User talk:Pyrococcal

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problems with your changes of "Neu!" to "NEU!"

Hi. I'm afraid I see troubles with your changes to Neu!. Please see/discuss them on Talk:Neu!. ←^#6  _{talk 17:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)}

Hey, did you know that I tried to write the article NEU!, as an exact copy of the existing Neu!, but it was deleted after a while. Anyway, please go to TRIO!, and tell me what you think. c ya. Brian W 17:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Electric Café

Hi Feline1,

I saw your posting on Vandalism in progress. I don't know anything about Kraftwerk but I googled a bit and it looks like you're right. The usual thing to do is to leave a message (or several) on the offender's talk page. Even anonymous users have talk pages, although they aren't always reliable. This user's talk page is User talk:68.225.171.78, and it looks pretty stable. Hopefully this will start a conversation about why he/she thinks "Sex Object" is the Bartos track. At least it gives you an opportunity to (politely) ask him/her to stop. Also, would you please sign your comments in discussions like Vandalism in progress and Talk:Electric Café? All you need to do is type four tildes like this ~~~~ and the software will fill it in for you. Thanks! FreplySpang (talk) 14:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. I just looked over the edit history of Electric Café again - please don't call other users "dickheads." It is possible that it is an honest mistake, after all. Personal insults like that are not acceptable in Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 14:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Man Machine

lol sorry yeah, i just noticed that it was a dot, not a hyphen, on the album cover... will fix them now!!! secfan 15:51, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Kraftwerk entries

Apologies for the recent over-enthusiasm. Being a novice wiki it's all to easy to over-step the line from information to opinion... hopefully getting better, even if my spelling isn't. Ricadus 23:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Not so grumpy now

Hi Feline1! Sorry if my earlier comment on Talk:Little Britain came across as a bit grumpy! I've had some coffee now, and am feeling much better for it! Regards, CLW 11:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. - Loving that recent vandalism to your user page! Snigger... CLW 11:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Eurythmics singles

Hey Feline1... Just wanted to explain some edits I did to the initial Eurythmics singles pages you started (and I do realize you're not done yet)... I added the singles titles (boldfaced) to the opening of all the articles and wikified the text (i.e. song titles are quoted and albums are italicized) and added wikilinks as well. I also removed text like "yet again" because using words like that seems to make the assumption that the reader has seen all the other Eurythmics pages. Just make sure the language you use allows the articles to stand alone, as if the reader hasn't seen any other Eurythmics pages. Oh, and if you need any help, just let me know!  :-) -- eo 03:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please

With regards to this edit: Wikipedia has a firm policy against personal attacks. Please try to find a more constructive tone to voice your concerns in. JRM · Talk 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry there - sometimes I just find things offensively stupid --feline1 12:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is more stupid to offend than it is offensive to be stupid. This one too was uncalled for. Next time if you find some clumsy wording you will improve it without adding an insult - or don't. Femto 13:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Re. Tubeway Army article

Rather than risk a revert war, I'll talk about it here first. Removing the recent addition I made re. the change from 'Tubeway Army' to 'Gary Numan' on the grounds that it's "POV fan-blabber" is not only trite but inaccurate. Any POV in that text is Numan's, as stated by him in at least one interview at the time. The main point of it was to expand on what was there re. the name change and to contrast Numan's desire to have complete control over the music as opposed to his contemporary John Foxx who felt a need to work in a collaborative band situation. If you think it could be expressed better or needs a reference then by all means say so but removal on these spurious grounds doesn't help the cause. And while I'm at it (pedant that I am), reverting "Tubeway Army was" to "Tubeway Army were" because a band name is 'plural' - well it ain't actually, even though it does imply a number of members! A band name is singular and if you check out say Kraftwerk or King Crimson articles you'll see them treated as singular entities as well. ;-) Ian Rose 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh lord help us all, a Numanoid with Delusions of Grammar. Let's start with the easy bit: Tubeway Army were from London (not "Tubeway Army was from London") and THEY spoke UK English, the common practice of which is to treat a group/band/ensemble name as a plural noun (eg "I am useing these scissors to cut my trousers", not "I am using this scissor to cut my trouser".) I don't know what they say in Australia but whatever it is, save it for the INXS articles. As far as your stuff about Numan's attitude vs. John Foxx - I'm sorry, but this encyclopedia is not the place for speculative subjective musings on which pop star has the most integrity. The article as it stands makes clear the "Tubeway Army" was Webb's project, and he just decided to switch monikers from that of a band, to the artist name "Gary Numan". We don't need to waffle about whether he's a nicer guy than John Foxx or not.--feline1 15:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Woah, saucer of milk for Mr Feline1 ! I can see earlier admonishings about personal insults has really sunk in... For someone who espouses objectivity so vigorously I'm amazed at what you read into things, particularly this "nicer guy" bit. 'Fraid the only "speculative subjective musings" I can see here are yours, man. But hey, if you think its waffle and adds nothing, then fine, say so, but spare us the rest...  ;-) Ian Rose 01:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Groundless accusations of vandalism are not appreciated.

