User talk:Antigrandiose/Archive
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Hi.
Why does Thugbot have to do me like this, yo?
[edit]
Hey there Antigrandiose, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Antigrandiose. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
- See a log of files removed today here.
- Shut off the bot here.
- Report errors here.
Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Above Wikithugs: Why there so many Gangstas on here, man? --Antigrandiose (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit]Volcanism of Canada
[edit]- I'm very disappointed to see that the only people who write articles about volcanoes are Canadian, though. Canada is a country where there hasn't been an eruption since before the American Revolution, and yet it has 38.5 times the article-space as Indonesia, Iceland, and the United States COMBINED! This is an inexcusable situation and something needs to be done.
- I'm very disappointed to see that someone would say such a thing. More than 90% of Canadian volcanism is my work, not several wiki users. And I am the main specialist of Canadian volcanism on Wikipedia. The last eruption in Canada did not occur in the 1700s. The latest occured in the 1800s or maybe the early 1900s. In addition, there are several undated volcanics in Canada, so there likely has been eruptions in Canada after the formation of Canada and the United States. And If you have a problem with Canada having more information about volcanism than anywhere else, fix it, that is what I did with Canada. Before I started creating articles and expanding them, Canada likely have lower volcanological content than the United States, Iceland, Indonesia etc. And even if the U.S. and other countries had more volcanological content, I bet Canada would still have the chance of containing more content and articles because Canada is a larger country than the United States, Iceland and Indonesia. I'm also plaining to create another subpage for the Volcanism of Canada article like I did for Northern, Eastern and Western Canada. So tough. BT (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Them is fightin' words!
Actually, I found your articles to be very interesting and informative. I'm kind of a Wikaddict, and I love jumping around from one article to another, especially when I have a lot of time on my hands. I find that time and time again, articles about Canada and things Canadian are more extensive and informative than articles about the United States and other (in my opinion) more significant places. Canadian editors should rightfully be very proud of this. You imply, and I agree, that non-Canadian articles should be brought up to the level of articles about Canada.
However, I think if aliens were to only have access to Wikipedia as their basis to analyze us (as opposed to monitoring our mass media and the occasional abduction), they would conclude that Canada was by far the most important place on earth. They would wonder why the U.N. was headquartered in New York and not Toronto. They would be baffled as to why athletes played soccer at the World Cup rather than hockey. And thanks to you, they would be forgiven if, in an attempt to witness a volcano, they flew their UFOs over Hazelton, British Columbia rather than Hawaii or Krakatoa... I got my information about the latest Canadian eruption from a Canadian Government website. --Antigrandiose (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. Well, just to know there are a lot more websites that have Canadian volcanoes other than Natural Resources Canada. The Global Volcanism Program website has a page on the Iskut-Unuk River Cones that states the last eruption occured in 1800 with a question mark in brackets beside it [1]. But if you look at the volcanic history page there is an uncertain eruption that occured in 1904 [2]. There are other cones in British Columbia that are considered to have formed in the past 10,000 years just because they have little erosion. If they formed before 10,000 years ago they would have been eroded by glacial ice from the last glacial period. The Milbanke Sound Group cones are an example and the cones themselves remain undated. The Lava Fork vent in the Iskut-Unuk River Cones group is younger than the Tseax Cone eruption that occurred in the 18th century. According to Natural Resources Canada, the Lava Fork volcano is the youngest known volcano in Canada [3]. According to your user page, you seem to think that Canada's volcanoes are extinct likely because most have not erupted for hundreds or thousands of years. Lots of Canada's volcanoes are not extinct. It does not matter how often they erupt or how long they remain quiet. All volcanoes have their own function. There are more than 200 potentially active volcanoes in Canada [4]. The stratovolcano of Mount Cayley has not erupted for about 350,000 years, but it is clear that it is not extinct due to the existence of hot springs and seismic activity. I would not be surprised if Cayley or some other volcano had an upcomming eruption after a period of long-term dormancy and was not dectected due to the lack of volcano monitoring. An eruption from Cayley would likely destroy everything in the Squamish and Cheakamus river valleys, especially Highway 99. BT (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Well first of all I didn’t mean to imply that I thought Canadian volcanoes were extinct, although they do seem to be shy volcanoes, unwilling to erupt when anyone’s watching. The point of that section is just to highlight the fact that either Canadian editors are a little over-enthusiastic or the rest of the world has a lot of catching up to do as far as writing articles about their volcanoes. (That isn’t meant to be a criticism of you or your extensive efforts which are commendable). I shouldn’t say this, but I was just erupting in admiration during the three days that it took me to read your Volcanism of Canada article. You’re kind of the Leo Tolstoy of Canadian volcanism. You really need to think about taking a sabbatical, maybe hop in your car and take a road trip south, and helping your wikitarded neighbors out in writing an article about Volcanism of the United States. Americans don’t seem to be as gung-ho when it comes to editing Wikipedia as Canadians are. I don’t know if that’s a good or a bad thing.
