User talk:SaltyPig

(vandalism of this page is welcome. SaltyPig 02:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Belated welcome

(Sorry, it is a very, very, belated welcome. But better late than never, right?)

Welcome!

Hello, 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:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yayyyyyyy! you wouldn't believe how many discussions i've avoided just because i didn't feel like putting that stupid sig together. LMAO. pathetic. and i'm a former IT pro, if you can believe that. thanks again. SaltyPig 02:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Urine to flavor fish

Rather than deleting something because in the course one day sombody hasn't been able to verify a point, it would make much more sense to use the Wikipedia:Disputed statement propcess so that anyone can join in, and we might just get the right answer. Mrs Trellis 20:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"make much more sense"? i don't agree with that. i also looked through the link you provided, and it seems to me that i acted correctly, though i didn't take it to "peer review", a page which says at the outset that it's for "nearly Featured-standard articles that need the final checking by peers before being nominated as Featured article candidates." that doesn't apply here, far as i know.

how did what i do prevent the benefits you point out above -- "that anyone can join in, and we might just get the right answer"? seems to me the process is working fine. do you really think i'm out to lunch suspecting the insertion was a prank? well, one thing you can't dispute is that what i removed was not encyclopedic. therefore, i acted correctly, and you are out of line pushing policy for an issue that can be over with hours from now if somebody will verify and rewrite the "urine flavor" section. SaltyPig 20:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the facts as written were correct (and I am not the expert here ) then it was indeed encyclopaedic and worth retaining. The issue is whether the words written were true and to check that, the Wikipedia policy of marking a page as disputed does indeed seem appropriate. I am afraid that my knowledge of modern idion is not up to understanding out to lunch so forgive me if I am missing an important point that you might be making.
Mrs Trellis 21:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well that's the point, isn't it? as written, it was not encyclopedic. the underlying facts may be correct, but "it is said" is hardly appropriate, nor was it clear whether "it is said" that the flavor was enhanced by the taste (ugh) of the urine, or simply that the flavor was better because the urine led to better preservation (thereby aiding the flavor). whatever the facts about people peeing in ice holes, it needs a rewrite. i'd be happy to rewrite it if i knew that the underlying facts were true. this is not simply an "i don't agree" issue, so it would be really great if you'd back up and reassess.

anyway, i'm confused about your action here. if this is such a big deal to you, feel free to revert and do it as you think it should be done. i think it's a waste of time, but that's up to you. you take charge and i'll snipe from the wings. that's much more fun apparently. listening to you, i'm surprised you let anybody edit anything here without posting templates and referring to committees. i thought it was very much in line with the cooperative atmosphere for me to post to the talk page a day ahead. but let's switch roles anyway, and i'll police you. please. SaltyPig 21:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

missing word?

I'm not sure I follow you. Which edit are you talking about? What word is missing? Dave (talk) 22:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was confused because you seemed to retract your statement and then repeat it and because I wasn't sure if the last edit as of your comment was the last edit as of my reading it. In general, it's better to point to a dif page directly (like the last edit to your talk page) to clear that up. The new word is now in. Dave (talk) 23:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

re your suggestion that i link directly to diff pages for such notes, i would like to be able to do that. however, the link you supplied as an example suffers from the same deficiency i noted when deciding before (after examining the URLs on history pages) to not use such links casually -- it doesn't refer to both relevant version IDs explicitly; therefore, the content changes upon future edits. if you don't believe or understand me, simply compare the destination of your link to what it looked like at the time you linked it. perhaps future complete diff links can be composed manually (would require the ID of the current version -- something i haven't yet figured out how to get, if it even exists before another revision), but probably wouldn't be worth the trouble in most cases. sure didn't think it was in this case, for a single missing word (basically a typo). my link was obviously subject to future changes, in which case the clear reaction would be to compare times and users, if necessary. felt it was more accurate and less confusing, since i had no guarantee the pages wouldn't be edited before you saw my note.

confused? short version: without more information on how to do it properly, the most recent diff link on a history page should be considered dangerous and, usually, not linkable for any explicit example. if you find out more about this in the future, please let me know. thanks. SaltyPig 00:15, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Larrys Sockpuppet

