User talk:AvatarMN/2009

Category restored

Category's been restored per discussion on my talk page. Another user wants to put it through a new CfD, which is an appropriate forum for seeing if consensus has changed on the category. Thanks for your patience. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much -- AvatarMN (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Elmer Fudd

You can't honestly believe that this was an appropriate edit. If you have a problem with the subject of a BLP, blog about it. But don't mess about on Wikipedia – V, NOR, NPOV, the same content policies and guidelines apply whether you like the person or not. --86.54.52.99 (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir, Mr. IP editor active for one day, sir. I'll be sure to take your instructions on policy with the utmost gravity. It was an experiment, I don't make a habit of it. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, don't make a habit of it. Or repeat the action at all. Tests and experiments are what sandboxes are for. POV-based vandalism is what the banhammer is for.

Yours sincerely, Mr. IP editor active for one day 22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.65.238 (talk)

My experiment wasn't about what would happen to a contribution to the sandbox. And doing it again would be equally pointless. All the pomposity is kind of entertaining, but STFU already. I already said it wouldn't happen again. -- AvatarMN (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You merely tried to shrug it off. But thanks for trying to say it this time – I shall now leave your talk page alone (for the time being). 212.32.90.58 (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, I'm totally quaking. -- AvatarMN (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, do you think I was trying to be scary? No, I was just trying to stop a borderline useful editor from going down a bad path. 212.32.112.219 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Note discussion

Note discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion? It's only a redirect because you made it one, innapropriately... "the redirect to vorarephilia is not helpful; after reaching the target article, no information is found about unbirthing". You did that, that wasn't the article's issue before you came along. The issue was lack of sources. Since the redirect is unhelpful, I was saying you should revert yourself and put the article to AfD. -- AvatarMN (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The page was completely unsourced. I looked for sources, and found nothing reliable. Per WP:PROVEIT, that means any editor can remove any unsourced content (i.e. all of it), leaving a blank page. Per WP:BLANK, pages should not be blanked. A redirect is a valid choice (had it been a stub with one source, I would have left it a redirect), but since unbirthing isn't mentioned in vorarephilia (something you pointed out), it's a confusing redirect. After thinking about it for a couple days and digging on wikipedia, the issues I discussed on the RFD page made me decide for a RFD instead. But the essential point is, the page never had any sources, and it was unlikely to have. If you can find a any reliable sources, I will withdraw my RFD and redirect to a section of vorarephilia (or, in the extremely unprobable event of finding sufficient sources to flesh out a full page, recreate the page and re-add it to {{paraphilia}}). This is a courtesy notice, it is also a venue for you to suggest potential improvements to the page. Those improvements can not include a page blank of content or completely lacking sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for the article's continued existence. I don't want to look for sources. I'm just saying you did this all wrong. A redirect is not a valid choice, becuase a redirect should not lead to an article that has no information on the subject of the redirect. The article should be deleted, which means WP:AfD! To nominate it for redirect for discussion on the grounds that you turned it from an article to a crappy candidate for a redirect page is incredibly bizzare. It should be reverted to an article, and go through AfD. You can't delete an article unilaterally. This is why AfD exists! You can turn it into a redirect, but your own nomination for RfD makes pretty plain that you know that's not the right thing to do either. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Edging (masturbation)

I have nominated Edging (masturbation), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edging (masturbation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Matt Deres (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, AvatarMN. You have new messages at Beeblebrox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

August 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Beeblebrox, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox repeatedly says he doesn't care about making the already upset subject of a BLP even more upset by being one of two editors innapropriately reverting the guy's talk, and he doesn't regret that the subject went away mad instead of the situation being resolved, so I comment that Beeblebrox sounds like a sociopath. I guess the dictionary contains personal attacks against Beeblebrox. -- AvatarMN (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#User:AvatarMN just won't let go. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you feel they did ... FIRST you always WP:AGF that Beeblebrox felt they were doing the right thing under WP:BLP and for Wikipedia as a whole. Second, you never have ANY right to violate WP:NPA by calling someone a sociopath and/or telling them that "Wikipedia would be better off without you" in that manner. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is a note that you've been brought up at ANI here. Secondly if you make another attack on an editor you will be blocked as noted in the warning above. Please stop battling and get on with the purpose of being here, ie creating an encyclopedia. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this. You warned me not to post on your talk page again, not on mine. I don't see how it's any different for you to conclude from my behavior that I'm too tenacious, but I can't collate from your own statements that you're a word that means uncaring and without empathy; things you yourself said you were. I don't think it's fair for one person demand they get the last word, so just to satisfy my ego that you don't get to tell me to not say anything more, I put something on my own talk page. I don't know why you looked for it, and I had every intention of ending it there. So now I bow out. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lovefoxxx

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I have now resolved the problem. --Tenmei (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

“ (copying this here, because Tenmei deleted it on their talk page)[[1]]

Thanks for correcting the Lovefoxxx issue. But I have to echo what LordAmeth and Bendono said way back in 2007, at the top of what remains of this talk page.[[2]] You really shouldn't delete discussion, but rather archive. It greatly complicates the record, and editors' ability to review for purposes of tracking the history of an issue to get an idea of timeline and consensus, especially in the case of things like dispute resolution, or if you ever want to be an admin someday, for example. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

”

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I have now resolved the problem I caused.

I stumbled into this mis-step as I was adding a name to notable Japanese-Brazilians. At present, there is no article about Teruaki Yamagishi, who was awarded the Order of the Rising Sun in 2008. A cursory online search did not produce sufficient information to create a stub; but I thought Yamagishi might have an arguable place among notable Brazilian Nisei and Sansei.

This is somewhat removed from the world of Lovefoxxx, but there you have it. My good intentions were beside the point. --Tenmei (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion about deletion-vs-archiving in terms of my talk page posts. It articualtes an interesting, but not compelling point-of-view.

At some point in the future, I may change my mind; but for now, I will continue to keep only those messages which seem immediately relevant to on-going projects, etc. For now, I construe my talk page as existing entirely for my use and convenience, and I will continue to discount any prospective value there could be for others like yourself. --Tenmei (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I noted your opinion about deletion-vs-archiving my talk page posts – an interesting point-of-view. --Tenmei (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

“ (copying this here, because Tenmei deleted it[[3]])

I really don't appreciate you making several changes to what you wrote on my talk page, either. It's standard operating procedure to not delete discussion, not merely my point-of-view. Even if it were, if your talk page is yours to rewrite as you see fit, my talk page is mine and not yours to rewrite. An easy-to-read history of discussion is essential for tracking interactions and potential disputes. You can't cover up what you've done on Wikipedia, the history will show the whole truth. By deleting stuff, like you will probably delete this, you only create the appearance that you are trying to whitewash disputes people have had with you. So the next time someone has a problem with your practices, they can't easily see that they are not the only one who've come to you about the same thing. -- AvatarMN (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

”

In this short thread, I have redacted text using strikethrough, a/k/a "strike-out." I understand that this is a conventionally accepted method for retracting or withdrawing improvident sentences as explained more fully at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This becomes another one of those lessons learned the hard way. --Tenmei (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't understand why you struckout the first post, though. But anyway, as you read the talk page guidelines, I hope you noticed that it's frowned on to delete other peoples' edits. It's allowed on your talk page, but "archival is preferred". I hope you will consider starting to do that instead of what you've been doing. I'm surprised that no one's had a problem with this practice of yours before now, though I suppose it's very possible lots of people have, and I wouldn't know because you deleted it... -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)