User talk:SickBoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User:AndroidCat. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 14:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to target users' pages for vandalism, as you did with User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo 14:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Shall I call you a WAHHHmbulance? CERPINTAXTCERPINTAXTCERPINTAXT

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 1 week. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: " "

Decline reason: "continued attacks"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

This block is unjustified because since I had recieved the warning, I have not "vandalized" I believe I am being targeted because comments I made about another user hit to close to home. This is typical of most "community based" websites which tout individuality & "a sense of community." It illustrates the point I am trying to make for the article I am writing for a nat. publication about the hypocrisy of site like wiki. The initial group of early users in effect take over & instate there own rule system & hide it behind the TOS; when no TOS violation has occurred. I freely admit to the initial violations as I was trying to goad a response. As predicted, when I made the comments on my user page, which was not vandalism, I received a block. Alll & all this experiment went how I wanted along with the help of some other shadowy figures. Anyhoo, I'm off too write some tasty copy for what they call in Britain a "lad mag" after that I'm gonna finish writing my short story " Battle Amongst the Stars Ep XXX: Quazga Returns" & then I'ma watch some vapid porn with my cat Jurgens. Now go get your shine box...


Furthermore, tyo prove my hypocrisy user android cat actually REINSTATED vandalism HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kick_Out_the_Jams&diff=next&oldid=62750885

I think saying "Shall I call you a WAHHHmbulance? CERPINTAXTCERPINTAXTCERPINTAXT" more than qualifies as some sort of queer personal attack. And your ranting certainly doesn't show any reason for an unblock. Sasquatch t|c 04:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Invisibleghost.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Night of the Living Dead

Thanks for your recent edits to Night of the Living Dead. The image you have chosen is much better than the original I found, but your other changes are providing too much "random" information. Keith Wayne, Judith Ridley, Karl Hardman, and Marilyn Eastman do need to be in the infobox since they are credited on the poster and are the "main cast", though certialy not the stars. The musicians, however, need to have some sort of citation, because as far as I know these names are not listed in the credits of the film and have not appeared in any of the secondary literature I used when writing this article, therefore this needs a citation before it can remain in the infobox. Also, the dates and USA as they originally appeared conform to the Wikiproject film manual of style governing infoboxes; please stop changing them to fit your personal preference. Dmoon1 17:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I came about as hostile. I certainly do not mean to hold the page hostage (I will admit to protecting it since this page attracts editors that just edit in random bits of trivia with no sources or context). In this case I certainly rushed to judgement. Let me explain what I wrote above; I was running late for class and in sort of a hurry.
  1. New image is great.
  2. No objection to including Wayne, Ridley, Hardman, Eastman in infobox.
  3. I don't really like the idea of putting the names of the musicians in the infobox because the score for this film was not composed for the film; it's only stock musci. I didn't recall seeing these people's names at IMDb when I first researched this film. I had read an interview with Hardman and Eastman where they said the score was just stock music they had run through a synthesizer. I have added something about this in the "Music" sub-section under "Production". Thanks for pointing this out!
  4. The budget info is from IMDb, and it is an estimate.

No hard feelings, I hope. Dmoon1 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but whether it is stock music or not; it had to be selected by somebody for inclusion in the film & in this case Romero selected it himself. Further, regardless of the film, the musicians should be given their due for the music & included in the credits here even though the film didn't. Just my opinion though. SIckBoy 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MST3K

Hey, sorry for linking the articles I'd created on pertinent films to the MST3K list. Thought it would be would be appreciated & avoid double articles but I can tell by your smart-alecky quotes around "fixes" that it wasn't. I'll be sure to submit all further contributions through you since you are apparently the boss of Wikipedia. SIckBoy 03:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt that my quoting the word "fixed" was "smart-alecky". I meant it to indicate that you had made a correction that was not in keeping with the established system in List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. To make this clear, I added the text "1st title is MST3K ep, 2nd is IMDb title (both sourced)" to indicate the system, of which you did not appear to be aware, and that this information was sourced, not just added on a whim. (Your own edits clearly were well-intentioned, as you were creating properly titled film articles along with these changes.) The problem comes down to how to deal with the many titles of these films: the original (often not in English), the IMDb title (sometimes not the same as the original), the most common English title (which appears to be what you are using for your new article stubs), and the MST3K episode titles (which often don't quite match up to one or more of the previous).