Also, I’d like to take back that whole alien thing that I wrote about earlier. I think aliens would probably enjoy flying over Canada. (OK this is too easy): At least they wouldn’t have to worry about getting volcanic ash in their warp drives! Lol. Sorry. At least they’d be safe. I think if they flew over my home town they’d probably get shot down or something. --Antigrandiose (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- First of all the main reasons I do not have major contributions to American volcano articles is because I do not know too much about them and it is not a high interest of mine. So I am not the person do to the work. In fact, there are more Americans that edit volcano articles than Canadians. I am the only Canadian user on Wikipedia that works on Canadian volcanism-related articles while there are many more Americans that expand and create volcanology articles, including User:Resident Mario, User:Ceranthor and User:Mav. All three users have improved volcano articles right up to featured article class, which are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia. The most important volcano articles relating to American volcanism I created are the Hawaii hotspot, Yellowstone hotspot and Cascade Volcanoes, but all three of those articles have been expanded and reworked since I created them, especially the Hawaii (which was greatly expanded by User:Resident Mario) and Yellowstone hotspots which were stubs. Most recently, I have created articles for the two volcanoes comprising the island of Molokai in Hawaii (Mauna Loa and Wailau) in June. Sometime in February I had a bit of an argument with a "Wiki-cop" from Seattle about Cascade volcanoes, stating that I should undo weight on Template:Cascade volcanoes and List of Cascade volcanoes because most of the Cascades are located in the United States and not Canada. But guess what? I did not give a rats ass what he said and I still wouldn't if he comes back mouthing off at me again. I will edit whatever I feel like editing and I do not care if it is associated with undo weight or not. I have been against this asshole since he called me a high school kid in 2007. If he has a problem with how I edit then he can deal with it without interrupting my editing. I do not follow or care about Wikipedia guide lines, rules and other bullshit. Good for him if he choses to follow that shit but not everybody does. Maybe he should try expanding and creating volcano articles insted of bitching at other Wikipedia users about it. That way there would be more info and articles about American volcanism. Bitching and doing nothing gets people no where, and I know form my personal experience. As I put more effort in Canadian volcanism topics it gradually grew and got more inclusive. At one time, Canada was one of the pourer countries on Wikipedia that had volcanology articles and content, but look at it now, Canada is one of the kings (if not the king) on Wikipedia with volcanological content. It takes time and strength to get crap together like I did for Canada, especially for a single user doing most of the work. BT (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Talk pages
[edit]Hi - I can tell that you're new and unfamiliar with our guidelines and policies. Sadly you didn't get a welcome message, but now you've got one. I've reverted your edits at Talk:Common Era because they were just a forum-style discussion, and talk pages are purely for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Looking at your deleted article I think you don't understand that Wikipedia may be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but it is also an encyclopedia that reflect what reliable sources - read WP:RS and WP:Verify - have to say about a subject, and if they say nothing then we don't have an article on that subject. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
[edit] Thank you for your contribution, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely-used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
definite article and martial law
[edit]Actually, normally, when speaking of a particular (state of) martial law it would take the definitive article. I'm not so sure if this would apply to a Wikipedia sub-section heading as Wikipedia has some strange and esoteric rules about that. But whatever.radek (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct, but when you say a particular event, it would have to be a qualified event:
- The martial law that was imposed in 1983, or
- The Polish government's imposition of the martial law of 1983, if and only if there had been martial law imposed by the Polish government in a subsequent year, otherwise it would only need to be:
- The 1983 imposition of martial law or the Polish government's imposition of martial law.
