User talk:Garglebutt: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	June 2005 – February 2006; ; ; ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:20, 11 March 2006

This is Garglebutt's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2

Stuff

Here are some tips:

Read the Policies and guidelines.
Add yourself to the New user log.
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Be bold!

Prodding articles

Hey there...um, is there a reason you're not providing reasons when you prod articles? It makes it hard for the contributor to know what you want them to improve. Even something simple like a link to WP:NOT would be better than nothing. Also, why would you mark a proposed deletion as minor (see Skip Beat!)? Maybe an accident?

Also, it would be great if you would notify the creators of articles, since maybe they can actually address the concerns you have and it is more in the spirit of "uncontroversial" deletions. You can use {{PRODWarning}} for convenience. NickelShoe 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you reverted the prod removal on Razza chazza big willy wazza. Don't do that. The notice clearly says that removing the tag is the correct way of objecting to the deletion. Prod is for uncontroversial deletions only. The dude objects to the deletion. If you still want it deleted, move it to AfD. I'm just deprodding it for now. NickelShoe 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I switched to {afd} instead and the article is rapidly going the way of the dodo. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from the Hell of Eternal Voting.

Just to let you know, some of us had some fun with your comment. I hope this humor cuts through the tension. Arch O. La 04:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) PS: I also unvandalized your user page. Arch O. La 05:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

You edited the image detail yourself and granted GFDL for this image.[1] You can't turn around and remove it unfortunately. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that was not me and thus he who performed that action did not have permission to grant any change in licensing therefor you cannot turn around and put it back. Thepcnerd 06:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of your image contributions were changed by your userid to GFDL in mid 2005. It is a bit of a stretch to suggest this was a mysterious impersonator rather than yourself. I note on your user page that an article you created about your own web site was removed, presumably deleted due to being non notable and you are now experiencing sour grapes. Unfortunately numerous articles are created about web sites that end up being removed because they fail the tests on WP:WEB. You've made lots of worthwhile edits and I encourage you to keep contributing to Wikipedia. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, but not regrettedly, I am done. Although apparently so the things you have stated, they are not. I would never release my photography under GFDL. I sell it commercially, although not all of these shots specifically, but I sell my photography and the GFDL is not the place for it. Thepcnerd 06:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I am not clear on is why you are only disputing copyright for one of the images you contributed. Can you suggest an explanation as to how your userid was used to edit the copyright to GFDL on your contributions alone? Garglebutt / (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need for me to do so? I am telling you that I did not permit this license change and you are bucking me on it. There is no case here. This is my art. I am telling you that I did not and would not ever permit GFDL licensing. Do not continue to edit my art against my will or you too will be responding to my lawyer along with Wikipedia. Despite this being my lower-end work I do fight for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thepcnerd (talk • contribs) 006-02-28 17:55:37.

Sorry but this is nonsense. Your edit history shows edits in and around the particular edits that moved these images to GFDL and subsequently you then tried to revoke this copyright on the same day your article was deleted as non-notable. I understand that you are bitter about this but legally you gave up your rights to these images. Immaterial of whether you now regret this, the proverbial bird has flown the coop. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2006

Sorry, but you cannot tell me whether or not my almost always logged in username was used by me. I remember changes I make, and I attest that I would never place my photography in such an open license as the GFDL. Thepcnerd 07:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regretably your threats against me and Wikipedia will now lead to you being banned. I wish this had worked out better for you and Wikipedia. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't seen threats yet. You have only seen me state that I am having my lawyer contact you, and if this is grounds for bannation, than this is grounds for talking to the media about your inability to comply with copyright law. Thepcnerd 07:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for me mistaking you for somebody important. You have no say in any of this. Thepcnerd 07:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Museum