With regard to Talk:Group 3 element, I reverted an unbacked and controversial edit that negated the previous content of the article. I took the matter to the talk page, and even provided a link to your revision for further discussion.

I do not take unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism lightly. Consider this an official complaint. Femto 15:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The edit was not "unbacked" (what sort of word is that? hello?), as it was based in easily verifyable textbook chemical fact, and was correcting existing glaring errors in an article. The only person to consider it controversial appears to be yourself. It takes more than one person disagreeing with someone to cause a "controversy". Frankly I had to bite my tongue a lot in my comments to you. Your opinionated mixture of clumsy English and daft errors of fact is rather trying - meanwhile, the article in question remains in the deeply flawed state to which you reverted it. Great. --feline1 15:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Advanced Level"

Maybe I shall switch to "intermediate level" then. I chose "en-3" in the beginning in a worldwide sense of English speakers - I believe I'm quite on the top end when compared to most other English speakers in the world. However, the wikipedia is a place for English writers... so I'm being looked down upon because only the very top English writers in the world (higher than me) would be here. Deryck C. 10:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well to a native English speaker, your sentance structures are sometimes a little amusing. --feline1 12:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, part 2

Talk:Lanthanide - Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Femto 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I initially thought you were talking about wee Derek!

I was retorting to user-pageless author Olin in such a fashion because he accused me of not being "accurate", of not following the terminology "chemists" use, of simply putting stuff in articles because of my own "notions". This was a personal attack on my integrity and competance as an author and moreover was complete baseless drivel. The writing of mine that he was referring to was both accurate and the product of my degree-level chemistry experience, not of my own "notions". Calling someone a "wee hallyon" (="scallywag", for those of you not so well versed in Hiberno-English, the kind of exasperated quip a mother might make at her errant child) is hardly a vicious or abusive insult. But hey, thanks for stalking me and threatening me with your wikijargon, femto. Be seeing you. --feline1 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you mention it, there's also Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. The exact meaning of the word matters less than the "because I say so, you anonymous <anything>" attitude.

Dude, if you keep perceiving it as personal attack when editors challenge each other's authority and don't just take your word for it on what you write, then frankly, Wikipedia is not the place for you. That user-pageless Olin apparently already has a better grasp than some of us who've been around for longer. Femto 13:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Morever, my point was that it is important what a lanthanide is in an article about lanthanides. If that is perceived as a personal attack, then by all means, tell me how to make that point without your feeling threatened. I mean, I'm the one looking for sources to cite to make an authoritative encyclopedia article. If you'd like to improve the article, then by all means, go right ahead. Olin

