User talk:AngryParsley/Archive1

Thank you

You receive a WikiCookie for your efforts. - Mark 14:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. - AngryParsley 14:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wiki, wiki, wiki starts with W! Rad Racer 18:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PrankStar

Just a quick heads-up: your PrankStar is getting some attention over at Wikipedia talk:Barnstars on Wikipedia. You might want to check it out. – Clockwork Soul 06:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. AngryParsley (too lazy to add the time & date)

Too lazy to type ~~~~? Striker 03:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh fuck, this is easy. AngryParsley 05:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mwahahaha

I have stolen your page layout, and there's nothing you can do about it! Bwahaha! Thanks. -- Kizor 09:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hah, copied is more like it. If you stole my car, I would be pissed. If you made a copy of my car, I would warn you that the CD player is broken. That reminds me, I should check the oil in my car. AngryParsley 22:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update: Oh jeez! I was two quarts low! If you hadn't stolen my user page I could have had a very expensive repair bill. AngryParsley 23:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Always glad to help. Thanks for noting the mistake, too, I've fixed it now. -- Kizor 19:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User page vandalism

A couple anons vandalized your user page, so I reverted them. Just wanted to let you know :) -Frazzydee|✍ 23:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, thanks. I'm chatting with them on IRC right now. It's a bit of a joke. AngryParsley 23:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh...do you want me to stop reverting? Should I block if they continue? -Frazzydee|✍ 23:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it's cool. AngryParsley 23:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat edited your post

fyi: your post has been edited. — Davenbelle 17:33, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. This is the first time anyone has edited one of my posts. It's unusual, because he actually did say that to me on IRC:

Apr 25 14:25:00 <AngryParsley> no, a harsh lesson in internet injustice
Apr 25 14:25:13 <Cool_Cat> AngryParsley I designed the internet
Apr 25 14:25:18 <AngryParsley> s/lesson/instruction
Apr 25 14:25:22 <Cool_Cat> ok partialy
Apr 25 14:25:32 <JRM> Cool_Cat> Are you Al Gore?
Apr 25 14:25:33 <AngryParsley> Cool_Cat: along with al gore?
Apr 25 14:25:36 <AngryParsley> efb
Apr 25 14:25:41 <Cool_Cat> no
Apr 25 14:25:55 <Cool_Cat> I designed some hardware in infrastructure
Apr 25 14:26:01 <Cool_Cat> Sisco devices
Apr 25 14:26:16 <AngryParsley> Cool_Cat: I'd believe you, but you spelled Cisco incorrectly
Apr 25 14:26:25 <Cool_Cat> I dont care

Now he's done it again. [1] [2]; post now ~~moved~~, too [whole subpage now deleted]. — Davenbelle 07:31, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. That guy is really getting on my nerves. AngryParsley 21:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat is what we euphemistically refer to as a 'problem user'. — Davenbelle 07:39, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

fyi, this exchange between us has been quoted at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance#User:Davenbelle, User:Stereotek have beeing intentionaly disagreeing with me just to disagree. — Davenbelle 20:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

WTF? This guy changes my words, then claims that people aren't allowed to edit his posts. What a hypocrite. AngryParsley 21:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, just thought I'd add that I think you mean this claim. — Davenbelle 08:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pandeism vfd

Please consider revising the basis for your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pandeism to "non-notable." I believe I have adduced sufficient referential evidence to show that this article was not "original research," but simply an exposition on a philosophy which, although real, lacks enough adherents/proponents to be notable enough for inclusion. I apologize for having overestimated the importance of this topic. It was, after all, one of my first posts, when I was new to Wikipedia and not yet familiar with the criteria for notability. -- 8^D BD2412 ^gab 04:43, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

On second though, since its very easy for those not acquainted with religous details to confuse "theism" with "deism" - as demonstrated by the fact that most of the non-wiki-mirror references on the web do use pandeism to mean pantheism - a redirect would be useful. -- 8^D BD2412 ^gab 06:41, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
Forget the above. I have found conclusive evidence of the use of the term "Pandeism" dating back to 1833 [3], being used by Godfrey Higgins, a follower of John Toland, the creator of pantheism.[4]. The term is used in a book written by Higgins called the Anacalypsis. -- 8^D BD2412 ^gab 10:24, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Your post

First you are an insultive individual in general. AT least that has how it has been.

Second I do not do IRC logs or any logs in my userspace.