Hey, I'm not saying your issues with the creator of the VG Museum article aren't warranted, but as a long-time Admin of a video game forum I can say that the VG Museum is cited on a fairly common basis --especially if you count the number of links that are used from there. It is notable. Their collection of screenshots and ending screenshots are well known among online video game enthusiasts (including those of us who've grown up and become attorneys, doctors, MBAs whatever --I just am innoculating the annoying "kids" argument). Please, allow me to reference a few video game sites that are not the one I manage and I ask you to log on and ask their forums if they've heard of VG Museum (for better or for worse): GameSpot, GameFAQs. Shoryuken.com, IGN, 1up.com, etc. Please don't ax this article because of the creator's other mistakes. With respect, Bobak 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. May I ask, are you a video gamer? Bobak 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the playing of some C64 games does make you to some extent a gamer, do you frequent video game forums, and if so which ones? The opinions of Wikipedians often strike me as unknowledgeable on a range of subjects (particularly when it comes to areas like the video game scene/community/what-have-you). You should see the corrections I had to make on ROM images. But back on my point: is there a way you could see the article changed to work for you? I really don't want to see this article deleted, but I'm happy to hack/slash/edit whatever you think would make in "worthy". Bobak 01:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aright, suit yourself. I must say your unswaying, non-consensus building position on this is a bit odd. I still sense a bias in your action, and one that is apparently against the inclusion of information in Wikipedia (and I guess mine is the opposite). Your claim on being a gamer is loose because, honestly, I don't know any serious gamers that would hold your position (and I spend a lot of my spare time heavily interacting with them). The article will likely reappear (not by my hand or direction) and we will have this same discussion in the future. That is not a threat, it is not meant to be a personal attack (I have no issue with you and will not let this difference guide my opinion of you if we meet again on other matters), but it is almost certainly inevitable in this online culture. I'm just trying to nip in the bud, so to speak. Peace. Bobak 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Nomination of the deletion of KLOV has actually confirmed that you are completely unfamiliar with video gaming in general, considering that the site is cited commonly in such reputable sources as The Onion and Newsweek. Again, you did that in responce to the comment by the creator of VGM in it's own AfD, only adding key evidence that your reason for nominating VGM are tied to a dislike of that user. Bobak 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You plan to learn chinese?

Well then you probably mean Mandarin_(linguistics). Good choice. I plan on learning it sometime during my life, or at least trying. Besides indian food isnt as good as chinese. --x1987x 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to editing

Trust me; I know the feeling. Superm401 - Talk 07:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Public Transport Logo

Yes, I agree, the other picture looks like a badly compressed logo compared to this one. I'll upload (but not replace) the new version, but with the green background, like on the signs. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 07:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redlink reduction

Nice comment (on my talk page) - yes I have learned that there is an Ambipedia and a Wikipedia - but I moved of that ambivalent, hysterical goat track to the friendly freeway long ago. Cheers! V i r tualSteve 23:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 02:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McVeigh

There has just been a vote to delete or whatever the right term is. Please stop unilaterally deleting or merging articles. It does not make for a happy environment. DarrenRay 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your view. But you are quite wrong. There was an extensive discussion about the article. You did not participate in it which was your choice. Days later you seek to delete the article. Your right to unilaterally impose your view is no greater than mine, with respect. DarrenRay 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have merged/deleted an article unilaterally. That's a fact. I think your conduct in this matter to be highly unfortunate and I call on you to stop it. DarrenRay 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Steadman AfD vote.

Thanks for adding my signature from the log. I was about to do so manually, when I logged back on, but you beat me to it. Is there an automated way to do so? Thanks!--Beth Wellington 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC) I know about the four "~"'s, but infrequently I've forgotten to use it. Thanks for the instructions.--Beth Wellington 23:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Tried it today and it worked! Thanks again for the template.--Beth Wellington 18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VGM

At first I didn't think it was personal, then I thought it was and towards the end I thought again it wasn't personal. So don't worry about it ;) ReyVGM 01:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne University Student Union

Go ahead. I'm hands off at the moment. The more hands off I am there the better it seems. Thanks for the heads up. -- Longhair 03:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, You're deleting a whole page, that sounds like vandalism. Can you please explain how it isn't? It's like your deleting an essay or something out of political spite. Maybe not but that's what seems to be. Fewer threats - more explanation. --2006BC 08:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So be it? Do you write cheesy screenplays starring Chuck Norris? --2006BC 08:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user

I think you are being too harsh on the new user, 2006BC. Instead of simple calling him a vandal, maybe you could explain to him the neutral point of view policy. --Dunlevyd 08:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome you not acting like you own any particular article. I have something to offer just like you and I find your threats quite unpleasant. So please just calm down a little and stop making threats of "blocking" when you are acting in a manner that would justify blocking. --2006BC 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So haven't you been in breach of the same rule you have warned me about? And engaged in vandalism? 2006BC 08:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your violation of the 3RR, a rule with which you are familiar. 2006BC 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DarrenRay and crew

I realise everybody is a little cautious on their edits. I think they are possible of presenting a side of the story that is neutral. Without their input any article on MUSU matters is going to lean towards one point of view rather than another. I'm sure The Age has a barrow to push in this saga so using them as a sole reliable source in this instance isn't going to please anyone. So long as Darren and friends don't openly flaunt the established rules of the place, I have no problem with them being here.

