User talk:Matty the Damned

This is Matty the Damned's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Matty the Damned.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:TeleComNasSprVen/PMD

To clear up any confusion you might have had, I want to say three things. First, the page was meant to be a proposed motto of the day, and I wanted feedback on it, and that's why I publicize it on my userpage as well as in my sig. Secondly, "Given the current craze for deleting extraneous stuff in userspace it seems appropriate to nominate this for the same" is not accurate; we are not blindly deleting everything in userspace; we mainly MfD those userpages of retired users since they are unlikely to return to provide comment on their own userpages. Third, I have only edited within the past two hours short of your notifying me of the MfD page, so it might have been better to just voice your concern on my talkpage about the pmd rather than taking it to MfD, and in the process you benefit by escaping the hassle. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up on the MfD page. MtD (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mgmirkin

Really, though. Resorting to ADHOM? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 09:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. MtD (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few links per RFA comment

I hope you are at least open to seeing how I interact with IP's concerns ---> 1, 2, 3 etc - before gauging whether I would have an innate bias towards them. In fact, some of the best TP discussions are started by IP's in my experience, but usually on semi protected articles - where they know their ideas have to have merit to garner inclusion or consderation. Either way, I appreciate your consideration. Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you exporting this discussion to my talkpage? Surely this stuff would be better kept in one place? Moreoever, the "I hope you are at least open to ..." opener makes you sound a touch pissy. You presume I've not already looked into these things before I made my comments. MtD (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well in that case, forget it - I guess I'm "pissy" then. I just didn't think that every discussion between two people needn't necessarily be played out there in public. With that said never mind. Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by, kiddo. MtD (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hi. I've redacted this, per WP:NPA and WP:BLP. Please don't repeat this. Thanks. --John (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've refined my comments. MtD (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Clueless"

This isn't helpful. WP:NPA applies at RFA just as much as anywhere else; by all means raise specific issues, but it's not a shooting gallery for you to take pot-shots at people. – iridescent 00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think you're being a touch dramatic love? MtD (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that seems very rude to me. "Could be more clueful." I'm not trying to be rude at all but is RFA a joke to you? I came to RFA seeking more responsibility on Wikipedia. I really hope you will be more nice to me. And again, I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything like that. Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently my original opinion was even worse, so y'know. MtD (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think I'm clueness, nor is anyone else on Wikipedia (that edits in good faith). But you are entitled to your opinion. So I respect that. Endofskull (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only echo Iridescent. Being deliberately blunt might make you feel good about yourself, but it's actually fairly dumb (unless your aim is to drive good faith editors away...) Trebor (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor, you're talking to me, right? Endofskull (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, to Mtd. Trebor (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← The orange bar was fun for a while, but now is irritating. Surely y'all should be off monstering The Fat Man or fretting about Grundle? MtD (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Okay Trebor) What Matty? Endofskull (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Seeing as nobody else seems to have the bollocks. Several of your diffs at the RfA were attacks and some went considerablly over the top. I don't care what you say about me but I do care about wikipedia and other users and your conduct was disgusting. "you smug little hampster of a man" was your response to my requests that you apologise to other users. That is a disgrace and you should feel lucky that NYB, the most chilled of all arbs spotted it and not anyone else. Polargeo (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem and the Fae RfC

Matty the Damned, in my opinion, your comment accusing others of homophobia ("cyber poofter bashing") I have listed in this section in relation to the Fae RfC constitute an ad hominem attack on the drafters of the RfC. Since ad hominem arguments attack the character of the person (in an attempt to damage the credibility of their message), I believe such debate tactics violate WP:NPA. Also, an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, and thus provides little help in addressing the validity of the issues raised in the statement of dispute. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments in the future. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the issue of this "warning", which Cla68 is spamming to multiple editors, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors. Please feel free to comment on this issue on that page. Prioryman (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann. You were involved in a prior discussion about that user. -- Lexein (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the matter was closed soon after this was posted. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]