Even if that *was* the point you were failing to get across, it was a spurious point, because the debate was not about what a lanthanide "is" (which is defined by their shared properities and behaviours), but whether what they "is" (ahem) was best illuminated by pedantically trying to force-fit them into Groups. Since you couldn't grasp that, there wasn't much point criticising the accuracy of what I indeed *had* put in the article to improve it! I really don't see what the point of you berating me about edits I made simply because you can't understand them. Or complaining because I therefore directed a mild put-down at you. Femto, I do like contributing to wikipedia, on subjects about which I am knowledgeable and articulate, even if people occasionally troll at me. Be seeing you.--feline1 15:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Whatever. It seems like we're splitting hairs. I'll take my Ph.D. in chemistry and be a hallyon (and maybe a retard like you called someone else) and just let you do whatever you would like in the lanthanides (a plural noun, as opposed to lanthanide, a singular noun, as indicated by the "a") article, even thought the first sentence defines the lanthanides in terms of numbers like you seem to be so resisitant to and is as precise as can be expected in an encyclopedia. Be as knowledgeable as you like and don't reference a thing. Fine. I don't have time for irrelevant arguments. I have other articles to work on. Olin

Yeah, like your user profile. Bye then!--feline1 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC) :D

Stop reversions, stop insults, read edit summaries

Re: Fripp & Eno's two albums with 20-minute tracks

You've been warned twice already [1][2] that List of songs over fifteen minutes in length isn't limited to music with lyrics but actually lists all musical pieces (including instrumentals such as Brian Eno, Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Ash Ra Tempel, Pete Namlook, and much more).

The point of the list is long musical compositions, whether they have lyrics or not. And thus this list is relevant and potentially useful (as a "See also" link) to people interested in No Pussyfooting, an album entirely made of two 20-min tracks. But you apparently didn't even bother to check this simple assertion before each reversion, despite being clearly informed.

If you're so unhappy about the lax title of the list, then move it to List of musical pieces over fifteen minutes in length (a long-ass title the original creator probably wanted to avoid by using the word "song" instead) or something, preferably after announcing it on its talk page for discussion. But please stop deleting relevant wikilinks.

And stop insulting me with your "bollocks" [3] when you're the one who didn't bother to check the list the first time, or after being informed of its actual nature, and twice.

-- 62.147.37.231 11:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not be barracked by anonymous troll logins, thank you very much. I don't care how bad that other article is, it is no reason to mess up a perfectly good Fripp & Eno one. There are no songs on Fripp & Eno's albums, the end! If you want to repair that other daft list so that it isn't named "songs", or remove the pieces from it which aren't songs, then be my guest.--feline1 12:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote song: "Colloquially, 'song' is commonly used to refer to any music composition, even those without vocals". …? You have at least to concede that other opinions may exist.

Before this escalates into an edit war, may I remind both of you of the three-revert rule. To Feline1, the fact that IP editors are anonymous does not automatically make them fair game for disparaging remarks about their opinions or for accusations of trolling. To the anon, start a discussion at Talk:List of songs over fifteen minutes in length and/or Talk:Fripp & Eno (No Pussyfooting) and ask for third opinions. Femto 15:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dearest Femto, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a colloquia. Even the briefest glance at that dreadful "list of 'songs' over 15 minutes" excuse-for-an-article reveals a plethora of complaints from other wikipedians about its sorry state: it is flagged as sub-standard, has been nominated for deletion, and the talk page is full of people wailing and gnashing their teeth. I am not the only user to revert our IP-addressed friend's edits on Fripp & Eno. I stand my opinion that the list in question is dreadful and should not be used as a reason to add daft links to a perfectly good Fripp & Eno article.--feline1 15:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A strange (and patronising) change in the page Peter Hammill

