGull's Huggle bot preventing reversion of un-encyclopedic vandalism

your bot is interfearing with the removal of un-encyclopedic vandalism in re [Upper_St._Clair_High_School].


Endogenous -i (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I reverted your edits using Huggle because you appeared to be removing sourced content without a proper rationale. StaticGull  Talk  13:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The content was deleted with cause for being un-encyclopedic gossip/vandalism months ago. Other users are in agreement the "controversies" are trivial. It was agreed that restoration would first be discussed point by point to determine if there is any relevance wrt an encyclopedic description of the topic.
The gossip "controversies" are not part of an encyclopedic description of the HS... they should remain deleted pending a discussion on the merrits.
Endogenous -i (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
As for as I can tell from the article's talk page, it seems that you are the only one opting for the deletion of the controversies section. Nor does it seem logic to delete sourced content until a consensus arises to include said content, I would argue that it should be done vice versa. Happy editing! StaticGull  Talk  11:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop.
I beleive you are abusing the use of Huggle. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of debasing an article by preventing revision of un-enclclopedic content , such as you did to Upper St. Clair High School with your mindless bot revisions will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you SHOULD be blocked from editing Wikipedia and using Huggle.
Per not censored "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on ...whether it is APPROPRIATE to include in a given article.... When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an ENCYCLOPEDIA."
It is claear that while you cite the above information in your pejorative threats to me, that you have in fact not read or understood Wikipedia's policies nor the valid objections to the "gossip" content of the article. The content was deleted EXPRESSLY because it is UN-ENCYCLOPEDIC current events GOSSIP that is NEITHER APPROPRIATE NOR RELEVANT to an ENCYCLOPEDIC DESCRIPTION of Upper St. Clair High School.
I suggest you get off your power trip and cease making pejorative threats... Happy Editing :-)
Endogenous -i (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It's funny you should mention that Wikipedia isn't censored, as you don't seem to object to removing sourced content from an article[2]. Although obloquy is deterred on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean that it's allowed to remove sourced content if you find it objectionable. Aside from that, could you elaborate on the "pejorative threats" that I supposedly made???? StaticGull  Talk  13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
IF you actually read the articles discussion page you would understand that it is not the content that is itself objectionable, but rather that the entire section is UNENCYCLOPEDIC, precisely because it is nothing more than current events GOSSIP. Other users have agreed that the points are all potentially trivial and that deletion is merrited. IMO by any reasonable logic the points are merely contemporaneous gossip at best.
My reasoning was quite clearly stated in the article's discussion page over 4 months ago, and no one has since made an argument why the information is anything except current events gossip. None of it stands the test of RELEVANCE or TIME, particulary wrt the is specific subject. Some of the gossip is thinly sorced, but ALL of it is still unencyclopedic gossip all the same, especially for such trivial every day events.
I ask you to explain WHY you believe that the information I have deleted and identified as unencyclopic is not simply Gossip blogging? AND to explain why it is relevant w.r.t. and Encycliopedic description of Upper St Clair High School. This is all I have asked for the past 4 months, a valid discussion on the merrits (if there are any)... If you would like to offer a considered opinion i'd like to hear it, but IMO you will have a very HARD time trying to logically substantiate any of the content as RELEVANT to and ENCYCLOPEDIC description.
Keep in mind the school area history is 200+ years DEEP = "The Higbee School, a one room log cabin, was the first known school in the area and was located on the northeast border of present Upper St. Clair in the late 1700's. It was the FIRST school west of the Alleghenies” in the USA! That tremendous historical information is clearly relevant, notable, and important to an encyclopedic description of Upper St Clair and it's high School. HOWEVER, a student slipping on a wet floor and suing the school, a sports coach being relapced, a teacher resigning for violating school policy (employment contract), smoking in the bathroom, a single errant busdriver (not even a school employee), an insignificant teacher being arrested off campus having ZERO to do with the school itself, everyday physical tussles "allegations" of which the parties wrere later officially and legally cleard (no wrongdoing), a few students cheating on tests, and sadly even statutory rape charges among minor students having sex, are ALL every day non-notable occurrence in the usa (and worldwide) and are not RELEVANT to an ENCYCLOPEDIC description of the High School.


