User talk:Tweeks Coffee

Welcome!

Hello, Tweeks Coffee, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 08:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why TC is cool[edit]

Err...I don't have anything. :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShaneHaughey (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Misunderstanding[edit]

Regarding your edit summary, I believe you have a misunderstanding about what I'm doing. I'm not actually reverting by editing the past version and submitting it, but rather just putting the image back without looking at the past version. No need to report me because that isn't violating the 3RR. --98E 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." You essentially undid the changes of previous editors 3 times, no matter the excuse, that is a violation of 3RR. I am not reporting you this time, please don't give me reason to. Also, please pay attention to the edit summaries, you had been told quite clearly why your changes were being undone. Tweeks Coffee 14:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't looking at the history until your recent edit. --98E 14:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still knowingly made the same change 3 times in a row. Also, You should always check the history for explanations of edits. Tweeks Coffee 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

98E[edit]

I've placed a warning on 98E's user page about 3RR and he seems to have stopped. JameiLei 14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm not sure if it was User:98E who has recently vandalised the Kyle page adding a link to a website that has nothing to with South Park. I was looking over the history and believe it was him especially after the image arguement he had. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

The culprit for that is actually User:75.82.234.127, it was done in a 3/29 edit. Tweeks Coffee 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SP Forum[edit]

If you dont mind me asking are you the Same Tweeks Coffee as the User from the official South Park forum 'Tweeks_Coffee'??--P. Skiddy 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)P.Skiddy[reply]

Yeah, this is my standard user name for any site I'm a member of. Tweeks Coffee 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging[edit]

The only person who actually commented on the page is Mr. Garrison, but the only person who has openly disagreed is 98E. I'm just going with the "post a message, wait a bit, go ahead if nobody disagrees" method. 98E seemed to be fine with it afterwards, so now it's just you. Nemu 16:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the actual discussion, it's here. It was a while ago, so it was enough time for people to comment. Nemu 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd seen the discussion I read it beforehand. My problem was when the list was left as is, but now that the entries on that page have been fleshed out I'm fine with it. Also; I know you don't mean it, but the way you phrase some of your statements makes it easy to misinterprete as a personal attack. "98E seemed to be fine with it afterwards, so now it's just you." can be seen as a rather hostile comment. I don't mean to lecture you about it, but it does look like you've had that problem before. Tweeks Coffee 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that hard to interpret? I was saying the only person who disagreed had stopped bothering, so you're were the only one. I don't recall anyone complaining about how I dictate myself. But as long as you're fine with it, I guess it doesn't matter Nemu 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Marsh[edit]

My image isn't an SVG, but it's free, not fair use. 79Bottles 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not accurate or properly attributed. Tweeks Coffee 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I am Trey Parker. I have the right to release it how I want. If you're wondering about how this account went from SP studios employee to Trey Parker, see my talk page. 79Bottles 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wondering because it didn't. Trey has more integrity than this. Tweeks Coffee 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did. I'm trying to stay calm with you. 79Bottles 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. making such statements constitutes original research, which is not allowed under Wikipedia:No original research. Tweeks Coffee 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, statements such as he is 10? 79Bottles 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) Correct. Tweeks Coffee 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll put his age back to 9, if it really is original research. 79Bottles 20:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carig Nommel[edit]

Craig's last name is thought to be Nommel. There are lots of references to it on the internet and in popular culture. Maybe it was never mentioned on TV. Maybe it appeared in the script, the part that isn't read aloud, like:
Dog Poo: Hey
Craig Nommel:Hey, you
If we speculate, it doesn't belong. If society speculates, it's fair game for wikipedia, isn't it? JonnyLate 18:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not a fact of the show, it doesn't matter how many people think it's true. Can you define this society? Fanon does not count as fact. Meantime you're engaging in edit warring with me, I'll be seeking a request for comment. Tweeks Coffee 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting in an edit war with the last thing I want to do! I only thought that there was some legitimate reasons to have it. You see that I haven't fought in the article. In fact, if you convince me, I'll make an edit or two for not having a last name (but I won't edit war that position either).

One last reason for Nommel. Google the name, Craig Nommel. There are plenty of listings, though some are in goofy websites. JonnyLate 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't That Overreacting???[edit]

When user 75.65.73.249 wrote in Stan's articles "+ he is awesome!", I don't think it was fair to say that was vandalism. True, that sort of a comment doesn't belong in a serious, sophisticated encyclopedia article, but I think it would have been less stressful and a little gentler to say that it was "inappropriate appraisal". Just saying. Wilhelmina Will 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually hoping TTN would do that.[edit]

Please do not interrupt like that. When I restored Wendy Testaburger's page, I was hoping that user TTN would redirect it, not you. Wilhelmina Will 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. You merely removed the link. Well, sorry for that accusation. In the meantime, there's a problem on the list of students page. I tried to restore Wendy's section to what it had been, but a huge mixup occured. Now Wendy contains a lot of Bertha's information, and Anne Polk and Bertha's sections are gone! And the worst part is, no matter what I've tried, I can't fix it so it's back to normal! Heeeeeeeelllllpppp!!! Wilhelmina Will 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day![edit]

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]