Where did you get the idea that only the sycophantic fans of Peter Hammill's work like Clutch and Incoherence? I know there's a lot of fans around that like most of what he did, but there's some sort of consensus over the quality of In A Foreign Town (1988) (it's not good), as there is consensus over In Camera (1974), Clutch (2002) and Incoherence (2004). Please listen for instance to the discussions on the Peter Hammill mailing list on yahoo (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hammill/), or talk to anyone who knows anything about Hammill's work before you make a statement like this. Mark in wiki 10:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Such gushing subjective adujulations about one's favourite music are not appropriate for sober wikipedia articles. Usually, when finding such stuff in an article, it is best to just calmly tone them down, how occasionally I find ones that are so outrageously inappropriate that a little bit of temporary satirical vandalism seems to most effective way to get the author to mend their ways :) --feline1 12:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this patronising tone is quite uncalled for. But nobody knows as good as you do, and I will refrain from trying to convey something of Hammill's obsessiveness. Never mind. Go ahead and attack and vandalise, and don't think about what I might have tried to say here. Empathy is something difficult. I do think, if any encyclopedia were to be stripped from subjective comments, there wouldn't be any content left... Mark in wiki 18:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Go and read Wikipedia's editorial policies on neutrality and point-of-view etc etc. If you don't like them, then you are free to go and set up your own Hammill fanzine site somewhere else which is as subjective and gushing as you wish. PS: I bet I like Peter Hammill more than you do LOL :)--feline1 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm sure you do. I wonder why so many people who say they like music are such bad listeners. Anyway, you were right about the addition. I am new here, but by the way you make your point I understand that wiki is being made by the people who have the biggest mouths. Mark in wiki 14:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my mouth is a whole metre wide. Now please dry your eyes.--feline1 14:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ivfn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ivfn.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a number

Nor am I a pipe. Far as I know, at least. Ahem. I noticed you didn't like my change on the Under Pressure Page, so I changed it a bit. Better? Queen is 89 kabillion times better than Vanilla Ice, but it sounded like a point of view to me.--69.145.122.209 03:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what it sounds like to you: to anyone with an iota of sense, it is not an "opinion", but is an objective demonstrable fact, and indeed covered by copyright law. Please wise the bap.--feline1 09:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't take that as a personal instult since I notice you do it to every other person. I'm passive, so feel free to burn me. The problem I have is that 'falsely' is a very, very strong word-it leaves no leeway. What if Vanilla Ice did change one note? I don't think he did, but that's the problem. "I don't think he did" It's not what I think, it's what the facts are. And if we're not sure about the facts, the best thing is to just leave it ambiguous (many people believe it is not true). Sure, it was covered by copyright laws. But that's not what that particular sentance is about. That bit-o-info in particular says he claimed that one note was off. Did he not? --69.145.122.209 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, nice burns! I just read back across several of them. Whoo. Third degree... :)--69.145.122.209 21:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You can HEAR the notes he used by LISTENING to the record with your EARS! It is not AMBIGUOUS, it is not a matter of BELIEF, it is not a matter of what you THINK. He samples the entire bass riff and piano chords. No notes are "changed" - he is not playing an notes, it is a SAMPLE. The only matter for debate is if V.Ice was really dense enough to claim he had changed a note - this could be referenced.--feline1 08:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

He didn't change one note, anyway. Ha added one. The fact of the matter is he did claim he added that bit, and he was recorded saying it. So we know that part is not false. And I agree that he did illegally sample it. But have you any research that proves he was false? I'm not asking for that part to be taken out, I'm asking for some rewording. If you'd like to do it yourself, fine by me. It is, however, a point of view until changed. --69.145.122.209 21:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How many times do we have to tell you the same thing?!? One does not need to "research" hearing 5 bass guitar notes in a riff. One just listens with ones ears. The end. All that should be added to the article is a reference source for where V.Ice claimed he'd added a note. I haven't a clue what the source is and haven't the least interest in V.Ice anyways.--feline1 09:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. One. You can't say "Tom Hanks was a good actor". He is, but you can't say it unless there's proof! Is there? Yes, he has won plenty of awards. Is there proof that he used the sample without adding one note? Yes, you can listen to it. But that's you! It's not the general population! I can't stand Vanilla Ice, but he was recorded on VH1's list of 100 greatest one hit wonders saying he added a note. If you're going by what you can hear, think about the extra "da" added in Ice's version. I know he sampled it, but he also added another sound, just like he claimed he did. --69.145.122.209 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, if I was going to behave like an egregious mentalist, I wouldn't do it on the Interweb where everyone could see and laugh at me...--feline1 13:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the fun of being an anon IP. I'm anonomous, remember? Ha ha ha ha... Whoo. I can laugh at myself. And I ran out of ideas about two paragraphs ago, as you may have noticed. You may have won the battle, but the war is not over... ENTER MANICAL LAUGHTER HERE... MWA HA HA HA HA... --69.145.122.209 01:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, where do you get your material for roasting? Much as it singes my fingers to type it, I like your style. I'm in awe of you skills.--69.145.122.209 01:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's all just made up!--feline1 07:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a bow, Mr. Feline, you have wowed me. And that's hard to do. Hey, look! A blue car! --69.145.122.209 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Songs over 15 minutes in length

