User talk:Manboobies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hello to Wikipedians

I have blanked the page as it was getting overlong. You will find the history is intact if you wish to read through.--Manboobies 01:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:HIM

Don't worry, i'm sure you'll grow out of it.--Manboobies 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? — Moe ε 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
HIM. I mean, they are pretty bad aren't they? What about a nice bit of Slayer instead?--Manboobies 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
To me, no they aren't bad, and Slayer is alright too. — Moe ε 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michaeljacksonmugshot.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Michaeljacksonmugshot.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Nard 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply to your comment from article talk page

Manboobies said: dr.ef.tymac I notice the antagonistic tone of your posts and you don't have to outright insult ProhibitOnions to be worthy of a temp ban, I would support one against you if the case was made for it, given your tone. So take it down a notch and show some respect.--Manboobies 14:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please specifically indicate where I demonstrated disrespect toward another Wikipedia user, If you do I will either: 1) acknowledge the unintentional showing of disrespect, and make sure not to do it again, as well as offer an express apology; or 2) explain why my remarks were totally appropriate and consistent with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy.
Please also note, unsubstantiated accusations (especially when accompanied by subtle threats) give WP users *no* opportunity to self-correct alleged misconduct; *no* opportunity to clear up potential misunderstandings; and *no* opportunity to learn from their mistakes. As far as I can see, the only direct purpose they can possibly serve is intimidation, and that does not strike me as appropriate under any circumstance. Intimidation and other forms of coercion should never have to be tolerated, by anyone.
Attempts at intimidation are not acceptable. Not you nor anyone else should be surprised if you discover people feel very strongly about this, and do not react "with a tone of pure sunshine and buttercups" when confronted by it.
Please also note, all content in Wikipedia articles related to living persons is subject to the very highest degree of scrutiny. Every experienced WP contributor is aware of this fact, and none is expected to compromise on this very crucial cornerstone of Wikipedia policy. That means "personal opinion" is justifiably subject to open repudiation whenever and wherever it is used in relation to biographical article content. Because of this, very diligent repudiation of unreferenced viewpoints is sometimes necessary. However, diligent repudiation of viewpoints does not necessarily equate to disrespect for the person stating those viewpoints.
Please also note, respect is a two-way street. No contributor to Wikipedia is a "subordinate" to any other Wikipedia contributor. No Wikipedia contributor is an "inferior" to any other Wikipedia contributor. If any WP contributor issues threats of a "ban" without the ability to substantiate those threats with specifics, and without giving the "target" an opportunity to correct their own mistakes, then that is totally unacceptable (in my opinion) and also blatantly disrespectful.
Thank you for expressing your concerns, and for recognizing the value and importance of mutual respect among all WP contributors. dr.ef.tymac 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Read the entire post you just made all the way through. It's very antagonistic. For example. Use of "Quote marks" give the sense that you are agitated and don't believe simple things that can be obviously inferred from your posts. It gives the feeling you could explode at any moment. You'll often find they are used in this way in face to face social situations. Use of constant formal grammar tagging also gives a formal, stuffy atmosphere where nobody else has used them in conversation with you. By using them you seek to separate and distinguish yourself, to make yourself look better, as it were. This is also antagonistic. I could probably read through your posts and find more examples but I fail to see how your tone is not immediately obvious as antagonistic to other people.--Manboobies 13:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Manboobies said: By using them you seek to separate and distinguish yourself, to make yourself look better, as it were.
Like I said, respect is a two-way street. Not once have I claimed you have bad motives, not once have I criticized you for finding fault with my writing style; and yet right off the bat you accuse me of inappropriate conduct and bad motives.
Not once have you acknowledged that you might be simply interpreting things differently. Not once have you acknowledged that reasonable people can have different communication styles (and everyone has a unique way of communicating, just as everyone has a unique way of walking and chewing their food). Not once have you acknowledged the fact that your orders to me: "So take it down a notch and show some respect" could be interpreted as patronizing and demeaning.
Respect is a two way street.
  • Add to that: the fact that you weren't even involved in the initial conversation to begin with.