I see little discussion from established editors who should know better, but I see a lot of reverting. I recommend, if agreement can't be reached, and drafts aren't created, to mark the offending paragraphs of any article they recreate with the '''{{fact}}''' notice to alert those not familiar with the storyline to the obvious problems. Simply reverting all changes they make is only bringing them back, again, and again. It won't stop. If it was going to, it would have well before now. -- Longhair 09:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just be friends? I live compromises in my life, every day. I am always open to them. That said, I find your conduct in threatening Ben Cass (not an anonymous/pseudonymous editor like you) with blocking and everything else to be quite outrageous. I think this all very strange, I participated with many others in the discussion about whether to delete the Dean McVeigh article. There was no consensus to delete and yet that's what you unilaterally did. If this is a community, I believe (and it's just my belief mind you) that you are acting in a way that could not be described as neighbourly. Perhaps you'd like to explain why after you period of being blocked expires. DarrenRay 09:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only edits to the Dean McVeigh article are maintence related, mostly adding categories, cleaning up self-referential links and the like. It's not like I've made any sweeping changes. I don't know this McVeigh guy, never heard of him and hardly care what he does with who overall. I'd prefer the McVeigh article was a redirect as well, but I'm not pushing it, and am willing to allow the article to develop, cleaning up as we go. I don't think McVeigh is anyone the world needs to know of on this scale, and if taken to AfD again, would likely find notability concerns. If an article on McVeigh must exist, and there's a growing number of editors pushing for this to happen, albeit, carrying a POV, I don't think there's any policy saying we can't let people McVeigh's taken to court or otherwise from contributing. If they push policy, that's another matter entirely. I'm not blocking anyone here for 3RR breaches, as I've offered a solution, and hope to see progress rather than bans. I'll give advice to new users, that's only fair. -- Longhair 09:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Darren on this. My head is spinning with the level of stress some seem to be showing about one article? Is this normal? Anyway, I suggest the article be restored, those breaking the rules be blocked and everyone be polite as the article is developed. I promise to be. --2006BC 09:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know that a few of the prominent Australians here are radical-left student hacks, but are there a few new ones?? Tell me about them please. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

Having just reviewed the 3RR report, I was on the verge of blocking you. Someone else may well still do so. Consider this a final warning. If (as you say) lots of people agree with you, then you don't need 4 reverts William M. Connolley 10:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only option now is arbitration, but I do not have time. I am on the verge of taking a break for studying anyway, and this may just push me over the edge. Xtra 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest stepping back a bit: how important is this one article to you anyway? Just forget it, and do something productive elsewhere; come back to it in a month William M. Connolley 12:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McVeigh redux

Hello. I was told about Wikipedia by a freind. He told me about the bias of the ones writing about Dean McVeigh. There was no article so I had to look hard to find it. AChan

OK AChan

I have interest in Dean McVeigh, I do not want you to delete any more. AChan

zzzz

ok. I'm going to sleep. Xtra 12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. We all get heated at times. If it's any way of making you feel better, he did place his image into the public domain :). Let's see if today can be a little less heated hey? It was disappointing to see a repeat of the revert war yesterday. Now that everybody has a firm grip of the rules, newbies included, bans will occur if the 3RR is ignored. Remember also not to bite the newbies, no matter how controversial they seem. There's other ways to stop them in their tracks and keeping your own nose clean at the same time.

