User talk:Thrindel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:52, 29 December 2008

Pronunciation

Not at all of any real importance, but is your username intended to be pronounced Thrindel, like "thimble", or Thrindel like the Spanish word "el"? GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like 'thimble'--Thrindel (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl+Alt+Del

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ctrl+Alt+Del. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have made three reverts to the article now. I recommend you stop. Artichoker^[talk] 02:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I will seek third part arbitration to prevent this from escalating further.--Thrindel (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain a level of professionalism here. It is not a personal attack to state that you are extremely likely to be the creator of the content the PvP article describes and that you should refrain, as a source close to the material, from editing portions of the article not fact-related. Your edits to the criticism section of your own content especially fall in this category. I would like to also add, on a more personal level, that claims of personal attacks levied against an individual are in and of themselves personal attacks when they are groundless. - Kuzain (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must always assume good faith while on wikipedia, accusing another editors of a coi while you provide zero proof is not good faith. Do not try to out editors on wikipedia. Knowledgeum (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. You do not need to always assume good faith. Please read the policy. The assumption is only required in the absence of proof that an editor was not acting in good faith which is not the case here. Really, you should have assumed good faith when making this statement though. - Kuzain (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In truth, I am not especially against most of the changes made to the criticism section of the CAD article. I do feel that certain things removed should be retained. Given the statements made by Yahtzee, I think "is a critic" can be retained. He has not simply stated some critiques of CAD but has called webcomics about gaming a plague in general. In fact, it might be more accurate to state that he is "critical of gaming comics," but the fact that he has stated on his blog that he has a "long standing hatred of the webcomic Ctrl-Alt-Del" means stronger language than "criticized Ctrl+Alt+Del on a few occasions" would be more accurate. I think the source used for the static art comment should be added back in. The language for the final part (regarding the miscarriage comic) should be altered to include "inappropriate" in front of "abrupt shifts in comic genre and tone". I agree with the removal of the second paragraph, as well as specific removal of the statements ragarding "rubbish king" and the art blog. I am open to hearing your thoughts on my talk page but intend to make these edits tomorrow unless you can convince me otherwise. - Kuzain (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the mention of inappropriately abrupt changes in tone is opinion as it is fact that they do exist and it is understood by anyone capable of reasonable English use that what is and isn't an example of one is an opinion but generally agree with your statemens on the edits on my userpage. - Kuzain (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work

Well I don't know how many people you are pleasing, but I'm very happy that you keep an eye on Ctrl+Alt+Del, keep up the good work, and don't listen to anyone on the internet who has figured out the "scoop" on "who you really are" they clearly only have one track vandal minds. Edits are fleeting, bans are forever. Knowledgeum (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias against Pakistan

Is it islamophobia which drives editors against pakistan or just pro indian bias stop deleting pakistani history unfairly india was born in 1947 just like pakistan get that into your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.129.53 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with "anti-Pakistani" this or "pro-Indian" that, it's about presenting straight facts in an encyclopedic article. Based on your edit summaries and edits, it seems more like you're the one with the cultural chip on your shoulder. I was simply undoing a removal of information that several other editors on the article seem to support. "To hell with India" [1] does not sound like unbiased editing to me. Taxila may be Pakistani now, but if it was once Indian (as my cursory research and sources already cited in the article suggests), that should be mentioned in the article as well, regardless of your feelings on India or your pride for Pakistan.--Thrindel (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean India do you mean Hindustan, Bharat or british india this is a joke india came into exsistance in 1947 before then it was a land named 100 times so get your pro india bias out the way and stop your islamophobe attack on muslim nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.177.226 (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, again, I don't care about India or Pakistan. I've never been to either, I have heritage from neither, and I'm agnostic, so religion from either doesn't mean shit to me either. I was reverting what appeared to be biased removal of information that went against the majority opinion of other editors. This is strictly a Wikipedia information issue, stop bringing your personal feelings on race or religion into it. Get over it already.--Thrindel (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple IP Addy Stalkers

You seem to have a nice little collection of stalkers going on right about now. Might I suggest a request to Wikipedia:RFCU to see if/how many of them are one and the same/open proxies as they all seem to have the exact same agenda against you at the moment. Otherwise I'll keep an eye out and if I see any more vandalism I'll do my best to keep up with it. If the vandals are mad at you thats all the reason to keep up the good work, vandals are rarely on the side of constructive collaberation so keep up the good work. Knowledgeum (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll take a look. Thanks for your help and support, though. It's a shame that the article requires so much attention, I've yet to come across any other article with such a chronic problem of vandals throwing themselves at the exact same brick wall over and over again. And all over a webcomic? It doesn't make much sense. --Thrindel (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can protect your talk page if you like. Just let me know. Kevin (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead, as there was a request at WP:RFPP. Let me know if you want it removed. Cheers Kevin (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The likely source of all the ip vandals can be found in various comments on various websites. A google search for ctrl alt del Thrindel returns many comments with links to your page advertising "tell him your thoughts". This page may need a good long protection. Knowledgeum (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Requested

I recently nominated a redirect for discussion, I would appreciate your input on it as you probably have the most information on the subject. Any insights or comments you could contribute to the discussion would be appreciated. Knowledgeum : Talk 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Nice new sig, by the way. One of these days I need to figure that stuff out :D--Thrindel (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm trying to figure it out all too... next step is gonna be a pretty talk page or user page. One step at a time. Knowledgeum : Talk 04:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got another one for you, this one I really don't understand, Beef potato wheelman, seems to be patent nonsence, but if you have any ideas what it might mean any input appreciated on the discussion. Knowledgeum : Talk 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beef Potato Wheelman was, if I recall correctly, was the job description for Chef Brian (rarely used gag character who's gags all consisted of acting insane) on the profiles page of Ctrl-Alt-Del.Milskidasith (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: CAD talk page