Heya. Yeah, probably a server error, weird uh? Check out #wikipedia on IRC for more info...--Mrfixter 16:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

karatloz

Thanks, SP, I'll be sure to include edit summaries from now on.Karatloz 19:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

geolibertarianism

Geolibertarianism has been sort of neglected lately. Do you still feel that it is inappropriate to include it with other libertarian views? I'd like to fix it and/or take down the big warning signs at the top of the article. Dave (talk) 18:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde

Excellent job on expanding the article! If you want help fixing it, you might check out Wikipedia:Peer review (although not many people actually help that way). If you want more help faster, you might try submitting it directly to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. People will let you know what's wrong with the article, and fix grammar along the way. --brian0918  02:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Salty! We are back on Bonnie and Clyde. I think you misunderstand the difference between orginal research, and checking the law in effect at the time. One sets out to discover facts not known, the other verifies facts known. By the law in effect at the time, (we both agree) Bonnie Parker was visciously murdered in cold blood. OLDWINDYBEAR

Abraham Lincoln

I have read a lot of books about Abraham Lincoln. In response to your question, yes, I have gotten the quote, "Now he belongs to the ages," from those books. -- SNIyer12^(talk) 04:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Texas Rangers (law enforcement)

Hey, Thanks for adding all the Bonnie and Clyde material to the Texas Rangers article. I think you got the footnotes a bit backwards though. The Wikipedia:Footnote3 system requires {{ref|tag}} (looks like ^[1]) in-line with the text and {{note|tag}} (looks like ^ ) before the reference listing. I've changed the references, but don't know where the notes were meant to go in the text or if they are simply general references. --Laura Scudder | Talk 01:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Convention on Psychotropic Substances

Please vote here, if you take an interest. Thanks, Tangible 13:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Object. strikes me as UN glorification, despite the limp "controversy" section. to be NPOV, i believe it should approach the subject with far less acceptance of the proposition that the UN (or anybody, for that matter) can tell me, a peaceful adult, what i can put in my body, or even have access too. sounds like it was written by a UN panel, from what i saw. didn't read every word though. SaltyPig 14:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- OK, revisions have been made. Joo-joo eyeball 17:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notability

People such as screenwriters who have sold scripts, musicians who have released albums, 19th century scholars whom people still remember (-: etc., are often notable, so I believe that claiming such things in an article is equivalent to an assertion of notability. Feel free to put them on VfD if you disagree, as the criterion for A7 states that that should be done if the assertion is controversial. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 22:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD template

Howdy, I don't think anything you did was "broken"; I believe what happened was a result of recent changes to the VfD process. Anyway, I saw here that the link to "This article's entry" went to "Pages for deletion", while the content was actually under "Votes for deletion". I believe this happened because the template changed at exactly the wrong time. To fix it, I substituted the template and edited it. After that I noticed that the template had already ALSO linked to the right location, but I figured no harm was done by leaving it the way it was. I just didn't want anyone to get confused and think the VfD hadn't been finished properly. If you'd prefer it a different way, by all means, go ahead and change it, I won't remotely take offense. Hope this explains it. Friday (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

moved from my user page

I will comment however I wish. I thought the article was well thought out. Why are you guys even picking on her? There are worse articles that not deserving of being on this site and that is the truth.

If you delete her. You should delete celebrities, athletes, and rappers too. unsigned by Bad girl 1701 12:52, 28 August 2005

Renntech

Howdy, there've been some improvements to Renntech, including sources to support assertions of coverage in major automotive media, and added a comment on the VfD. I'm not saying it's a great article yet, but I strongly feel it's worth keeping as being a basic start on a sufficiently notable topic. I wondered if you'd take a moment and read it, and see if maybe you were inclined to change your vote. Friday (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Friday (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you bet. too bad they feltched you into doing their heavy work for 'em. but she's a keeper now. SaltyPig 04:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Van Halen Edits