Logically the information should be removed, with cause... but you are actively blocking the removal and threatening retribution against me for exposigng it as UNENCYCLOPEDIC GOSSIP. WHY??????????????????????????


04:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


per Wikipedia:Editing_policy irrelevancy is reason #3 to NOT preserve information when editing. ... hence why I deleted the irrelevant gossip blogging and moved to a discussion of the merrits/irrelevance on the article's discussion page 4 months ago.


per Wikipedia:Verifiability "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). As Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has put it:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales [1]


SO, Why are you repetively preventing the deletion (of even entirely unsorced negative gossip blogging material)???? AND then threatening me with retribution ???? I do think it's quite clear you have erred.


Finanlly, per Wikipedia:Assume good faith ask yourself if YOU are acting in good faith??? ...as YOU have been repetively preventing the deletion of irrelevant negative gossip blogging information, some which is entirely unsorced or misrepresented. And despite an ongoing discussion about the specific items, you have on my talk page threatened me with retribution for making good faith, logicaly reasoned edits that were elplained on the discussion page, and which are expressly PER WIKIPEDIA POLICY on IRRELEVANCE and VERIFIABILITY and in keeping with the EXPLICIT comments of MR WALES himself.

WHY ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Endogenous -i (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me start off by asking you where it is that "other users have agreed that the points are all potentially trivial and that deletion is merrited". I can find no such consensus on the article's talk page. And it doesn't seem as though a neutral point of view would be maintained if such "trivial every day events" as rape allegations should be removed, just so as not to blemish the school's reputation. As for the quote of the man who made this whole project possible, I think you missed the "[...] unless it can be sourced" part. StaticGull  Talk  15:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


"I would not impede the removal of all of these as potentially trivial... MaxVeers (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC) "
"Alcohol case was not proven, so please leave out all oppiniated and unproven information. Jeeps2009 00:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"
"I know guys who were there. Dr. Ghilani stopped a kid from rushing the court at a mount Lebanon Game. The kid tried to fight Dr. Ghilani, resulting in his restrainment. Some people say that he kneed him in an unessessary manner. It's a bunch of bull. He had the kid on the ground with his hand on his arm until the police came to help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.60.204.161 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)."


As a matter of simple logic sourcing does not prove veracity or relevance. And wrt the particular "sources" (if you read them) many of the issues are taken out of context, misrepresented, are/or are unproven "allegations". C;learly the inclusion is the result of a non-neutral pov, it's gossip blogging, not relevant to an encyclopedic description. From a neutral pov, most all of this current events gossip is 100% irrelevant. In addition, you are missing, or ignoring, the main point here: the gossip blogging items are non-encyclopedic, irrelevant, and improper wrt an encyclopedic definition of the high school.
Per not censored "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an ENCYCLOPEDIA."
How is teacher firing anything but gossip? How are "allegations", later proven false, relevant? How is it relevant to an encycloopedic description of the school, when something is such a fringe issue? when it is a commen non-notable event (underage drinking <21years in USA)? How can the veracity of the statutory rape allegations (sex <18 years) be known when the recoreds are sealed, the parties (mionor children) not identified, and a gag order issued by the court?... according to the "sources"????
We can agree to disagree on perhaps one or two of the points, however it is bad faith for you to continue reverting back into the article information that has been moved to the discussion page for a debate on the merrits of inclusion. If you want to debate it point by point, on the merrits/lack of merrit for inclusion in an encyclopedic article, then as above, i again invite you to do so on the discussion page in a reasonable manner. But what you are doing now is not helping or imporving the article.
I again quote wikipedia policy Per not censored "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an ENCYCLOPEDIA." In the case of ALL of these insignificant current events gossip "controversies = gossip" the answer is they would NOT be found in an encyclopedic description. Even the more controversial rape issue (the facts of which are unknown) is irrelevant over time wrt and encyclopedic description of the school, as a matter of logic and reasonablity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endogenous -i (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll start off by addressing the quotes that you have provided. First of all, the first quote you provided by MaxVeers wrongfully insinuates that he wouldn't object to the removal of all of the quotes. However, if the full quote is provided MaxVeers' views seem considerably different:
The second quotation that you provided, by Jeeps2009, only opts for the removal of unsourced content, not all the provided content. And as for the third given quotation by an anonymous IP address; that can be dismissed as original research. Finally, as for the veracity of the content in the "Controversies" section, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. StaticGull  Talk  14:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


