User talk:Extreme Unction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: Due to an intense school schedule this semester, my wikiavailability will be spotty.

/Archive 1
/Archive 2

[edit] Congrats!

Ooooo clean page. --Syrthiss 14:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Pristine, virgin-like, etc. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nefarious admin reverses all your decisions

Well, one of them. I deleted "Steel Detailer" after all per my note on Stormraven's talk page. Hope you don't mind. Demi ^T/_C 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Curse you, Demi! You'll pay for this! By all that's holy, you'll pay!!1!!1!

All the best.

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 21:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFD/CSDR2 question

Per a discussion with Radiant! at WT:CSD, I'm deleting most CSD-R2 candidates that I found via SQL query. User:Extreme Unction/redirects says that redirects should be orphaned first before deleting them. Do you know whether this always applies, even to Talk pages? In particular, Edwinstearns is a redirect to User:Edwinstearns, but it has 92 backlinks, because the user included the link in his/her signature on talk pages. (there are several others that have some number of backlinks, such as Criticisms of Christianity/new, but the maximum I've found is 9, which isn't too bad). (also, for what it's worth, the list I'm currently working off of is here) Any advice? --Interiot 15:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that backlinks which arise as a consequence of someone's signature have no real need to be orphaned, except in cases where the signature links result in the redirect page being continually recreated. But those should be rare enough that we can address them individually as they arise. Backlinks which arise from non-signature sources should probably be orphaned, however. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Keep up the good work. --Interiot 02:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machine Gun (song)

i noticed that you requested that this article be expanded, and i would appreciate if you would elaborate on that a bit on the discussion page. thanks. -Joeyramoney 19:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've mistaken me for someone else. First I've ever heard of Machine Gun (song). Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 18:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change in afd

I saw the notice and don't know if you are in. If you are and don't care I have a question about the new prod I've seen but not used yet---can this replace afd or is it a separate policy concerning articles for deletion. What I'm trying to say is if I see an article that looks afd to me can I use a prod instead?. I read the topic but still want to make sure before I proceed. Thanks.--Dakota ~ ° 02:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. I have not seen but a couple. If no objections or removal they go, if either afd. Thanks and good to see you back.--Dakota ~ ° 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unction?

I'd heard of the prayer "last rites with extreme unction" (which Charlie Farquharson refers to as the "last rites with extreme Moncton". The closest I've been able to find to a definition of "unction" on its own is [1][2][3][4] which seems a bit vague. The inference that unction is the force and energy with which a preacher preaches as a true believer, or something like that. As for the extreme Moncton? They're on Acadian time, so I presume the prayer would get to wherever it needs to go an hour quicker? --carlb 13:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unction, my friend, means anointing - unguent which is a cream or lotion comes from the same word; so does unctuous which means greasily obsequious. Extreme unction means final anointing ....or lubrication, which might be what the bishop was doing when he was caught out. Lechaim! Paul venter 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Unction is anointing with oil, specifically it is the sacrament of anointing the sick with oil as part of a prayer for their healing. Extreme Unction is the name used when this anointing with oil is done at or near to the time of death. In most Anglican Church or Roman Catholic Church dioceses the oil is blessed on Maundy Thursday by the Bishop, and a small measure of it is taken away by each Priest from the service, back to his own church, for use during the ensuing year. Timothy Titus 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Userfication

Have you seen this? Thought you might want a look. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free beer!

Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [5] SilkTork 12:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corollary to your law

Not sure how interested you are, but I figured I'd alert you that I added a corollary to your second law on Raul's Laws page. [6] It's something I've noticed quite a bit, and it seemed to fit nicely as a corollary to your law rather than a separate law itself. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 08:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terracotta Army

If you would please return to the talk section so we can debate this issue. I strongly feel that section should be removed from the article and still have valid arguments for removal. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 12:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Although it is your opinion they should be included, why is your opinion more binding or valid than mine? And please use the talk page to make arguments instead of edit summeries. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 13:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds as though you might be interested in the similar debate on Talk:Hwacha? It is currently in a 'cooling off' period as per WP:DR, but I expect that heated discussion will resume early next week. The issue at hand is whether references to video games belong in a "serious" encyclopedia. Your participation would be welcomed. --Matt 21:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Švejk administers extreme unction

Heh heh, your name made me chuckle, partly because it's a humorous term in general, but also because I was just re-reading one of my favorite books, The Good Soldier Švejk, and there is a whole chapter called "Švejk administers extreme unction". (He is a bumbling soldier, eventually he is assigned to be the assistant of a drunken chaplain, and for a chapter or two they are trying to make money by administering extreme unction. Heh heh..) Dan Carkner 02:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help (re disambiguation)

Thanks for your kind note, but I don;t think I did the disambiguation correctly. I was only able to create a disambiguation page by adding (disambiguation). To access the topic you have to put Francis Barrett (disambiguation) in the search engine, otherwise, you get routed to Francis Barrett. I have looked at other (correctly done) disambiguation pages and they do not have the word (disambiguation) next to the topic name. Please help. Kieran Cummins 00:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I hope I get the hang of it (creating disambiguation pages) b/c there are a few more I would like to do. Thanks again. Kieran Cummins 03:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] zomgbbq!

Great to see you back! Um, except that I'm Sharply Reducing my participation in this gig. Hm. Well. Hope things are good by you! FreplySpang 17:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] slum dweller

Why did you delete slum dweller? 1.5 billion people are slum dwellers. Slum, where you redirected it to, is architecture. A slum dweller is a person. These people seem unrepresented on wikipedia which favours rich minorities. Take for example Sloane Ranger. Please explain your thinking. Tkay 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki:Loginsuccess

The idea was to make Wikipedia more comprehensible to beginning editors. You mention byzantine pathways... I'm quite sure it has only gotten worse since last year. Before I edited, it simply sent people to CAT:POL with the recommendation to read it. Obviously, that's not helpful. However, {{welcome}} doesn't quite cut it either because with the steady influxes of socks, imposters, and vandalcounts, I'm not at all convinced that all new users get welcomed.

This is only part of the larger problem: in my experience, most novice 'pedians understand just about zilch of how the Wiki works (and tend to jump like conclusions such as "let's vote on this", or "you can't do that, WP:PAGE is not policy!" or "OMG I can do anything 'cuz IAR says so").

Actually I don't think what I wrote earlier was all that verbose and at least moderately useful, and advanced editors can just ignore it (it's far less obtrusive than {{talkheader}}, for one). Sending them to the helpdesk rather than the Pump is ok by me. Anyway, suggestions welcome. >Radiant< 21:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahhhhh!

You keep beating me to the deletedpage template! Keep up the good NPP :). alphaChimp^(talk) 04:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deviantnation.com

Your retention [7] is appreciated. Thanks! William Pietri 02:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of well-intentioned questions

1. Can you summarize in, say, 50 words or less, the exact nature of the conflict between you and Radiant?

I will try:

1   2     3      4            5     6    7       8   9  10 11  12    13   14     15  16    17      18   19
He abused his administrative powers by reverting my edit to a version he favored and then protected the page.

(hey.. pretty good! I'm usually overly wordy! But this short synopsis does everyone and the issue a disservice by focusing on a "conflict" rather than an error and a problem.)

2. Why the sense of dreadful urgency?

Other than the fast revert of my edit and the protection of that page, I was not aware of any dreadful urgency. Its a funny idea.

Now my turn for a question. What is your concern in this matter?