Other songs in that list were similar to having long pauses from what I know, so I assumed that that sentence I deleted had been left in there by some mistake, so I removed it. Dsims209 14:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you would do us the favour of deleting all the other daft entries from the list which are only "long" because they contain loads of silence as part of a "hidden track". That would be more use :)--feline1 19:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Rightho I'll see what I can find. (Dsims209 11:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Carryduff

Hi Feline - Carryduff Irish stuff from Culture NI website - link to Reference on the page to find it. Cheers Ardfern 18:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Motorik

Do you think you make something of the rather crappy motorik article? Almost worse than nothing at all at the moment, partic. since half of it seems to be lifted from your Neu! work. I'd do it myself but more your line of country... Cheers, Ian Rose 12:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

God, it's awful! LOL I thought "motorik" was just one of those daft journalist terms. --feline1 16:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Autobahn

HELLOO, we were working at the same moment on the same article, Autobahn, but I realize that you've been faster, anyway my version would have been shorter. I just edited a little your text, as you can see. Also, I worked a little on Autobahn (the album-related article), and on the Vocoder article. Cheers. Brian Wilson 16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tommorrow Never Knows Chord

God man, no need to be caustic about it, I was just trying to help. Why don't you think about how you talk to people? Coz we don't need you around if yer going to be like that.--Crestville 14:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, what a four letter word you truely are.--Crestville 15:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes well, at least I don't go trolling around wikipedia user talk pages picking fights with random strangers. Bye now.--feline1 15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Given I've never met anyone on wikipedia, you're all strangers. I'd have trouble not talking to a stranger on wikipedia. You're not "random" because you had a go at me personally. I'm not picking a fight, because that would require some degree of offence. Logic, eh? Sure, I'm quite happy that I don't go trolling wikipedia insulting well-meaning people with my pseudo-cod intelligence just to make myself look big (and you've done it a few times). Ha ha, you loser. Have a simply awful day. Bye now.--Crestville 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down, this place is for improving knowledge, not for harrassing each other. Have a nice weekend, you both. Brian Wilson 02:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see above, I supported you a lot of times, beginning from that NEU! stuff. I'll no longer support you, I'm very sorry. You are to much offensive. Please stop yourself or you will be banned.Brian W 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brian, I put it to you that you are a partisan loon, and no responsible wiki editor will "support" you if you type paragraphs of semiliterate rubbish. The stuff you were typing about Kraftwerk simply did not make sense, it was gramatically egregious, lexically confused, and, indeed, bollocks :) When this was gently pointed out to you, you take offence. I think you would be better taking a tissue and drying your eyes.--feline1 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What a nasty peice of work you are. Seeing as you've been warned about personal attackes before, I would not be at all surprised if you soon founeed yourself blocked by a responsivle wiki editor. Telling people to "dry [their] eyes" is neither effective nor amusing and portrays you as something of a four letter word. BTW, your beard looks stupid.--Crestville 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your personal attack, Crestville. In my defence, I would point out that at least my beard can be easily shaved off…--feline1 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the end, the love you take etc. Yeah, you can always go at the beard but the inherant pomposity, obnoxiousness and grating, self indulgent arrogance of a failed musician? Well that's like and oil stain to get out. Vanish won't work on that fucker.--Crestville 12:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Guards! Guards! --feline1 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. Good comeback. I think I'm going to give you a nickname. I think I'll call you "Pauline"--Crestville 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a failed musician, mbbuahahhahahahahahha... Brian W 14:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I've 2 gigs in London this weekend... what will you two be doing, apart from getting banned from wikipedia? --feline1 15:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. 2. I'm studying for exams.--Crestville 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Goddamn Pauline! That was one mother of a ban I had right there! Bam bam.--Crestville 15:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility

An administrator has been asked to look into your interactions with other users; I am taking the liberty. You demonstrate a clear history of argumentum ad hominem (personal attacks) and incivility based entirely upon what you perceive to be the inadequacies of others. Please remember, this is a Wiki, built upon the premise that anyone can edit—and, "anyone" means people of widely varying abilities and levels of command of the language (and, to many, English is not native). These users need assistance and reinforcement, not to be belittled. Also, given the discussion above regarding Vanilla Ice, may I suggest a reread of Wikipedia policy on verifiability may be in order? Feel free to write me with any questions. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's true, my asperger's does make me far too ready to bite people's ankles. I must try harder. At least there's nice users out there such as young Crestville, who as you can see, go out of their way to defuse situations and refrain from bickering :) ... I still maintain that Vanilla Ice Ice Baby's direct sampling of Queen's "Under Pressure" is verifiable though - by any rational person who is able to listen to the two bits of audio with their ears.--feline1 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL at your message on my talk page—of course, that passage is directed specifically at vandals and is intended to be tongue-in-cheek. ;) As for "Ice Ice Baby" and "Under Pressure", I agree with you outside an encyclopedia article; within an article and per policy (which states, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"), however, it must be presented from a reliable source (which must be cited). In this particular case, the mention of the settled lawsuit is sufficient (if uncited), though handled with more dispatch than even I would have recommended. Thanks for writing back, and happy editing! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be puttin well meaning folk into a situation where they are likely to retalliate, coz odds are, if you provoke them without good reason, they will retaliate. You do have a tendancy to insult people who in no way deserved it.--Crestville 20:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst you have a tendancy to keep coming on my talk page to bitch at me. Methinks you doth protest too much...--feline1 21:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you're being sincere or not, you've completely lost me is a tide of mindless sarcasm (supposedly the lowest form of wit:)). I would point out, sincere or not, comparing yourself to Peter Cook is both pompous and rediculous, and I mean that not in a way which is an insult to you, but he was witty rather than just unpleasant and acidic. I'm not having a pop at you, but he was very, very, very funny. And you're not in comparison to me as he was to Dud. Probably no-one is.

You have, however, made me laugh by trying to belittle my staus here. "Bold little messages" and comparing me to Derek seems to imply a relationship, for lack of a better example, akin to Cook and Moore where you are the wisened, experienced contributer and I am a plucky underdog who can;t quire get it right. Allow me to put your mind at ease. I am a long serving and experienced wikipedian. I assure you, you are mistaken. There is not some subserivent role to be played here. I've been here longer than you and I have contributed more than you (not to undermine your contributions in any way, they are good, but your attitude is poor). I did not engage in this little exchange for shits and giggles, rather I make it part of my day-to-day routine to moniter trouble-makers like yourself where I am made aware of them. I am monitoring you so that I can make reports to the admins on how you are adapting and should be dealt with. At the moment they are assuming good faith, but waiting for you to put a foot out of line. You are a good contributer, but your attitude stinks. Please try to change your ways (It's turning into a Christmas Carol here) or you will find you make things difficult for yourself, and that would be a shame.

Still, you can't be all bad - you like Derek and Clive, so that's a start.--Crestville 23:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I genuinely can't tell if the message on my talk page was meant to be nice or not. I'll assume good faith for the time being.--Crestville 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Crestville, Benny Hill is the lowest form of wit.--feline1 08:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with Su Pollard or Victoria Wood meself.--Crestville 13:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is as may be, however your heinous sexlife is hardly the issue here.--feline1 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, they go like the clappers. They're just not funny.--Crestville 15:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha...