Thanks for the tip on the edit template, I'll definitely use it. Also I fixed the "post to top" / "post to bottom" instructions on my talk page. I obviously spend more time watching the VH article than my talk page <grin>. Best regards, Chevan 05:20, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a perfect strategy. Obviously I'm not possessive about my writing due to the nature of Wikipedia and I agree with what you're saying about trying to economize. The article has become pretty long! I'm not sure at what point we should break it up into sub-articles... thoughts? Basically right now I'm trying to do 3 things: 1) Add references to material that should be cited 2) I'm doing a top-down detailed combing through of the text for flow and accuracy 3) Trying to move material to the "influence section".... I think there will be a great story to tell there. I look forward to working with you! Chevan 13:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I just read through your edits. I'm actually glad you made those changes. I wrote that text originally in April 2004 and have always struggled with the wording and flow... it didn't seem accurate or professional. Even yesterday I sat there staring at it thinking "this isn't right" but I left it alone until I could come back and figure something else out. I like your approach. Chevan 13:26, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I finally had a chance to read through your latest edits. Nicely done. --Chevan 19:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Che Page

I was trying to communicate with you re do you wish to update/correct the "header" re Che Guevara, because there are some inaccuracies in it?

Polaris999 07:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note welcoming me to the encyclopedia, despite our slight disagreement! All of us are, I think, trying to make this a first rate resource... Take care! OLDWINDYBEAR

Placement of "not"

Your point may have been "real and valid" 400 years ago but in current English usage the phrase I asked her not does not mean I did not ask her. There is no ambiguity today in the phrase I asked her not to do it. That phrase has only one meaning, and though the placement of the not in the phrase may once have been due to squeamishness over splitting infinitives, today it is standard and it is fully semantically equivalent to the rendition I asked her to not do it. That is why I commented that your edit summary made no sense. I suggest you take your crusade to Elizabethan Wikipedia. -EDM 05:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case you care...

I reposted our entire discussion on my talk page. You may consider re-reading it. I'll be seeing you around. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see how that works? very nice. SaltyPig 16:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Van Halen

Stop erasing what I'm writing. You do not own the article, I also have the right to wright on the article. I know a lot of stuff on Van Halen, all the information I'm writing down is factually correct. Please stop erasing it. I have just the same rights as you do. Please do not erase it. It's really a pain to go back and rewrite everything. Why do you keep erasing them? I do not understand. Don't do it again. [unsigned 03:57, 7 September 2005 by User:Masterofthesky]

Personal attacks removed. Grow up. --Scimitar ^parley 23:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. WP:CIVIL. Zoe 23:12, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

re: em dash

The Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends the HTML em dash (—) over the numeric equivalent (—). —Wayward 12:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Yes, see my response here. Friday (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salty Pig

I have removed personal attacks here per Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). You're an adult. Try acting like one.--Scimitar ^parley 23:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to make offensive personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing. I suggest you heed Scimitar's comments. Zoe 06:27, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly reverting to the personal attacks on your Talk page. If you revert this again, your Talk page will be protected and your block will be extended. Zoe 19:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and open lyimg about other users, just because they disagree with you, disqualfies you from any association with wikipedia odwindybear 1/7/06

I know What You Did Last Summer:

Not really, but I know that it was you that left the "Your cat is insane & plots your death".... Not that I care....Spawn Man 23:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Teasers:

Hi, I'm just posting a friendly notice stating that I have got Brain Teasers on my user page that you're welcome to have a go at. Will post new questions one day after they have been answered. Thanks... Spawn Man 05:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Ashton is notable

Well, it appears that now the deleted Niki Ashton article is becomming notable. She was, though, notable in the fact that she was a candidate for the major party of the region. In fact, if she was not notable then, she should have been merged with Steve Ashton (which contains a link to this deleted article)!

Canadianism 02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories

I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article. Thank you. Blackcats 04:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)______________________________________________________________----[reply]

Do you seriously object to a clean slate?...