- I'm not a grammar expert, but I'm very confident of this. I was a kid in Chicago (which has a large Polish population) when all this was going on. I remember that this was all over not only the national news, but also the local news, and no reporter ever said, "impose(d) the martial law." It was always, "impose(d) martial law." --Antigrandiose (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, well, you may be right. Still though, consider "US imposed sanctions on Iran" vs. "Iran under the sanctions" and compare with "Jaruzelski imposed martial law in Poland" (which would indeed be correct, so no surprise that no reported would say "imposed the martial law") vs. "Jaruzelski's Poland under the martial law". The "impose" is doing a lot of work there. The heading under discussion is "During (the) martial law" - there's no verb such as "impose" there. I think that makes the difference. But as I said, I have no problem with your changes.radek (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, I think it would still be Jaruzelski's Poland under martial law. Someone put this on my user page which I think explains the whole thing better:
- It is. Martial law is a state of affairs, not a piece of legislation; it no more has a definite article than democracy. One way to check these things is to use Google Books: imposed the martial law has 33 hits (some people will always be off); imposed martial law has 10,000. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- --Antigrandiose (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, there's that "imposed" in there. I agree that "imposed martial law" is correct, rather than "imposed the martial law". But that doesn't mean that "during the martial law" is incorrect and "during martial law" is correct. Maybe. But not so sure. "Sickness" is a state of affairs. But, under some circumstances, it is entirely correct to say "during the sickness", rather then "during sickness", when you're talking about a particular sickness and it is understood from the text what sickness is being referred too. Likewise whether it is "Jaruzelski's Poland under martial law" or "Jaruzelski's Poland under the martial law" would depend on the context. radek (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- during the state [or imposition] of martial law. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, there's that "imposed" in there. I agree that "imposed martial law" is correct, rather than "imposed the martial law". But that doesn't mean that "during the martial law" is incorrect and "during martial law" is correct. Maybe. But not so sure. "Sickness" is a state of affairs. But, under some circumstances, it is entirely correct to say "during the sickness", rather then "during sickness", when you're talking about a particular sickness and it is understood from the text what sickness is being referred too. Likewise whether it is "Jaruzelski's Poland under martial law" or "Jaruzelski's Poland under the martial law" would depend on the context. radek (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Also, "democracy" might not have a definitive article (actually, sometimes it does) but "the monarchy" often does.radek (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that "Jaruzelski's Poland under the martial law" would only sound correct if it were further qualified with "of 1983", and "of 1983" would be unnecessary since Jaruzelski only imposed martial law in 1983 and not in any subsequent years. This might be a topic that requires the attention of an expert. Maybe this discussion should be moved to either the Janusz Krupski talk page or the Martial law talk page for clarification. By the way, nice article. --Antigrandiose (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, at this point I don't feel qualified to judge and someone with an expertise in grammar is required. At the same time, overall it's a very very minor point in the article (and thanks for the compliment) and I'm only pursuing this out of personal curiosity.radek (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Platinum Penis
[edit]
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Platinum Penis, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Quantpole (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
USERBOXES UNDER ATTACK BY THE ARBITERS OF GOOD TASTE!!!
[edit]The userbox that you deleted was on my user page and it was part of a collection of userboxes meant to gently parody guys who spend too much time editing Wikipedia (like yourself maybe... or maybe even me). The reason you gave for deleting it was that it was "patent nonsense." It certainly wasn't. It might have been in questionable taste, but that doesn't seem to be a criterion for deleting a userbox. (What are the criteria, by the way)? Here are some userboxes that are linked to the Wikipedia:Userboxes article:
| porn star | This user has been in pornography. |
.svg){kind=small} | I am secretly a royalist |
| Lb | This user's favourite colour is Light Blue. |
|
Pessimist? Nihilist? This user is an Antinatalist. |
I'd like to know how those userboxes are any more nonsensical than the one that you deleted.
The article also states the following:
Content restrictions
- All userboxes are governed by the civility policy.
- Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.
- Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.
- Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.
Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.
I have seen a lot worse on many user pages and I just wonder what gives you the right to decide which user boxes are "patent nonsense" and which ones aren't?
I am requesting that you undelete my userbox, User:Antigrandiose/userbox/medium. Not doing so is nothing short of vandalism.
And lighten up, by the way. Antigrandiose (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken a look at this and concur with the deletion. Put simply, Wikipedia is a writing project not a social networking site, whatever leeway may exist in any user page policies or norms is usually not going to gain consensus to keep if it's about penis size, no matter how witty a parody it may be. Sorry, guy. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
So what's the deal? Was my original complaint legit so you just get someone else to change the reason for the deletion? I hope that you can tell that that section was meant to be a parody of certain user pages, and I hope you would agree that there's a place for parody on Wikipedia userpages, as long as it's parodying something that's germane to Wikipedia. I hope that I'm not just getting ganged-up on here. Don't you guys have anything better to do than to pick on someone who's making a positive contribution to various talk pages and even some articles? Stop being wikithugs, OK? Antigrandiose (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Deal is, this is an encyclopedia, not a social experiment station. While there's no formal "hard limit" written by lawyers, there's a broad sense that's reflected in admin decisions and other admin and users' views on those if requested. My sense of the community view is, that I would like to ask you to desist from exploring how far you can go with sexual and other non-project imagery, and also spend less time updating userspace pages. The first of those will eventually be seen as something that has to end, the 2nd of those will remove some of the leeway that serious and established editors may have.
