User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2010/January

Wikihounding

I feel no real need to justify my language- I wrote that weeks ago, and if you had some sort of problem with it, you should have said something earlier. I'm not sure what you are hoping to accomplish now that a month has gone by. But just for the sheer hell of it, I'll explain myself. The jerkoff part was not directed at you specifically, just as a general theme- I don't want someone to leave Wikipedia because they feel they've been Wikihounded. That you were the one who Camelbinky felt Wikihounded by is your problem, not mine (my comments at WP:ANI will suffice for my views, as well as why I referred to you as a cretin). He showed signs of distress, and it was an attempt to help cool him down (which seems to have been somewhat successful, by the way). He's been a very useful editor, and I'd like to encourage people like him. I hope this clarifies everything, and if it doesn't, you probably will not have to interact with me again unless you like Rush, metal, or Asian history. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And what did that response accomplish, besides potentially alienating me? What exactly do you "know" about me, based on a few small bits of text I wrote that have something to do with you? If you want to complain about me and my comments, calling my tone "moronic" certainly isn't going to help your cause- all it does is give people ammunition against you. Be a bit more... tactful, more sesquipedalian. If you don't mind, I'd like to leave this as is, and simply resume my editing, minor and sporadic as it is. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we just call it a day here? This issue should never have been brought up again in the first place, and I'd like to just let it die off- I said as much on Camelbinky's page. By the way, sesquipedalian means to use a larger vocabulary. You seem like an intelligent person (in all seriousness), so display it. That's what I try to do- it's not showing off, it's just trying to break out of the same old, same old vocabulary. And what I meant by tactful was that, if you want to resolve the situation, there are more ways than one. Come on, let's leave this alone- this isn't doing anyone any good, and there's a good chance we'll both get blocked if we keep this up much longer. Truce? Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Duh, now I get it. And I'm usually an immaculate speller, too... Sesquipedalian. There we go. See ya!! Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Peacocks & weasels

Wikipedia cannot, even with sources, state that any article subject is "the greatest" at anything, as this is a violation of WP:NPOV. About the best we can get away with is a more neutral statement such as the most successful whatever, if that is supported by sources, and then if someone really notable in his/her own right, in a relevant context can be reliably sourced as stating that the subject is "the greatest" we can quote that luminary saying so, by name, later in the article. If this doesn't make sense to you, try inverting the situation: If we find some reliably published articles claiming that George W. Bush is an "idiot", we cannot call him an idiot in the lead, or even say that he's "widely considered" an idiot. We can note that his competency has been challenged by various parties, and after the lead, like in a criticism section if someone particularly notable for political commentary like Larry King can be reliably quoted as referring to Bush as "an idiot" we can quote that. PS: Why'd you delete two sources from Phil Taylor including the only source for Waddell having said anything at all, despite him appearing in the article at least three times? Please discuss major changes on the talk page and use explanatory edit summaries. "Cl sources" doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. :-/ My guess is "clobbered sources". Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk? ?(^Õ?^o)? Contribs. 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've copied this to the article talk page, and replied there - I hope you don't mind. --hippo43 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Since you're asking, continuously reverting the content on the page, without coming to an agreement on the talk page, is still effectively edit warring. I don't see anything in the additions that would rise to the level of exceptions that would necessitate an immediate reversion. I don't see any more insults at least, and you at least seem to be using talk. Let me propose this; can you voluntarily adhere to a WP:1RR restriction on that article for three months? Please respond before making any more edits. Kuru (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Only one correction, if I may: while hippo43 is indeed using talk, he uses it (in my opinion) to play dumb and force editors to keep the discussion going long after he has been corrected and/or asked to quit politicking and splitting hairs. This is pretty much what constitutes a troll and this is why I have given up direct dialogue. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)