... really? Also, archiving is very different than removing comments, and was completely within proper procedures. I'm not going to edit war with you over it, but I'd caution you to be a little more circumspect; you came close to violating WP:POINT. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 07:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan0< i agree that this constant personal nastiness which Pig specializes in does no one any good. I agree to stop it, and will gladly let you mediate factual differences. Since he immediately used the new (written after your intervention) B & C site paragraphs to defy you and attack me again, I deleted it. I will delete any personal attack on me by the Pig, and deal only with factual issues, which he seems incapable of doing. Probably his lack of formal education leaves him feeling inadequate, given the number of people he has attacked, (at least 5 have objected to his personal nastiness!) and his usual modus operandi, this is not surprising. But I will opt out, won't attack him personally, not even to defend myself -- i will simply delete his attacks. If he wants to dispute facts, then you can mediate, I accept, a neutral and intelligent well versed 3rd party to do so is welcome. But I am not going to let him use this page or any other to constantly attack me or anyone else. it will simly be deleted. As to my Frank Hamer article, argue facts, and I will respond, and edit if you can prove it factually wrong. But as usual with him, he prefers personal attacks. I think it has to do with his lack of formal education, and feelings of inadeqacy, and I almost feel sorry for him. I went to great length factually to explaiin there was no plagerism, but he simply deleted it, along with your comments. Pig is unable to play well with others, that much is obvious! He talks about his quality work -- go look at my contributions to the Mongol articles,(I wrote Mongol Tactics and Organization by myself Pig, better than anything you ever wrote, with little controversy -- but then, you thrive on the hatred not the history -- look at my work on Alp Arslan, Manzikert, Tours, and the Islamic expansion period -- and all without the personal nastiness that accompanies all work done on a site where the PIG has had inpumt. I will gladly debate facts, if and when he is ever able to do so. I won't permit personal attacks on me or you, but will delete them. (Note to Pig: bet I am more determined to see right done than you are vitrolic enough to want to create unpleasantness) Your approach is destructive, contributes nothing but poor articles and bad feelings -- but that is all you care about... Pig, if you are able ever to treat other people as YOUR equals, then talk to me rationally. I have 4 degrees, 2 in history with honors. Do you have that level of credentials? If so, then talk to me about being "equals" in the field of history as an expert. Now, because you lack degrees does not mean you lack intelligence - quite the opposite! You are bright, and if you ever used your intelligence to work with others, as Kate suggests, you could make a real contribution here. Sorry to disabuse you, but I have been working on this site for years, since my disabilities drove me from working fulltime. I am honestly trying to contribute. You are dedicated to seeing how superior you can paint yourself -- without giving a curriculum vitea to back it up -- and refusing to compromise or cease the personal vitrol. I make you an offer: talk to me, like one human to another, and i will work with you on an article, demonstrating that two people, both of whom love this site, both of whom have abiity -- I did not graduagte magna cum laude for nothing -- and that negativity does not have to be your legacy. You deleleted my response to your plagerism attack beause it was correct and point by point refuted your unfounded accusations. Are you big enough to stop this? Are you able to accept other people have ability, sometimes superior to yours? (I sure don't think I am the most competant person on wikipedia -- but I know I am not the least either, and I am certainly at leaste your equal or better; but can we put aside the personalities, and try to work together? Are you capable of that?) It is sad. You don't lack ability, you lack any empathy with other human beings or the ability to see any side but your own. I wanted to at least offer to try to work with you, instead of simply deleting your rantings. Are you able to do that? And Pig, you keep saying how great you are, your writing isnot that good. I took it to the Univesity of Maryland's writing assistance center,and they rated you an "average" writer with personal issues. If you tried to work with others, that average could improve a lot. In the interim, I will delete any personal attack on anyone. It is time to stop this nastiness. NOW, do we have a delete war, where you delete me, I you, ad infinitum, or do you accept my honorable challange to work on an article together, and lets see what we can do together in a positive vane, without the hatefulness? I doubt you will accept, but think about it: show us all how good you are in a positive way! Instead of being viewed as such a completely evil person, do smoething positive! Pick the subject, and we can work on it together. Let us rise above this! oldwindybear

Please stop trolling.

· Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a child? Just quit. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan0 Hope you are well! I did some checking, and there is NO "Jerry Dorsen." I suspect this, and almost all the im address edits are from Pig. Sad -- if he spent half the time editing to help wikipedia, instead of whimpering about how people are ruining it, and doing vandalizing edits, he could actually be an asset. Sad...(thought you would be interested, the Texas bar, and state library - both of which Dorsen claimed ties too - said no such person existed!). old windy bear 21:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

See you in a month. I'll block your socks, too. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(scribble)evidently he is a child. amazing...old windy bear 05:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you Pig? You are intelligent enough to actually help on these articles, instead of the vandalism. Is there any use in appealling to you to make a positive impact, instead of being unfailingly negative? old windy bear 01:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]