- In other words without being heavyweight, please consider this a friendly request to put an end to your interest in sexual imagery, at least on this site. It could be backed up by formal request or warning, but I hope you'll understand nobody wants that.
- Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Compared to what? There is a lot of stuff on user pages that could fall under that criterion and is a lot worse than my userbox but I don't see you deleting it. Why my userbox?
Here's the restrictions for Wikipedia:Userboxes:
Content restrictions
- All userboxes are governed by the civility policy.
- Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.
- Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.
- Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.
Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.
My userbox did not violate any of those guidelines, and I've looked, but I couldn't find anything that said that if it were considered "grotesquely inappropriate" by DragonflySixtyseven, then it should be deleted. That userbox was part of a collection of userboxes, some created by me, that was part of a section on my user page that was meant to parody some users and certain user pages. Parodying certain aspects of Wikipedia is a big part of my user page, and I think it adds something interesting and useful, for those who choose to view it.
I'm requesting that you undelete User:Antigrandiose/userbox/enjoysex. Antigrandiose (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't deleted the other stuff because I haven't found it. DS (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't justify your crap existing. Wikipedia isn't a free resource or place to conduct social experiments/commentary on Wikipedia editors, it's a place to write an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Parodying is one thing. Common sense and good taste is another. In addition, can you explain why you created unverifiable stuff like Platinum Penis? –MuZemike 00:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've commented on this issue in the previous section. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Useful Essays
[edit]Competence is required ♦ No angry mastodons ♦ Tendentious editing ♦ Wikipedia is not for things made up one day ♦ Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument ♦ Exceptions should leave the rule intact ♦ Don't stuff beans up your nose ♦ Complete bollocks ♦ Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions ♦ Avoid thread mode ♦ Avoid Repeated Arguments ♦ Credentials matter ♦ Don't be a fanatic ♦ Expert editors ♦ Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass ♦ Beware of the tigers ♦ Call a spade a spade ♦ Fact laundering ♦ Don't enlist the masses ♦ Handling trivia ♦ How many legs does a horse have? ♦ You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer ♦ No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man ♦ Policy shopping ♦ Process is important ♦ I think you got lost on the way to MySpace ♦ No reliable sources ♦ Sarcasm is really helpful ♦ Shunning ♦ Tar pit ♦ What "Ignore all rules" means ♦ Mark of Cain ♦ You can't squeeze blood from a turnip ♦ You spat in my soup!
Help:HTML in wikitext
Editing Wikitext/Tables
Criticism of Wikipedia
Disclaimer
[edit]| This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. In many ways it isn't even an article, or even coherent for that matter. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are witnessing an enormous waste of bandwidth. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Antigrandiose/Archive. |
 |
Antigrandiose's Notification to User talk:94.96.80.251
[edit]Misleading content (Antigrandiose's post to 94.96.80.251) collapsed
|
|---|
|
This is an automatically generated message from:
Note to IP 94.96.80.251: This computer has been identified as committing vandalism on a Wikipedia user page in the following manner: Section(s) or content were deleted without authorization of the owner of following the account:
Based on your browsing history, Wikadvice, an automated suggestion-generating open-source program has generated the following suggestions for you:
|
Hate Speech reverts
[edit]I would like to object to your reverting my edits of July 14. This article should make clear that the term “hate speech” is a political construct of the left and that the term holds very little currency with moderates or people on the right. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for ideologues to promote their agendas by presenting their own concepts and terms as having acceptance and legitimate meaning outside of the narrow political sphere in which they are generated and used.