Thrid I can dictate whatever I please in my userspace,

Thank you! --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are deliberately changing what I said. I didn't vandalize or troll, I made a legitimate comment on your talk page. Restricting my speech amounts to censorship. AngryParsley 06:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert?

Having spent about an hour and a half adding information on Jamestown Rhode Island's human and geological history, correcting the incorrect lable given to a Jamestown Community website, and adding links to the actual Jamestown municipal website and another Jamestown-focused website which contains a great deal of information on the town, I am shocked that it would all be tossed in the trash by a total reversion. This was all accurate, relevant material about Jamestown Rhode Island.

DING! Did you hear that? My bullshit-o-meter just pegged. Your other edits are either minor or also worthy of reversion. Edits like this don't garner any respect. Many of the links you add border on spam. I've discussed it with others in #wikipedia, and they also find your edits suspect. If you could cite some sources I would tend believe you. A bunch of geologic stuff isn't really supposed to go in an article about a random county in Rhode Island. AngryParsley 06:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Response) My blockhead-o-meter hit an almost record reading when I read your comments. I have no idea why you are so angry, AngryParsley, but, I will try to follow the advice penned by Stephen Sondheim, in "West Side Story", "Cool, cool, keep it cool".

Let's see, you apparently don't consider "minor" edits to be worthy of much respect. It seems to me that one of the virtues of the Wikipedia concept is that whenever any of us (who are all experts in something) finds that we can add something userful to the body of knowledge already posted, we can do so. Everthing we use in this world was polished by a series of "minor" improvements that have made those products more useful. What would you have said to the person who decided that the "i" at the beginning of "iulius" should be drawn a bit longer and given a tail so it was obvious that it was pronounced differently from the second "i" in the word. A minor edit worthy of reversion? Isn't is easier to juggle than "iuggle" - even if we could "iuggle" if we had to?

The reference link that you cite does not lead to any edit that I made. I did make one on the Hydrogen page, and it was "minor" in the sense that it was the simple addition of an external link to a page that provides a summary of the properties, uses and applications of hydrogen in the "real world". This link clearly complements the extensive and excellent, but largely academic, treatment of hydrogen's chemical and physical properties on the Wikipedia page. Anyone who chooses to follow that link will quickly see that the external page contains information not found on the Wikipedia page which will be helpful to many people who visited the Wikipedia to find information on "hydrogen". If adding a link to a page that is part of a commercial site, but which has content that deals solely with highly-focused and relevant "reference-type" material is not acceptable to Wikipedia editors, then this online encyclopedia will have to exclude a huge number of very useful reference links.

As for my failure to cite sources, I added an external link to www.jamestown-ri.info at the same time that I added the human and geological history information. This site contains far more detailed accounts of the history of Jamestown and its environs, plus a lot of information on present-day Jamestown.

In hindsite, I should have put specific page links as references at the end of the sections I had added on Jamestown's human history and its geological history.

For your information I have full authority from the author of the material to cite it. Also, there are dozens of sources and external references for the historical and geological information that are contained within the source pages that I felt I was implicitly citing. I intend to re-add similar material with an appropriate explicit reference link, and would be happy to add more external references to the Wikipedia page if that is considered necessary.

I can understand that the appropriateness of adding "a bunch of geologic stuff" can be questioned. But the material I added was focused on the geological history of Jamestown, and if it "isn't really supposed to go" there, is it your contention that it should be ignored? Aren't some of the people who are interested in learning about a place likely to be interested in its geological history? Perhaps the solution is to further abbreviate the already abbreviated history (it does cover over 500 hundred million years) and supply an external reference link for those who want more. BTW Jamestown is not "a random county in Rhode Island", it is a municipality in Newport County that has been deemed worthy of its own Wikipedia listing, and an island community with a very site-specific human and geological history.

Regarding external links. I previously added two new links (which you reverted). One was to the actual Jamestown Municipal Site, another to the Jamestown Visitor Information site. Both of these contain a wealth of information of interest to people interested in Jamestown RI. I also corrected the description for an existing link (which you also reverted) to indicate that it led to the Connanicut Island Community Website. This is an important website that, in turn, hosts a number of Jamestown community organization websites (two of which, the library and school system are cited with their own links), but it is not the "Town of Jamestown website" - that designation is most properly applied to the Jamestown Municipal Site.