Most clear abusers of the rules give themselves enough rope to hang themselves everytime without additional baiting from more experienced editors. That said, I'm openly neutral here, and am happy to help out either side if need be. Just pop me a note on my talk page if I miss anything that may require attention. Keep up your vigilant work. Cheers. -- Longhair 22:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going to watch and in a couple of days I will go over all those articles with a finetooth comb. Xtra 23:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I again point out that Garglebutt has violated Wikipedia policy of 3RR, and in fact I now see has done even more. I feel thoroughly bitten, to use the phrase above and believe Garglebutt should be blocked.--2006BC 23:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garglebutt, ignore these politovandals. Xtra 23:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Student organisations at the University of Melbourne then? Student services sounds to me like some overview of the things the organisations offer. In any case, though, thanks for helping deal with these student politicians. Ambi 00:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am taking a bit long for the afd on Luntz because I think there is a conflict of interest involving the author which is taking me a while to write up.Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Page Vandalism

I notice you have vandalised my user page. I have tried pretty hard to be polite to you but I think you are overstepping the mark. DarrenRay 07:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Ambi

[2]: its already published online, see the blog. if i upset anyone, then i am sorry. -- Zondor 07:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should stop vandalising Darren's user page and stop personal attacks. --2006BC 08:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration for DarrenRay, 2006BC, AChan

I don't realy want to get involved in arbitration. Xtra 09:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I might make a statement. If you want help writing up your evidence I may be able to help. Xtra 09:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this is a little premature. Yes, there are some newbie editors with strong POVs that they would like to insert. But that's ok - they're not beyond hope, they just need a little guidance. And editors like Darren obviously have a wealth of information to contribute to the project - and the will to do it! We just need to supervise them a little. Stevage 10:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should also include AYArktos. Xtra 10:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you writing about on my User talk? AChan 12:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure arbitration is necessary at this point, but there's some serious issues with involved parties editing this articles, and I don't see much hope of Ray and Cass stopping playing games on their articles without a ban from them. Ambi 23:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks also for giving Zondor a talking to - not only am I not the person he claims, but I'm getting really fucking sick of this rumor going around (and I'm fairly sure I know who is spreading it too). Ambi 23:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came specifically to WP to construct and clean, rather than engage in sculptural history wars, so I am rather naive to RfC and ArbCom except for the User:Jason Gastrich. Unfortunately I stumbled on a hornet's nest of edit wards and ended up being accused on incivility and personal attacks. Don't we need an RfC first. I'm wondering if the other two are being somewhat hypocritical towards my one emotional outburst against their hundreds on continual and concerted revert wars. Also, something needs to be done about the obscene Paula Rizotto attack blog who is claiming to be Ambi and linking to her contribs, and whoever they may be need to be removed from WP for violating privacy guidelines. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landeryou

I think we now have an Andrew Landeryou text which while not perfect is reasonably acceptable to all parties. Perhaps you should let it lie for a while and not provoke the other side with minor edits. I think the Dean McVeigh article is a much worse situation which needs to go to arbitration. Adam 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments

Garglebutt, could you please refrain from making personal attacks and comments like: "idiots". I understand you're frustrated, but personal remarks and aspersions are making it very hard to collaborate and move beyond the edit warring and arguing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I agree wholeheartedly re the POV issues, I just don't think the intensity of some of the dialogue is helping. I also agree with your MUSU edits and I've told them that I believe that quote should go into the article in some way, even if it's followed by a statement that the defendants strenuously reject the allegation. I do think, though, that if they can be steered away from the articles they're personally involved in, they could be beneficial to the site. But I have a feeling it will eventually take an RfA finding barring them from articles they're personally involved in. I don't think you should unwatch the articles. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Offensive user name~~
I believe that your user name is outside of Wikipedia guidelines. I wanted to let you know also that it offends me quite a lot. Can you please change it? Thank you.--2006BC 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of my favourite quotes:
It alleges they conspired to defraud the failed student union by engineering deals that gave a "secret and inordinate financial advantage to friends and mentors", namely Mr Landeryou, Benjamin Cass and Darren Ray.[3]

@@ Line 185: / Line 185: @@
 == Offensive user name ==
 I believe that your user name is outside of Wikipedia guidelines. I wanted to let you know also that it offends me quite a lot. Can you please change it? Thank you.--[[User:2006BC|2006BC]] 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
+One of my favourite quotes:
+''It alleges they conspired to defraud the failed student union by engineering deals that gave a "secret and inordinate financial advantage to friends and mentors", namely Mr Landeryou, Benjamin Cass and Darren Ray.''[http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Landeryou-threatened-me-says-liquidator/2005/05/25/1116950754154.html]