User talk:Hogtied

Welcome!

Hello, Hogtied, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Melchoir 10:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See talker

Article already exists there. Was merged ages ago. Someone just forgot to put in the redirect.

The article at Crystal Palace (chat site) contains reams of information not included at talker, including fairly detailed information about why it is important and controversies it has seen (i.e. its notability). The information at talker is a mere fraction of that. The only debate that I can find record of gave a result of keep, not merge [1]. Unless you can find some other evidence, it must be kept. --Hogtied 07:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every single other talker listed individually in talker had its own article. There were 11 of them. Every single one of these was unanimously decided to merge in to talker. Please do not go against what was a unanimous decision. You are violating WP:DICK in doing this. I wrote all of the talker articles, so I should know this. If you really insist on violating this merge, then go through all 11 individual talker articles and recreate them. There is absolutely ZERO reason why CP should be the one and only talker with its own article, when it is the least notable of the 14. 203.122.209.179 13:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP started contributing three days ago, not months ago.
The only merge notice on the talk page of Crystal Palace (chat site) was a debate that resulted in a keep vote.
Crystal Palace is given one paragraph in the article talker, compared to 7 on its own article, so it is not "all repeated there".

Show me the fucking debate where it says they should be merged and I'll believe you in a moment. Until then, don't call me a dick. From my point of view, an anonymous editor keeps deleting the content of an article without any consensus for that action. I don't really know if the article is notable or not, and I don't care: your actions look like vandalism, and so I fight them. I have pointed to a conrete consensus after a vote. If you can show me something better then fine. But until then, like I say, I'll stick to my guns. --Hogtied 14:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay "genius", go look at the 11 articles on talkers. You will see the same person wrote all 11 of them. That's me. There's Surfers (talker), Planes of Existence (talker), Lintilla (talker), Sleepy's Multiple Worlds, Fantasia's Multiple Worlds, Foothills, Cat Chat, and all of the others. ALL 11 WERE MERGED! Okay? Do you understand this concept? They were all merged in what was a unanimous decision by all who were involved in editing them. You can go and look at talker and see all of this. Before the AFD for Crystal Palace (chat site) and Planes of existence (talker) had closed, there was a unanimous decision to merge them all, thus making the AFD meaningless. This was seen as a compromise, rather than a "we are better than you" kind of thing, to delete all other talkers that they don't like, and so forth. Now, if you are going to keep one and only one talker article, then, well, you can't do it. Make another AFD if you want to be really stupid, and you'll get the same unanimous decision that we got before. Please do not cater to vandals. This page was recreated as an act of vandalism against the unanimous consensus of all who were involved.

Now, I don't know how you stumbled upon this. I was going through and checking through the older articles I had written 5 months ago, and this one came up as one which had been vandalised, so I fixed it. You are now reverting back to a vandalised version. That's not good. If you think that it is so important to include the additional information (which we determined was advertising and hence not appropriate) then add it to talker where it belongs. And if you honestly think that Crystal Palace (chat site) should exist as its own article, then by all means go ahead and unmerge all 11 talker articles, and undo about 30 hours of work.

I have over 6,000 edits on Wikipedia here. My IP address keeps changing. And I quite frankly don't care if it does. Every so often I make an account, but for now its not convenient for me to do so.

If you are going to be this pig-headed, then I am going to have to do an AFD on the article. But I hope that you recognise consensus and stop this. This is a pointless argument, about an article that you were not involved with. Choose your fights. This is not one that is worth fighting over. The decision is made and you cannot win this fight. Edit wars are stupid anyway, but please, respect the community decision. 59.167.131.8 15:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in saying that this fight isn't worth fighting. I'm leaving it now because I'm fed up of your attitude. All I asked for was evidence and you showed me none. You pointed to an article. Well, that's not a consensus, and it's not a community decision; it's an article. If you are the person who created the article in question, (and I've no way of knowing if you are or not), then you were banned from Wikipedia, which also doesn't increase my opinion of your edits much. "I am merging all of the talkers in to this entry." - that doesn't sound like consensus to me.

Another thing, you cannot simultaneously boast about your edit count, and then say that they're all under different IP addresses. Who would believe you?

None of your arguments carry any weight, but they could have so easily. It surprises me that you should not have even tried.

The result of the debate was No consensus; defaults to keep. Merge may or may not be preferable. - [2] --Hogtied 15:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

By the way, you should have stopped reverting. LOL. Again, if you are going to get in to edit wars over topics that you know nothing about, then you are in for a world of hurt. I also explained things very clearly and obviously, yet you refused to listen. Wikipedia isn't exactly a nice environment for newbies, and you've just made things worse for yourself. I hope for your sake that you drop this attitude and stop having pointless fights over issues that you know nothing about. Encouraging vandalism is bad, okay? Seriously, don't open up old wounds on an issue that was dealt with long ago, and sorted out 5 months ago. Its not worth it. Of course, if you are a big CP fan, I can understand. Are you? If so, you're POV pushing. If not, you should leave it. 59.167.131.8 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the merge was what was agreed on - unanimously. Do you get in to such fights over other articles that you know nothing about? If so, you're in for huge problems here. 59.167.131.8 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The act of vandalism, unfortunately, was yours. I undid the vandalism, you reinstated it. Hence you broke 3RR. You can claim ignorance that it was vandalism, but it was quite clearly explained to you. There was a very clear 100% unanimous decision to merge all articles. I think it was Tomlidus who handled that via his talk page, and that was the result. Simple. And really, you have to think logically here, rather than just disrupting Wikipedia, that having one and only one example is ridiculously POV pushing, and wrong. I just hope that you don't carry this attitude forward towards other editing. You won't last long if you carry on like this to everyone. 59.167.131.8 17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't read this bit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Talker#Why_are_so_many_pages_merged_here.3F

Just in case you don't believe me... 59.167.131.8 15:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

Two edits and three signatures, all to make a "newbie" feel at home. I'm touched, I really am. And all such useful advice^*^†. Incidentally, I think you're probably right, but you don't half make it difficult for someone to agree with you.

^* The three revert rule specifically excludes dealing with acts of vandalism.
^† [3] - saw that, but still just a report of a consensus, not a consensus in itself.

Sighs, and you're ignoring evidence. I really hope you don't carry on like this normally. 59.167.131.8 17:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, normally I don't have anything to do with banned users. --Hogtied 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace (chat site)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Crystal Palace (chat site). Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Crystal Palace (chat site)). Stifle 22:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've done some good work

I'd like to commend your work on bondage. Keep it up! - Taxwoman 14:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to e-mail me some time. - Taxwoman 14:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuntematon Maa

Tuntematon Maa is not a BDSM organisation. It is a community that only exists on the Internet. It is mainly a discussion forum for members of Finnish BDSM organisations such as SMFR, Turun Baletti, Rsyke, Bizarre Club, and others, which do not have their own organisation-specific discussion forums. Tuntematon Maa is not based anywhere and does not hold any events or meetings. JIP | Talk 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sarah Jane Ceylon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sarah Jane Ceylon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jane Ceylon. Thank you. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]