Actually the indecent exposure thing is mostly a common joke edit on many pages. Not sure where it originated though. I still suspect this of being a sockpuppet account, and I'm not alone on that suspicion either. I'm watching you O_O all the time hehehe... so don't do anything to confirm my suspicions. Zell65 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I assumed it at first as I always do...but your actions aren't reassuring me that you actually are in good faith, so just don't give me a reason to assume bad faith. I'm just messing with you though really. Neither of us need any arguments. After all, you've had your share of them already, right? hehehe... Zell65 (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Might I suggest you make a notice on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts concerning User:zell65's allegations on your real life identity/coi. Spreading rumor around to other editors as he did here is not acceptable. Neither is trying to out other editors by exposing thier "real identity" to win an argument or discredit them. Knowledgeum : Talk 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, done. Thanks for the heads up.--Thrindel^Talk 05:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up

Your "friends" are up to thier usual tricks again. Nice of them to inform you. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Thrindel Knowledgeum : Talk 22:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, wow. They're desperate, huh?--Thrindel^Talk 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I'm not connected to this latest action. I don't really care if you are Buckley. Zell65 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Knowledgeum

In regards to your edit summary here, I would just like to point out that User:Knowledgeum is not an admin. I'm not disagreeing with your revert of the anon though, just pointing something out. Cheers, Artichoker[talk] 23:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Artichoker[talk] 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 In regards to your edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ctrl%2BAlt%2BDel&curid=12907116&diff=247269725&oldid=247241949 here], I would just like to point out that [[User:Knowledgeum]] is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=Knowledgeum&group=&limit=1 not an admin]. I'm not disagreeing with your revert of the anon though, just pointing something out. Cheers, <span style="padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">[[User:Artichoker|Artichoker]]'''<nowiki>[</nowiki>'''[[User talk:Artichoker|talk]]'''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'''</span> 23:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 :My mistake. <span style="padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">[[User:Artichoker|Artichoker]]'''<nowiki>[</nowiki>'''[[User talk:Artichoker|talk]]'''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'''</span> 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
-== WP:BLP Violation ==
-See my talk page. Do not conduct debates regarding the article in question on my talk page in future.[[User:Nilzy|Nilzy]] ([[User talk:Nilzy|talk]]) 20:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
-:I'm going to have to repeat the above request, seeing as you seem intent on ignoring it. Please be more responsive when asked. I'll ask that you look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus|Wikipedia Consensus] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Co-operation_and_civility|Wikipedia Civility] articles, in particular definitions of incivility including: ''"Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel"''[[User:Nilzy|Nilzy]] ([[User talk:Nilzy|talk]]) 12:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
-:Furthermore, and frankly I'm amazed I have to post this, see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable|Wikipedia Talk Page Guidelines], including ''"Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you."'' The policies are not a shield for your motives.[[User:Nilzy|Nilzy]] ([[User talk:Nilzy|talk]]) 12:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
-::'''We must get the [[article]] right'''. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
-Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
-This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages.''
-It says in here it only applies to the article. I'm guessing when Gary Glitter was accused of being a pedophile all the Wiki drones deleted all appropriate information until there was a mention a week later in the News of the World? How can we DISCUSS where to find sources if YOU keep deleting key points? It's not even about this specific point anymore, it's about your constant controlling of this article, when fans like us can't even get a word in! --[[User:A Chain Of Flowers|A Chain Of Flowers]] ([[User talk:A Chain Of Flowers|talk]]) 23:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
-:::I've grown tired of your repeated vandalization of my arguements on the discussion page in question, and am offended that you would level a baseless threat for blocking on my talk page. Consider this a warning in kind; stop vandalizing the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ctrl%2BAlt%2BDel#Daily_Sillies|talk page in question], respond to the debates levelled towards you or cease removing them without cause, or I will apply for you to be blocked under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism|intervention against vandalism policy]. Please start replying on the discussion page in question so that we can reach an appropriate outcome before anyone needs to be blocked. [[User:Nilzy|Nilzy]] ([[User talk:Nilzy|talk]]) 00:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::I've given you options to seek a different outcome and you've chosen to continue down this path. I've asked for admin assistance. I've crossposted this on your talk page for your convenience. [[User:Nilzy|Nilzy]] ([[User talk:Nilzy|talk]]) 01:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
-:Nilzy made a request at [[WP:AN3]] that I have responded to by blocking him for 3RR.  Please note that while removing defamatory material itself is covered by the [[WP:BLP|BLP]] exemption, there should be some way of discussing whether any sources exist for the accusation without repeating the accusation itself.  Though I am not going to block you because your removal was only motivated by BLP, another admin may have made a different decision. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
-:: I understand. This is actually a longstanding BLP issue with the article, and it ''has'' been brought up/discussed in the past, and removed by numerous administrators. There have never been any good sources presented, and in my own research I have found none.--'''[[User:Thrindel|<font color=#866fc2>Thrindel]]'''</font><sup><small>[[User talk:Thrindel|<font style="color:#beaee7"> Talk </font>]]</small></sup> 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)