That you would call my edits “blatant POV” goes far in demonstrating your tunnel vision on this subject. You need to wake up, crawl out of your thought cave, and smell the irony. --Antigrandiose (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 | This user believes that in the spirit of diversity and inclusion, Wikipedians should start referring to everyone's favorite Australian band as CA/DCE. |
--Antigrandiose (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
'Politically correct' as an insult is a variant of Goodwin's Law: a traditionalist of some culture doesn't like an altenative world view and so, unable to accept the equal validity of that term in other cultures or value systems, is reduced to trivialising the debate by throwing empty insults about. Wikipedia should not give any support to such people by quoting them. --Red King (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Some of us find beauty in language, and are disappointed when they see people trivializing it by using stilted nomenclature to further their own political agendas. That you attribute other people's motives to an adherence to a "traditionalist" world view shows that you just don't get it. Maybe you should spend a little less time on Wikipedia and go back to writing your community college essay on "equal validity" and "value systems." --Antigrandiose (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate content
[edit]Hi,
I've dropped you a note on May 22 about some aspects of your editing. Not a lot has changed.
Past edits - Some of your edits were quite sensible and will have helped our readers, and some of your discussions are quite sensible [5]. Unfortunately you also spend a lot of time creating inappropriate or unhelpful content.
By the end of your first day's editing your userpage was a gallery of sexual images [6], articles titled with made up sexual terms and a number of inappropriate userboxes - also often including sexual imagery - added later. Also your writing in April that " I want to get into the Guinness Book of World Records by being the only guy to ever get laid using Wikipedia" was inappropriate, as was your page stating "this user would like to have sexual intercourse with... the women who look at (page)" [7], which was deleted by Dragonfly67 as "grotesquely inappropriate" [8].
Feedback so far - Other feedback was given by Dougweller, DMacks, Andrensath (inappropriate humor), and MuZemike. On May 22 you were told: "Wikipedia is a writing project not a social networking site... This is an encyclopedia, not a social experiment station... [please] desist from exploring how far you can go with sexual and other non-project imagery... will eventually be seen as something that has to end... please consider this a friendly request to put an end to your interest in sexual imagery, at least on this site. It could be backed up by formal request or warning, but I hope you'll understand nobody wants that." [9]
Actions since - Since then you recreated the deleted page, this time stating "this user is always horny" [10], posted a simulated bot notice to an IP user page pretenting to be a "warning" and advising them also to "Stay off of nakedlittleboys.com" [11], created a "sockpuppet of a sockpuppet" userbox [12], created an entire page of userboxes, several sexual in nature [13][14], Added inappropriate edits such as [15] [16] (you added "leftist" as being "taken from cited article" but it is not actually stated there, though it's implied) [17], and engaged in fairly uncivil replies to other users [18].
Of 730 non-deleted edits to date, 623 (85%) have been to user pages and user talk, and 86 (11%) are to userboxes.
What's been done now - I have removed the sexual and a bunch of other content from the following pages and submitted others for deletion (WP:User pages: "In some cases a more experienced editor may make non-trivial edits to another user's user space, in which case that editor should leave a note explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons."). The content removed is the sexual imagery which is of zero benefit and you have been told this before, and page-hiding formatting:
List of edits and pages nominated for deletion
|
|---|
|
Please use userspace for its intended purpose as an aid to the project. Also please do not remove the noindex tags (see WP:User pages) or recreate or add any sexual or related material in userspace, or inappropriate "humor" as you will probably be blocked without further warning if you do.
FT2 (Talk | email) 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just echoing FT2's warning above. Wikipedia is a serious effort to build and maintain the world's largest and most complete online encyclopaedia. Your behaviour is not within the normal bounds of userpage humour and is coming across as inappropriate, prurient, and immature. If you object to our user conduct guidelines you are free to leave the site, but while here you are expected to adhere to community norms. As FT2 says, you risk being blocked without further warning if such behaviour continues. EyeSerenetalk 12:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is also, in my opinion, inappropriate for you to copy posts made by other people on other talk pages to your user page without their permission. Please also note that nothing should be copied from article pages to user pages without clear attribution showing the article it came from. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Notice of MFD nomination of above material
[edit]9 pages you created (listed above) have been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Antigrandiose userboxes and other material. You are free to edit the content of these pages during the discussion but should not remove the template from the top of the pages; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Antigrandiose
[edit]User:Antigrandiose, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Antigrandiose and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Antigrandiose during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Imzadi 1979 → 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
A recommendation
[edit]Hi Antigrandiose. Say, are you familiar with Uncyclopedia? Ours is the free-content encyclopedia, theirs is the content-free encyclopedia. So its kind of Bizarro Wikipedia. I contribute there, and its a good outlet for one's less-serious musings. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Please
[edit]Hi, is there a little chance to get some of your deleted userboxes for this http://www.pluspedia.de/index.php/Userbox German encyclopedia? That would be great. Regards, Mutter Erde 78.55.7.176 (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)