  • Are you serious, are you insane? Did you actually just say Wikipedia is Not about Truth?... are you saying that thinly sourced Lies are OK, and they they are proper for inclusion in an encyclopedic description on Wikipedia?... Talk about grasping at straws and straw arguments.
? Were there WMD's in Iraq?... that allegation is highly sourcable from newspapers across the world, military action was started because of it... But in FACT it was False.

IMO you need to get your head examined. I have made rational arguments, and privided facts, as to why the material was edited and should Not be preserved. IMO I have shown it all to be Unencyclopedic wrt the High School. (though as I have said before, the rape issue is truly controversial (though the facts are not verifyable)) You cite max's origional "research" and opinion, but disregard direct comment from an individual who claims to be present at the event.

  • You are acting In BAD Faith StaticGull...
Per not censored "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an ENCYCLOPEDIA."... NOT in a Gossip Blog!

Endogenous -i (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to refrain from editing my comments and launching personal attacks against me. Aside from that I can assure you that Wikipedia is in fact about verifiability, not truth. That is why the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are documented on Wikipedia here. It is also entirely true that I take no notice whatsoever of the anonymous IP address's accounts of the events, per WP:OR. However, please point out where it is that I "cite max's origional 'research' and opinion". I would also like to ask you to cease removing the content in question until there is a consensus to do so. StaticGull  Talk  11:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


I do not believe I edited any of your comments... IMO you are lying and again acting in bad faith. If I am mistaken, pleas point out the edit i made to your comment, and I will gladly apologise as I did not mean to do it.
But NO, The content "gossip" in question was first edited and removed by me, with cause and per wikipeda policy, over 4 months ago. It was mindlessly reverted without concensus or any reaon given (imo VANDALISM). It is Un-encuclopedic and should Not be preserved or prevented from being deleted due to it's irelevance wrt an encyclopedic article. It has been moved to the articles discussion section (to debate it there is any merit) and it should remain OUT of the article unless a logical discussion on the merrits can show why it should be included in an encyclopedic article. It's not a question of mindless opinion, rather one of reason and logic. Wikipedia is not a current events gossip Blog, or community message board.
And TRUTH does matter, verifyable falsities (like the statement that there "were in fact wmd in iraq at the time of invasion" do not remin in the article you reference, it says they were not there. "Great controversy emerged when no stockpiles of WMDs were found, leading to accusations " ... IMO You need to work on polishing up your critical reading and reasoning skills (not an attack, rather a constructive criticism). Perhaps that's why you do not defend your bad faith edits, or even realize they are in bad faith and illogical based on the facts.
You seem only interested in defending your mindless edits... I suppose that's only human nature, but it clearly does not imporve the article.
Endogenous -i (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about the edit you made to my comment, as I restored it here. Although the interruption of comments is allowed per WP:TALK, I find it to be chronologically confusing.
Regarding the article in question, though, could you please point out where it is that the content has been moved to the article's talk page? I will also once more urge you to cease removing the content until a consensus has been reached to do so. StaticGull  Talk  12:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Just read the articles "Discussion" Page, as you obviously should have done before every instance where you reverted my edits in bad faith.
Endogenous -i (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I have actually read the article's talk page, but I fail to see where it is that the content is being preserved. StaticGull  Talk  16:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

HELLO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.215.13 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 13 October 2008

Hi there! StaticGull  Talk  14:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

why is it that it was removed?

My experience is a big part in the questioning whether or not there are satanic gatherings near Helltown, with my own circumstances I was in I can provide vivid details and make people know the truth about Helltown. I apologize for trying to better the lack of information in which your website provides. I'll find a better provider of information to let people know as much as they can.