I know you're supposed to be civil, but I love reading your responses to comments. They're honestly the best flames I've ever seen. Have you ever considered journalism? You'd be a great opinion columnist. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Monday, July 3, 2006, 20:41 (UTC)

Well cheers - I do write for a living, actually. But I am not a number, I am feline1. Whereas ewe...--feline1 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I knew it. And ha... My page too cheery? ;) 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Monday, July 3, 2006, 22:17 (UTC)

Ah ha! I just remembered who you remind me of! Cecil Adams! 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Monday, July 3, 2006, 22:44 (UTC)

3RR

Feline1. Regarding the British Isles article. I am on the same side as you, as you can tell from my edits and talk comments, but I have to give you a friendly caution. You are coming perilously close to violating the WP:3RR on the British Isles. Just be careful or you may have that against your record. Other than that, keep up the good work as I honestly believe British Isles is the NPOV term. Ben W Bell talk 12:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well that's why I only reverted it twice ;-) I do believe impartial responsible editing will win out against blatent political agenda-ising in the end, though... --feline1 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you've reverted it three times. It is three reverts in any 24 hour period, not in any day. Just be careful. Ben W Bell talk 14:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but one of the reverts was a reversion of my own reverts LOL --feline1 14:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You have breached 3RR. Either you revert yourself straight away or you will be reported for breaching 3RR and will be blocked for 24 hours. Your choice. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe my edit is in the spirit of the editorial consensus reached on the British Isles talk page, so I am not going to revert it. I support the request for mediation on the article, and would happily abide by the results of that. I cannot abide your rampant political POV-ing on the article though.--feline1 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case you will be blocked and unable to contribute to the page. Your choice. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite. It's nice to be able to make choices, isn't it? :-) I have yet to hear you articulate what you actually find wrong with my initial disclaimer paragraph.--feline1 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the talk page, then. It is all there. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. Since you've broken the 3RR rule yourself now, shall we not just strip naked and have a fight instead, as I suggested?--feline1 23:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl has only made 2 reversions within the past 24 hours-- not a 3RR violation. By the way, please be civil. Seriously engage in Jtdirl's concerns about the content, and avoid childish taunts. 172 | Talk 23:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Oh what a farce! jtdIRL enlisted 172 to act as his sock puppet so that they could together revert my edits and push me over the 3RR. And tried to disguise his own reversions by labelling them as "re-inserted opening paragraph" when he infact reverted wholesale to his version (which contains many more extra sections that push his minority POV, and overwrote other editor's contributions). To suggest I have not attempted to engage with jtdIRL's concerns is ridiculous - the talk page is full of me replying to his barbed sectarian POV rants, and I wrote a header for the article trying to satisfy his POV. All he did was delete it. He flies in the face of the expressed editorial consensus on the talk page, he pushes his own minority POV, he is rude, assumes bad faith (eg continual descriptions by jtdIRL and 172 of my edits as "vandalism", and rides rough-shod over half a dozen other wiki policies and guidelines.

--feline1 09:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you continue attacking Jtdirl based on his nationality, I will see to it that you are blocked for an even longer period of time. By the way, Jtdirl and I worked on the Irish Potato Famine article several years ago. His efforts to bring the article up to the standards of contemporary scholarship on the subject led a concert of POV-pushers to accuse him of being a 'Brit-loving, self-hating Irish Tory.' In light of Jtdirl's years of contributions on Wikipedia, your accusations that he is promoting an Irish nationalist agenda are transparently absurd. 172 | Talk 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I now realise that jtdIRL is an admin! and that he himself blocked me! What a total farce. He initiated and inflamed the edit war himself, to push his minority political POV. The whole thing is orchestrated! The guy's not fit to be an admin.--feline1 09:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, cease the personal attacks or you will be blocked again, probably for a much longer period of time. 172 | Talk 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

172, I will not be intimidated by the behaviour of yourself and jtdIRL. The facts of what has gone on a plain for anyone to read. Others editor and admins can draw their own conclusions. I am not attacking him on the basis of his nationality (I am from Ireland myself) - the basis of my complaints with him are with his conduct (both as admin and editor) and the content of what he's been putting into the British Isles article.--feline1 21:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

final warning

	This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal, feline1?