Regards

--Blue Tie 04:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turtle treasure

Hi, I started a Turtle_treasure article, and you deleted it, I thought the subject was hillarious, and was hoping that someone who knew more about it would post some more information, seeing as you can't find much on the web. Just thought you were a bit mean to delete it :(

[edit] Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote

Hi,

Obviously you think that Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote should be guideline. However, its quite unclear to me that there is consensus to make it guideline. Guideline isn't just invented by observers of how people do things on wikipedia. The admins you hang around might not be the admins others hang around. Wikipedia is a big place, and it works on *consensus*. I do not find that the page has consensus to be considered a guideline. If you can help me find somewhere where people support making it consensus (somewhere with more than like.. 4 people) then I'll let this slide - but otherwise, I don't see why you think this is proper. Please discuss this on the talk page - whether the page is "disputed" in general or not really doesn't matter, theres a problem and it needs to be resolved, please be part of the solution by discussing it. Fresheneesz 07:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BeerReference

By all means, do feel free to recreate it with the links you mentioned. With all of the articles on really unnotable websites flooding this site, it's easy to "step on the toes" of a really notable one which simply lacks references. Thanks for the note and I wish you the best. - Lucky 6.9 02:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• PS: I should have looked at who was adding this in the first place. I am REALLY sorry. - Lucky 6.9 02:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. With all the abuse we get on a daily basis just maintaining the mop and bucket, a really nice note like yours is deeply appreciated. - Lucky 6.9 02:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jlambert

Hi, Extreme, I have not noticed that you already have given User:Jlambert a warning for the 3RR violation and gave him a 24h block since he has already been blocked on the same article and was unblocked on the promise to avoid revert warring. I am not familiar with the history of the article so feel free to unblock the guy if you feel I was to harsh. abakharev 05:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

I recall Cryptic as a competent and intelligent user, and am both surprised and disappointed to see that he appears to have left. Do you know what's up with that?

Anyway. Yes, those words are appropriate. The problem is that if a group gets bigger, it is increasingly unlikely that everyone can live with something. Some people claim that consensus doesn't scale and that we need a more formal way of creating guidelines and such. While I'm not sure I like formalism much, I tend to agree that the current method is far from ideal - witness WP:CHILD as a proposal that seems to be pretty much derailed now, in that a compromise is being vehemently refused.

The biggest problem, however, is not disagreement, but misconceptions. Once people have some kind of misconception about how things work, they can with all best intentions edit p/g pages to conform to what they perceive is proper, yet this has the effect of spreading the misconception. For instance, most opposition to WP:DDV is because people think AFD is a vote - but those people were led to think that because we didn't (seem to) have a guideline against voting. That's a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. But we can't expect people to not have misconceptions because Wikispace is so convoluted that people cannot be expected to read through it. And we can't reduce Wikispace because a group this large cannot be expected to not have rules. It's a confusing world in here...

>Radiant< 11:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please join us in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines. >Radiant< 15:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, that project is not very purposeful at the moment :) however it appears that the policy-proposing system is, to some extent, breaking down, in that there are several proposals that are considered both passed and failed depending on whom you ask, and that both sides act accordingly. This may be inevitable on a wiki this size, but it causes strife and confusion. The first solution that comes to mind would be a PolCom to decide on policy, but that would be decidedly unwiki so I don't think it's such a good idea. Tricky issue, no? >Radiant< 11:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StarGateWars

Thankyou, can you please delete StarGateWars, I shall create one fit for wiki later.Tyscorp 15:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You've yet to make it and its just been deleted.Bkkeim2000 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Apologies, i knew there was a special format for triggering the preferences thing, but for some reason i thought the way i was doing it was right instead of yours. sorry about that!
best,
tom. -W guice 12:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to participate, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. Though the RfA was unsuccessful, I intend to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice picture on your userpage. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louisiana Wikipedians

Hi, my name is Cory, and I'm working on a story for the Advocate about people in Louisiana who create and maintain Wikipedia pages, particularly ones about the area and its inhabitants. I noticed you posted on another user's discussion page that you are from the area. If you would be willing to participate in an interview for it, could you reply by e-mail?

Thanks, Cory