-Logan Patrick Thomas Ostry III —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan15xc (talk • contribs) 13:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! If you're referring to this edit, I reverted it because I didn't see how that addition contributed to the article. If however you're referring to this edit, it was reverted because there wasn't a reliable source confirming it. Feel free to add information about such gatherings to the article if you manage to find a proper source, though. Happy editing! StaticGull  Talk  14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ok ok sorry about the bush/reagan comments but

but what the FCC is doing is Unconstitutional and i would like for that to be posted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.103.22.248 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Wouldn't you agree that it's better to just stick to the facts and let the reader decide what to think? StaticGull  Talk  14:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Blake Criswell Lucas

Look me up. I'm on facebook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklight-jhu (talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Just like Dekisugi, I don't care. StaticGull  Talk  14:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Call me

919-272-5319 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklight-jhu (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 October 2008

huggle config

Hey there. Just letting you know that your addition of the {{speedy deletion}} template to your huggle config page has caused it to be listed in the candidates for speedy deletion category, which is odd, to say the least! I'd have a look at changing it :P. Ale_Jrbtalk 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this as well - replacing one of the { brackets with & #123; (without the space) ought to fix the problem, and shouldn't mess up Huggle. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Query

Hey, do you mind if I make a minor edit to your User:StaticGull/huggle.css page? One of your recent configuration changes added it to CAT:CSD and I'd like to remove it if you don't care. Thanks. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I never thought about that when adding it, I just copied and pasted it from WP:UWT :-S. Thanks for informing me, I see someone's already changed it. Happy editing! StaticGull  Talk  13:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kimi Raikkonen

I don't find anything wrong in my edit to the article Kimi Raikkonen. I was just adding some extra data, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.79.162 (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry about that, the change of "After" to "fter" acted as a red flag. I reverted my own own edit as soon as I saw that I was wrong. Happy editing, and keep up the good work! StaticGull  Talk  14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

hi how are U?? what is spining dancing......

hi how are U?? i hope U are fine.i am very impressed my your editing capability and your contribution.

but i don't know wht is spinning dancing and where it is perform???/

With Love

Dr.Soft —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Soft (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 October 2008

Hi! The Spinning Dancer is an optical illusion, which appears to be moving either clockwise or counterclockwise depending on the viewer's perception of it. A larger image of it can be found here. Happy editing! StaticGull  Talk  15:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

i dont take uour massage

hi i don't read your massage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Soft (talk • contribs) 15:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: PSN

I dont think my article should have been deleted as it is perfectly logical the xbox 360 is much better than any playstation console so get that roond ye :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.177.16 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with you entirely, Wikipedia policy states that we need to maintain a neutral point of view :-(. :-). StaticGull  Talk  14:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Change

Hi there

I don't usually write on Wikipedia but can you PLEASE change the way that is written? I don't want to change it but someone needs to fix the English in that article...please!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.255.134 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! You could consider adding {{Grammar}} or {{Spelling}} tags to the top of the article, or argue for improvement on the article's talk page. StaticGull  Talk  15:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Ahh the joy of frustrated IP's who haven't realised it is usually easier to fix their damage than cause it. Thanks again --Nate1481 15:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :-). StaticGull  Talk  12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RICHARD

Hi there , I didnt understand this edit of yours and my first intution was it was a personal attack kind of. But I thought it is better to ask you if I misunderstood it. Hope you care to help clear my doubt -- Tinu Cherian - 12:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I didn't mean it as a personal attack, but rather as a reverse abbreviation, such as used in a previous version of the page. Happy editing! StaticGull  Talk  13:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Saint Sergius and Bachus Edit

I edited the page...it was reverted and called vandalism based on the fact only one word was added in "Homosexuals". I reverted this and added in a reference and had the original reverter check the reference.

This is a proper edit, just because someone writes in the word homosexuals does not mean it is a vandalism. I believe you should CHECK what your reverting, and read the references and maybe the whole article. The artcle actually talks about the supposed homosexual relationship between the two saints, and a number of churches have labaled them as homosexual patrons. so please check your reverts

58.106.140.178 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, keep up the good work! StaticGull  Talk  13:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Have you heard of a case where vandalism goes unnoticed for five days? See [3][4] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, how did that happen? Good job on finding it! StaticGull  Talk  17:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StaticGull/Archive_9&oldid=1146482433"