Of course, I am not the boss of Wikipedia, or even of this article. I simply have a lot more history with it (and Wikipedia), and have researched and discussed this issue to some extent on the talk page. (I would highly recommend that you read the relevant topics there if you haven't already done so.) I'm sure you believe you are just being appropriately snarky in return for my own perceived snarkiness, but I hope that you and I can back off from this unfortunate descent into insults and cooperate to improve the article. Again, I apologize for offending you. I hope that you will join me in trying to avoid reflecting part of a Martin Amis quote that happened to be yesterday's Wikiquote Quote of the Day: "Being inoffensive, and being offended, are now the twin addictions of the culture." ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that the use of quotes indicated that someone or something was not in keeping w/ an established system. I do understand what you did; as I am not ignorant, but as you stated you have been using Wikipedia longer than I have & perhaps YOU could have referenced the situation differently than your use of the quotes which I did feel was not necessarily offensive; but more indicitive of the general attitude of SOME more experienced Wikipedia users. Instead of HELPING newer users; they are DISMISSIVE. Unfortunately, as with many online communities more experienced users tend to have a perceived ownership of the site, or as is many times the case with this site, the articles (especially if they created them). As such after a period of growth, once veteran users get entrenched, the site will decline, as new users are shunned. In fact, I wrote an article about this very same subject recently (not here, in print). Fear not, just as is the case with the NotLD article; I wil henceforth steer clear of MST3K articles. Here's a paraphrase of an Orwell quote for you: 'All Wikipedians are equal, but some Wikipedians are more equal than others'. SIckBoy 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no policy about my use of quotes; it's simply shorthand. Edit summaries must be succinct, so there are many practices (that differ as much as editors themselves differ) that help people be succint. You've made it clear how this can look to someone not familiar with the practice, so I'll come up with a better way.
I do not want you to "steer clear of MST3K articles"; it seems like you can contribute quite a lot to this badly needed effort. But if you are so intent on reading a world of contempt and dismissal into a single quoted word, I can do nothing for you.
If instead, you wish to continue working on MST3K, you are welcome and even encouraged to fight back on any existing practices that you disagree with. Nothing in Wikipedia is static, and anything can benefit from a fresh point of view. If you feel the titles should be the way you edited them, make your case on the talk page. I'll make mine, and hopefully other editors (old and new) will join in the discussion and help us achieve some consensus on this point for this article. I may seem like an 800-pound gorilla sometimes, but I'm just one editor, and I make plenty of mistakes, just like anyone else.
Wikipedia would benefit more from your active disagreement than your departure. Please try to consider the possibility that I am not trying to be snarky, sarcastic, dismissive, or rude, but rather earnestly trying to keep you involved. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me out & responding to my concerns Jeff & I'm sorry for being so sensitive.

Here's my problem; theoretically this scenerio seems likely to me. A Wikipedian whom is a fan of cult movies, but not a fan or perhaps unaware of MST3K, creates an article on the film "Five the Hard Way." An MST3K fan, but not particularly someone interested in the minutae of cult movies, comes along & creates an article about "Sidehackers". Now both you & I know they are the same film, but the casual wikipedia user looking for move info may not. Basically it seems like the two entries would be counterproductive to the goal of Wikipedia. IMHO, the naming convetion could be simple :