FYI, I was an editor for the Open Directory Project for several years, with responsibility for Jamestown RI. There were only 3 local citations when I took over, and more than 100 now. It took many hundreds of hours of hard work to find and describe and organize and update that information. My goal has always been to make information readily accessible to people. Individuals can choose to read what is available or not, follow the links or not. The beauty of the internet is that they can explore and learn at their own pace. But the signposts and links must be up for them to do so efficiently, and one of the checks and balances we have in the Wikipedia and in the ODP and in similar information gathering points is a hierarchy of editors, who must be both willing and able to take the time to read and evaluate potential changes suggested by the public. I think it is fair to say that the editor's objectives should be to verify and keep the good, identify and throw out the bad, and improve upon the quickly written inputs of the general population. Submitted by "Once-angry-now-calm-Dave"

Stop trolling. AngryParsley 20:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An outside view (I saw the Wikiquette alert): maybe there's scope for compromise? The historical bit about Jamestown itself would be fine (with a bit of liposuction). But I also thought the detailed geological history of that section of the North American continent - "first, the Earth cooled" kind of thing - was ludicrous overkill. Assuming you're serious and not trolling: unless Jamestown has anything remarkably specific that merits mention of geology on the Jamestown page (eg the only treacle mine in North America) the way to go about it would be to add a (sensibly concise) bit about Rhode Island geology to Rhode Island and link out to that (Rhode Island:Geology could link out in turn to the appropriate page on US regional geology).RayGirvan 05:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a completely uninvolved party stumbling onto this, I offer my honest unsolicited opinion: AngryParsley comes off like an ass (misattribution of Hydrogen edit, mischaracterization as "troll", general nasty brutishness), and "Dave"'s contribution, while most likely well-meant, is way out of proportion. Raygirvan's comments get my ditto. 68.6.40.203 03:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requested

Hello. At this point you must be familiar with the FoxTrot Wikipedia reference. You might know [this], too. I claim responsibility. It occured to me that I might be eglible for a Prankstar or Surreal Barnstar; but as I don't wan't to be too self-promoting, I'm asking for your opinion. You're weird, and aware of the FoxTrot trick, the userpage nab, and possibly other stuff I forget. Your input would be valued. -- Kizor 00:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks. Now, my master plan is one step closer to completition. Mwa ha ha... bwahahahaha! --Kizor 08:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BC/AD

Perfectly put answer on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Perfectly worded counterargument. I plan to steal it :) Guettarda 23:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Anglius

I understand and can relate to your feelings you expressed on Anglius' talk page. However, for your sake, please try to calm down just a little. Those comments you made can easily come back at your and bite you in the ass in the future. You're a good editor and a good IRC regular, and I think you have the potential to be an admin. Try to keep your cool and don't let one particular user get to you. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:35, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we are done yet trying to deal with him civilly. If he stops the trollish stuff he might turn out to be useful contributor. I'm still prepared to RfC him if he keeps being disruptive, but assuming he isn't a troll (and he definitely could be) then it's probably all unintentional. If he's a reasonable person he'll respond to constructive criticism, and if he isn't reasonable at all we will have to see about other ways of dealing with him. An RfC is very much on the cards if he doesn't stop causing trouble. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response to both of you: I've done this kind of thing before. 1 I'm not angry at the guy at all (or for that matter, at any wikipedian). The reason I wrote that scathing personal attack was simply to call him out for the troll he is. In my opinion, the main problem with wikipedia is that people are too nice. Most other online communities immediately ban people for actions that trolls, vandals, and idiots frequently do here. Also, although I am flattered by your opinion of me being potentially admin-worthy, I don't plan or want to become an admin. Thanks for the complement though. AngryParsley 05:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

I'm dropping you a note to let you know that The Seventies, which you voted on, became a Collaboration of the Week! You are highly encouraged to contribute whatever you can to the topic! Mike H 01:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Damnit! I'm house-sitting for my grandmother this week. That means very little internet access. :( I'll make sure to help out after this week. AngryParsley 23:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skydivers

The pondweed was dark. The day was black. The kettle didn't boil and the hi-fi was not switched on. And so, the man gone skydiving down the long, winding road. Hedley 5 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)

I am intrigued and very very late to reply. AngryParsley 05:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fnord. Striker 08:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphax here is the link

mice

Vandalism

I vandalized your page. But actually, put that picture somewhere good, I like it :) R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get right on it. AngryParsley 03:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I lied. It's not a Wikihug because I don't want to take away from the Wikihug's meaning. But here's a cookie for guessing my name. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)