Hey there, feline1. I just got done peeking at your long screed at Talk:British Isles, full of useful information like...the fact that two people who disagree with you can combine forces to make more than 3 reverts is a reason for you alone to make more than 3 reverts. I like that reasoning...you are entitled to do more of something because more people disagree with you! If I'd been permitted to use that logic in the last two US Presidential elections, the world would be a better place today. And it inspired a shorter counter-screed too from Jtdirl about future attacks from you about Jews and 9/11 and Hiroshima and potatoes. As a Jewish Japanese Irish American who loves potatoes, I've got all my bases covered. Well, 3 out of 5. I just arrived at British Isles so I don't know how long you've been at that article and talk page "making yourself useful," but I hope you stop wasting your time by pissing off admins because you were invaluable to Wikipedia earlier this year (after pissing off plenty of non-admins there) by making critical contributions to a controversial issues in chemistry. Group_3_element, Group_number_of_lanthanides_and_actinides, and, to some extent, the entire Periodic table (standard) have been stable for months because of your knowledge and contributions--once they were rewritten by me to appear as if they had been written by a sane person. I don't want to defend you personally because I think you're a jerk who writes poorly. But you're a knowledgeable expert jerk when it comes to some science topics, so I think you have a place on Wikipedia...just probably not on pages like British Isles because you lack self-control and the ability to work well with others in a hyper-sensitive humorless environment. You're wasting your time at Wikipedia arguing with admins and contributing to controversial geopolitical terminology articles when there are controversial science terminology articles out there where people will value your knowledge and contributions in spite of your failings and folks might take the time to clean up after you and tolerate you. By the way, anyone who defends the intellect of Nancy Reagan to make a point is a desperate and dangerous charlatan who must know subconsciously that he is fighting a losing battle. Flying Jazz 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

...um, so what *is* the deal then? And have you ever *read* Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan by J.G. Ballard...? Has Nancy, for that matter?--feline1 07:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Note Well

I have been told about you, our computer man has narrowed down your where you contribute these diatribes of yours and locating you physically is no longer a problem. I am warning you to watch yourself. We are monitoring the situation. If your "angle" continues, there may be consequences. I have warned you once and will not do so again. You know what (not) to do.

Disclaimer

The above "note well" is meant in jest so relax....

Thanks for that, 86.41.206.31 ...--feline1 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What the hell was that? See, this is why you shouldn't wind people up so much. Some weirdos on wikipedia.--Crestville 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Perhaps it was a mentalist?--feline1 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Eurythmics images

Hey no problem.... I've got their whole history ready to upload... just gotta get the articles created... they're long overdue! -- eo 13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there... Im slowly working thru the Eurythmics singles... please add to them... you seem to be very knowledgable about the band other details I know nothing about (i.e. synths used, etc.). If I've fucked something up let me know or correct it or whatever. Later! -- eo 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Early Tubeway Army singles

Cripes! We've combined well updating these entries - what's the world coming to...? Cheers, Ian Rose 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's coming to bombing. Is there an article for The Lenanon (Human League song) ?--feline1 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Lenanon" ? Is that some previously-unreleased Beatles medley they did ? Cheers, Ian Rose 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Freddie Mercury - Personal attacks

I can see from your talk page that you've been warned about this before. Your edits to Talk:Freddie Mercury are becoming very uncivil. I will quote here from the official warning: "In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately." ... discospinster _talk 23:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it is sometimes difficult to separate moronic content from moronic editors, particular when they are just IP Addresses. However as the poor quality of debate was irritating me so much (I could not possibly condone such asinine editing), I've decide to unwatch the page rather than attempt to participate further.--feline1 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Belfast

I've toned down the POV to state what the sources say. Also, please see WP:CIVIL. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Or alternatively, *you* please stop pretending you aren't familiar with the editorial consensus on this paragraph?--feline1 09:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the "2nd most popular city in the UK, above London and Glasgow, for short breaks" discussion on the Belfast talk page. This wasn't mentioned in the paragraph added today. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Methody

If you manage to source that, I'll take my hat off to you. Or eat it! Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

) Well for instance, ask anyone who attended MCB when "Kinky" was at the helm, and they'll just *tell* you that was his nickname. But I somehow doubt it was printed in the Belfast Telegraph! LOL