1. This is the English version of Wikipedia so English versions of film names should be used whenever possible; of course w/ info on the original release title. 2. The English title used should be the most common title used for the film; i.e. "Ein Toter hing im Netz" is the official release title of a film. Since this is English Wikipedia, we should use an English title. The MOST COMMON English title is "A Corpse Hangs in the Web" , this is the INTERNATIONAL English title so we should use this as this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. It might sound strange to American ears as the movie here is variously known as Body in the Web (USA), Girls of Spider Island (USA) (video title), Horrors of Spider Island (USA) (reissue title), It's Hot in Paradise (USA), The Spider's Web (USA). These titles, along with the original German, should be noted parenthetically. 3. MST3K often seemed to use the title available on their print of the film, so for example the 'list' page should read, IMO "A Corpse Hangs in the Web" (broadcast as Horrors of Spider Island). It may sound convoluted, but I think one of the goals of Wikipedia should be to present info in it's lowest common denominator form. Just my opinion though; like I said. Thanks again for listening Jeff. SIckBoy 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with you about title conventions (except I'd lose the word "lowest" in "lowest common denominator", which has an unfortunately loaded meaning outside mathematics that opponents of the practice would be happy to capitalize on). These issues have been discussed at some length at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films), with no clear consensus, but I believe your practice is the most common actually in use here — when people get around to "fixing" initial article creations. (There I go again — here I'm saying "fixing" because it is debatable whether such a change is a proper correction, even though I believe it is. I try hard not to assume I know the "right" answer, but I don't always succeed.) I've just summarized this practice for the sake of another editor at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Determining the official title of a film. Just so you know, I've already been doing this myself (see The Eye Creatures, which I wrote — not Attack of the Eye Creatures, let alone Attack of the the Eye Creatures ☺).
One assumption you seem to be making that may not hold forever is that each MSTied film should have one and only one article, not one for the straight film and one for the episode. (I infer that you implicitly expect any MST3K info to be included in those articles, but I may be overreaching.) There is a low-energy debate about creating separate articles for MST3K episodes, which would address several oddities about this unusual TV show and its fodder:
  • Many popular TV shows have episode articles with show details; MST3K editors tend to put this data into the film articles.
  • Many WP editors consider anything more than a simple mention of a film being MSIed as too tangential for an article about the film. (I must agree, as on Wikipedia, I am an editor before I am a rabid MSTie.)
  • Not only do MST3K episode titles often differ from their subjects' original titles, they frequently differ from any other representation of the title. (See the discussions starting at Talk:List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes#Some title and format standardization for more information about this.)
  • Films titles are italicized, but TV episodes are double-quoted. How do we denote MST3K episodes? (There is no consistency across the collection of MST3K and related film articles.)
My own contribution (as well as others) to this debate is at Talk:List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes#Episode articles, but I've seen it crop up elsewhere. (Sorry, I can't recall where at the moment, but I imagine it would be in some film article talk pages.)
Given the eventualism of Wikipedia, I'm sure that we'll have article pairs someday. Meanwhile, your naming of film articles makes sense. In fact, some existing film articles should be moved to their more official titles (e.g., Red Zone Cuba to Night Train to Mundo Fine). But the information in "List of MST3K episodes", crammed into such a small place, puts a premium on what we can display, thus our convention for displaying only the episode title and film's original title, and linking the first (ep) title to the relevant film article, even if the title is different (and even if the actual article title is also given). This follows standard Wikipedia practice of linking the first use of a subject in an article to the article that discusses it. Another standard WP practice of including alternative names (especially from article redirects) in the first line of the article should suffice to prevent confusion in the target article. It's far from perfect, but it functions, unless and until we can come up with a better compromise. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for enlightening me. I agree w/ you as well. You are also correct in that the list of episodes should contain the broadcast name & then link to the appropriate movie stub/article. Unless a comprehensive episode guide was to be added to Wikipedia, I think it would be futile to write a few episodes here & there. SIckBoy 21:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/c/User_talk%7ESickBoy_1161.html"