  • Add to that: the fact that you deleted a talk-page response showing how another unrelated user account was also unsympathetic to the unreferenced claims that I had been refuting on the talk page.[1]
  • Add to that: The fact that you (apparently) did not give that user a chance to reflect on his own "trollish remark" and first *ask* him to remove it himself, as a chance to demonstrate good faith.
  • Add to that: The fact that I actually agree that the remark you deleted was a bit trollish; but nevertheless reflected the feelings of a user who has consistently worked his rear end off to add references and citations to the article in question Talk:Michael_Jackson#citations.
Respect is a two way street.
I will readily admit to you my "tone" may not always be sugary-sweet ... but this very conversation with you is a specific example of why. I've asked you for specifics and an opportunity to either apologize or explain, I've thanked you for expressing your concerns, and I've even explained to you that the reason I was not pleased to begin with was because I highly disfavor "unsubstantiated threats and intimidation".
In return, you've repeatedly accused me of improper motives, shown absolutely no sign of considering any points I've made to you, and all this despite the fact that you weren't even involved in the original discussion to begin with. All this despite the fact that you *agreed* with my conclusion that the other user in the "debate" had not made an adequate case.
Respect is a two way street.
I've made a very diligent effort to see things from your point of view, to thank you for stating your viewpoints, and to avoid any possible hint of insult or attack against you (or any other Wikipedia user for that matter). Even though I disagree strongly with some of what you have said, I've entirely respected your right to say it, and also your right to use whatever "tone" and "writing style" you see fit.
Respect is a two way street.
Can you please show me how you've respected my efforts, and the efforts of other Wikipedia users who work very hard to add proper referencing to articles, while getting little or no thanks in return? Can you explain why I should interpret your demands and broad accusations as a showing of respect towards me?
If you can sensibly and convincingly do that, you might be surprised at how much my "tone" will improve. If you don't do that, please don't be surprised if I repeatedly remind you:
Respect is a two way street.
Respectfully submitted. dr.ef.tymac 15:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's good if you feel that way. But I still think you're missing what I'm trying to say to you. --Manboobies 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be misunderstandings on both sides here. I never intended to antagonize or make myself look better by using quote marks and other formalities, and you never intended to disrespect or talk down to people who are working very hard to add good references with little or no thanks. If so, then no bad motives were involved on either side, which is definitely good.
I can make an effort to use punctuation more sparingly in my writing style. Hopefully, you can make an effort to discuss any issues before talking about banning people. Thanks in advance for your efforts to help make WP a better place for all contributors. dr.ef.tymac 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Witney Houston - I Will Always Love You.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Witney Houston - I Will Always Love You.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I thought you had died ages ago, i replied at the MJ talk page. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It will get there, by the end of summer i plan to have it done. It might have actually past its last review but it still needed a good copy edit. The only weak section is the "Themes and Genre" section, its still a pov pit but it does have a good skeleton. We could set up a sand box and develope that section together in secret, when happy we could swap them over. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes sourcing is getting stupid, particularly for FA, you need some sort of degree. I suggest we work on that section together somewhere, when we have something we both like we can swop them over. Its not something i can do by myself, i deal with the facts, i dont write in an articulate manner though.Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
In truth im open to us both doing it together bit by bit. I think we should make a plan of what we actually want to write about, what we want to say and source it from there. Im not really sure what i want, im open to letting someone else take the driving seat while i moniter, comment and agree. Out of interest, was there a particular reason you left the project, did you just get bored of it?--Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Good luck on the article. :) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill sign up now. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Im on!!! I see the map, just bare with me as i figure out how to use it lol. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, i have AIM. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Im off to bed too. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, i havent heard off you, i was online last night and much of today, if your busy at the moment no problem, let me know when you have some time on your hands. Im free for the next few days. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)