User talk:Bittergrey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Bittergrey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 00:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] All up to you now

Time to add references to your article. You should work quickly though as it isn't a long term lock down. --OrbitOne 06:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KAS et alii

Very breifly: I'm looking it over, and I've roped in someone else to look it over. So for the short term I'd suggest just looking away. In fact, everyone involved should just find something else to do for a day or two. I'm more tortoise than hare, be warned.
brenneman {L} 03:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be looking into this dispute during Aaron's (uneventful, I'm sure) absence. Please note my comment on KAS' talk page and feel free to pursue the matter in those terms. I am protecting the article, for now (on her version, simply as it is the latest one). Also: If someone is threatening you, or stalking you and you fear physical harm, contact law enforcement in your area, we are not the police. Regards, El_C 08:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Please keep your cool in this matter. If there is a dispute which originates outside of Wikipedia then let's not drag it in here. To the extent possible it's best if we pretned we dont' know anyone here, and simply focus on the editing. Feel free to contact me or another admin to help work through tht problems. -Will Beback 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brevity

I know that I can be uncontrollably prolix at times, but enough is sometime too much. Can you put more links and diffs and less prose? Have a look at this and see how much information is crammed into a small space. In particular, contrast with the bit that evaded refactoring. The more tightly you can present the argument, the more likely you are to be heard.
brenneman {L} 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to boil it down to the sentence below...BitterGrey 18:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Information

[Removed to avoid threatened actions BitterGrey 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] On being bold

On Impregnation fetish: When I say that I don't have the sources, I mean that I looked for them and couldn't find them. So I can easily call an article OR when I haven't seen the published sources given that I cannot find any published sources.

On everything else: When an article says "some believe, some do" etc that is weasel wording, and wikipedia policy is to remove weasel worded statements. Citing sources is a great way to do this because "Sometimes" turns into "According to."

Maybe you should stop worrying about being cool or whatever half insult you think isn't a personal attack-- and adhere to policy like I do-- the burden of citations goes to the people that want the text to stay, and anyone who thinks text is not clear or in bad style can tag it. The article on paraphilic infantilism is mostly clear, but there isn't any reason why I shouldn't ask that it be improved.Lotusduck 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I and others have invested many hours, many Saturdays at the library, many late nights, many months of our lives into wikipedia in general and the paraphilic infantilism article specifically. Those who have invested in it - by first learning about the topic, and only then contributing text and references - have helped to make it one of the best paraphilia articles on wikipedia. With this investment comes a seasoned understanding of wikipedia in practice. For example, while references are important, not every sentense has to have a reference number at it's end. [1]
There have, of course, been others. Those who just wanted to make changes, neither adding new references nor respecting references already in place. They wanted to claim articles as their own without investing in them. Marking large numbers of articles as unreferenced without first checking their references is such a behavior.
These others have consumed far too much time from those who actually contribute.BitterGrey 02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Admirer

I just wanted to say that I saw you webpage about infantalism some years ago. It was a voice in the wilderness and very informative. Thanks for your service to the AB and wider community for helping people to understand all the facts and nuances. :) Bongothemonkey 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm honored, and glad that the site helped. Thanks. BitterGrey 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Hi, you recently altered some links on the diaper page because of copyright issues. I was just wondering if this website would be an acceptable source. Thanks. Coop41 01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being mindful of copyrights. A superficial check of that site shows some material that is up on other sites as well (e.g.[2][3]), but no apparent reason to doubt disposablediaper.net as the original source. BitterGrey 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discipline

I'm sorry if you thought my response to Kelisi's message was defensive, I didn't mean to overeact. I have explained why I took offense on his talk page. I can be rather opinionated at times, and I just felt that his attitute towards Fsecret was unacceptable. Again, I apologise if this was out of line or has caused trouble. Coop41 19:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I implied an overreaction. Given the harsh (and easily offensive) language in Kelisi's post, a defensive reaction wasn't out of line. You do not need to apologize. However, I am trying to pull the conversation toward a common understanding. This mutual understanding (or at least acceptance) is necessary, assuming that none of us are leaving Wikipedia soon.BitterGrey 02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)