User talk:Wykypydya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello! How's my editing? Please drop me a line. --Wykypydya

Contents

[edit] contribution to Spark Notes

Note of caution: tagging an edit as possible OR is not an acceptable way to edit/contribute to wikipedia; especially when said edit is blatant OR and admitted POV. By all means continue to be Be Bold. Good luck.--ZayZayEM 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help finding right template

Helpme inquiry: What kind of template (i.e. cleanup template) should one use on Wikipedia for a plot summary that needs to be explained better?

Question, why do we need a plot summary? Why wouldn’t we simply do what we are meant to do? Lovelight 03:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
WTF, what are you talking about? Is that some kind of abstract question or something? I meant the plot of a movie: What kind of template message would you put on an article describing a movie's plot that does a poor job?
I'm sorry, for some reason your user page disturbs me. Lovelight 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you must be confused or something, because first you go off on a tangent about "doing what we are meant to do" and then you complain about my user page. (But just to play Devil's Advocate, I find the fake scenario on my user page quite amusing. Don't you?) --Wykypydya 04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What is Devil's Advocate? You are free to remove whatever disturbs you. It's just an opinion. Lovelight 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Opinions are welcome. To play Devil's Advocate is to hypothetically assume the argument of the other side and make a point about it. --Wykypydya 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I understand what got you so upset, since I've encountered a number of these "devil advocates" before, thank you. Lovelight 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of opinions, I see you are very devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I wouldn't be too surprised if you're right. Bush has conspiracy written all over him. I don't know about the 9/11 conspiracies, but his corrupt oil and anti-environmentalist actions are really conspiracies.
Fact is, the conspiracy is based on conspiracy, that is, you label decent folks who are puzzled by unanswered questions [emphasis added] with a particular term, and then you make sure that it is as derogatory as possible… It's very desperate approach, since we've passed that event horizon, and you cannot go around and insult the whole wide world. I honestly wonder who will be the first to recognize the libel in label and sue for damage done… these days; one could easily sue a lot of folks. There, that is my only opinion on conspiracy theories… Well, since we are sharing perspectives, let me summarize. I'm not really interested in conspiracy or truthseeking… just facts. That said, I'm glad to know you. Lovelight 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not insulting anyone. Sorry you took it that way. --Wykypydya 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, let me assure you, i haven't taken that as insult, not at all, honestly… we are chitchatting and sharing opinions, right? :) Lovelight 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please try {{Expand-section}}. -- Selket Talk 05:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good replacement for {{sectstub}}. For the movie plot for now, I am using the {{confusing}} template and the {{rewrite}} template. --Wykypydya 16:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Hello, Wykypydya. While there had been some discussion here about whether your username met Wikipedia policy on what usernames editors can use, the result was to allow it, and that discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can still find that discussion in the archive (here). You do not need to change your username. However, if you ever wish to do so, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name: simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC) HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I didn't know my username was so potent to spark such a controversial discussion. (How come no message was put here while it was going on? I would probably have commented...) It is such a coincidence that a rule about that was made right after. Does this mean that if I created the username afterward, it would have been blocked?
Basically, I sat for a long time thinking about what kind of username would be interesting, but most things were either taken or I had to put trailing numbers. I thought that something resembling the name "Wikipedia" but with different letters for the vowels, and all uniform, would be unique yet unintrusive. As for the comment about masquerading as a misleading identity or authority, I had no intention of that... The statement on my user page about being the "definitive" WP user is just a joke. I'll take it out if there's any objection to it. Everything else on the user page is just me making a creative slate out of my user page.
Anyway, I'd rather think that the username doesn't directly violate policy than justify it by saying that the rule was made afterwards. That being said, I hope a different result wouldn't have happened if I had made the username after the rule... but that's all academic anyway.
As I have no intention of misleading anyone, I'll do my best to correct anyone who is misled. If the fact that the username appears to be archetypal becomes too much of a problem, and/or I can think of something else unique yet nonintrusive, I'll consider changing it.
Thanks for understanding. --Wykypydya 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in that you should have been notified of the discussion, it appears to have been an oversight. The discussion took place here. In answer to your question, if you had made your username after the rule it may have been disallowed depending on people's opinions. The discussion about your name very quickly, and almost unanimously, decided your name was fine. It was not really a controversial name. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism subpages

Please note, your userspace /vandalism subpages have been deleted following a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wykypydya/Vandalism. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, chum! >:-( Those pages weren't bothering or infringing on anyone, were isolated in userspace, and were free for people to contribute to. You ascetic people are so intolerant of the most benign things! It wasn't vandalism of the encyclopedia itself; it was voluntary vandalism of my own userspace. It was the utilization of Wikipedia's free environment without adulterating real articles. Either way, again I wasn't notified when the debate was brought up, which isn't a very big deal other than that I might have considered commenting, unless that's actually the policy for debates about specific users.
I like my vandalism, and you people just take it away, take it away, take it away...
My vandalism lies over the ocean, my vandalism lies over the sea, my vandalism lies over the ocean, oh bring back my vandalism to me... --Wykypydya 02:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think they are utilising WP:NOT#WEBSPACE--ZayZayEM 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps, in one interpretation, in some abstract way. --Wykypydya 02:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, wait a minute! On the debate they said what I was doing was similar to WP:BJAODN (bad jokes and other deleted nonsense)! If Wikipedia can have a bad jokes/nonsense page as a Wikipedia meta-article, then why can't I have a personal userspace tree for the same genre of content? --Wykypydya 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As a note, a lot of people have illegal subpages, but it is customary to not delete other people's pages, because it kind of creates a bitterness I think, and as you may well already know. If you've got any secret subpages, you can have them privately deleted for fear of getting in trouble later on (and which may haunt you during an RfA). [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching

Hi :) Uh, let's start over. I didn't like how we started, and I didn't like how I had about three weeks of work to do. I, and somebody else are going to be coaching you and User:Deep_Impact, since although I've been around and seen a lot, I haven't "coached" before. [Mac Δαvιs] ❖ 03:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay --Wykypydya 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
How many more edits/time do you think I need before I'm eligible for adminship? --Wykypydya 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: A retort from the user you just reverted

"'Unsourced statements'? WTF? I put the 'citation needed' template in there." That's EXACTLY my point. It is UNCITED. "Uncited" means it needs a citation. As for lack of clarity, if you can't see that I doubt that I could convince you. Let's just say that the thoughts in your head aren't coming across in your words. I suggest that you get help writing, then if it makes sense I'll leave it if it's relevant and cited. Ward3001 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of a "citation needed" tag is not for the original contributor to insert in order to prevent deletion. It is inserted by another editor after an unsourced statement; if no source is added as a result, the statement is subject to deletion. Information in Wikipedia should be verifiable, meaning that the original contributor should cite source(s). Some editors fail to do this, which is why the cn tag is needed. You, as the original contributor of the information, should cite a source, instead of placing a cn tag and expecting someone else to cite the source. As for lack of clarity, regardless of the accuracy of the quotes, the text that introduces the quotes makes little sense. That's where you need help writing. I would offer to help you myself, except I have no idea what you're trying to say. Additionally, since the information you are adding is trivia, you need to read WP:HTRIV regarding integration of the trivia into the main article. I have my doubts that this can be done logically, but if you can I encourage you to do so. Ward3001 20:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary

Please read Wikipedia guidelines on courtesy regarding edit summaries. I have recently edited Private company limited by shares and your comment regarding the correction of grammar you made, whilst accurate, could be construed as offensive. Matt Adore 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual stereotyping

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sexual stereotyping, by Emiellaiendiay, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sexual stereotyping fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Topic already addressed, more thoroughly, accurately, and with citations, in LGBT stereotypes. The stereotyping addressed here is not really "sexual" but sexual orientation-based, which is already covered.


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sexual stereotyping, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Sexual stereotyping itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from userpage

The following is a copy of someone's comment and follow-up that was placed in the vandalism section of my userpage.

[edit] Edit Summary

Please read Wikipedia guidelines on courtesy regarding edit summaries. I have recently edited Private company limited by shares and your comment regarding the correction of grammar you made, whilst accurate, could be construed as offensive. Matt Adore 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops... I'll try to avoid this in the future. However, I regret to inform you that you have posted your comment in the vandalism section of my userpage, so technically this comment is vandalism and may be construed as nonsense. As a courtesy I'll copy this over to my user talk page. Thanx 4 the comment, though. --Wykypydya 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

Thanks for your edits to child sexual abuse. As it is a highly contested page, we are trying to limit any additions to fully cited, scientific sources. Adding a statement and then tagging it "citation needed" yourself, or adding a section and then tagging it a stub yourself is not a good idea in this case. A reference to a fictional television show is particularly unhelpful. Also, the location of your edit was not well chosen. Please join us on the Talk:child sexual abuse where a lot of this kind of work is being done prior to inserting it on the page. Thanks very much. -Jmh123 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse reports

If a user adds an IP report to Wikipedia: Abuse reports, should the user then edit the accused user's talk page to inform them that they have reported them, or will an automated bot do it, or should they not be explicitly informed? (I have had several experiences in which administrative deliberations took place about my username and I wasn't informed (though I should have been) until they were concluded.) --Wykypydya 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse reports doesn't really say what to do so it probably doesn't matter. Let the volunteers at Wikipedia:Abuse reports decide how to handle the problem I guess? If this answer isn't satisfactory, let me know so I can go look deeper. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] variance

I have reverted your edit to variance for reasons discussed at talk:variance. Michael Hardy 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, S.O.L.A.R. System, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does this meet the criteria for speedy deletion? You're wrong! >:-( It's a valid stub article about a microcosmical topic! Geez -- I've been trying to make an article on this topic for years and SOME brat always takes it away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wykypydya (talk • contribs) 21:39:04, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Replied

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

[edit] WTF? Wikipedia, the free POKEMON encyclopedia?!

Previous "help" statement:

We need a WP technician! Someone has hacked the entire Wikipedia site (or main template) so that all articles now have as a header under the title: "From Wikipedia, the free Pokemon encyclopedia"! This is interesting yet very bizarre!

It looks like it's been fixed. --Wykypydya (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)