User talk:Shadow Puppet

Arguing on the Internet is kind of like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Pwnd.

This user is a constructive powerhouse and is ready for anything.

Ephemeral adolescent cult slang = I want to write it so Badd!! But it's not really encyclopedic %(( ... No matter, I'll just go whack some vandals.

I was User:ShadowPuppet.

User:Shadow Puppet/Projects

Note: I was User:ShadowPuppet. --Shadow Puppet 21:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

No problem in Rank Flags. That was the meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.194.22 (talk • contribs)

Fiddling

I've fiddled with you userboxes as you invited above ;), there are other ways of doing this, but this way looks fairly smart. Just follow the pattern to add any others. --Alf ^melmac 14:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

WELCOME!! Hello, Shadow Puppet! I want to personally welcome you on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already, you can put yourself in the new user log and the list of users so you can be properly introduced to everyone. Don't forget to be bold, and don't be afraid of hungry Wikipedians...there's a rule about not biting newcomers. Some other good links are the tutorial, how to edit a page, or if you're really stuck, see the help pages. Wikipedia is held up by Five Pillars...I recommend reading about them if you haven't already. Finally, it would be really helpful if you would sign your name on talk pages, so people can get back to you quickly. It's easy to do this by clicking the button (next to the one with the "W" crossed out) one from the end on the left. If that's confusing, or if you have any questions, feel free to drop me a ♪ at my talk page (by clicking the plus sign (+) next to the tab at the top that says "edit this page")...and again, welcome!

---

Hi! Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. It looks like you got your userboxes taken care of, but if you need help again, feel free to leave me another message. It's customary to give newbies a "welcome" message with helpful links, so since no one else has done so yet, I've put mine above this message. Cheers!--ViolinGirl^♪ 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected hoaxes

Hi ShadowPuppet! I saw your note on MFP's page. He works late, but it is almost 3 AM in England. Crying babyworm, Alban Greengrocer, and Speed Worm look like WP:BJAODN to me. You did good. Remember to not to WP:BITE Frogfarmer1 (at least not too much). He is well above average and might turn into a good contributor. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShadowPuppet - thanks for the note; glad to see you got it sorted! They were already deleted by the time I logged on today - MPF 16:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should've read it though. Those worms scream when the mama leaves 'em and they can move at 120 mph! Unfortunately the reference for this got ...ahem... inadvertantly lost somewere. Heh. --ShadowPuppet 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was good too. But maybe that is just because I spend a lot of time reading stuff that shows only the slightest glimmer of intelligence. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan prayer

that's cool, I think it was reasonable to bring it to AfD, since probably not all of those redirects need to be made. I didn't mean you were the one needing to be spanked! bikeable (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's how it works! keep at it, and thanks! bikeable (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a total waste of time to bring it to AfD - as I believe you have now realised. -- RHaworth 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Three weeks"

The "three weeks" comment in the EBaum's World article is a (snarky, rude) prediction of how long the show will run before being cancelled. DS 15:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Whacking

I'm just really fast :-) I read the recent changes via IRC, and use Godmode-lite to revert. --light darkness^(talk) 08:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles

Looking at it, I would say it would be 100% accurate to substitute "antisocial tendencies" for "psychopathic or sociopathic" because it would seem that the story implies that these tendencies are traumatic and e

nvironmental in origin? --Zeraeph 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot

Would help if oyu read a bigfoot book or two.+ DO NOT EXPECT official books from zoologists. also see website, http://www.bigfoot.org has some scientific backers.

Oppose DreamGuy, the most hated man in Wikipedia.

Mongo is trying for a balanced view, using NPOV. Support him.

Don't sleep clown will eat you.

-)

RFA question

Sorry, I wasn't ignoring the question I completely missed it until you removed it. I will answer it here though in case you removed for some other reason.

10. Questions from Shadow Puppet Lately there have been some admins taking it unto themselves to speedy delete articles still in debate because they just "decided" there was a consensus. Do you think admins should do this? In a few words, define what you see as an admin's place in Wikipedia. What are the limits of their authority? Do they have any real authority? Do you think the role of the "admin" is going to need sharper defining in the future? Don't feel the need to answer or respond to each question exactly, just give a general idea of your views of these things. I try to weigh my votes carefully, as I think too many immature people are being "buddied" into adminship, (I don't believe this about you by any means, otherwise I wouldn't be interested in your views.) and you almost have mine in the bag. Tell us, basically, what is an administrator?

I think if there is a process set up to gain consensus it should be used. Many of these processes entail timescales that might seem long to some people, but in general I think they are needed so that you get a good representation from the interested parties. If a discussion goes on for one hour maybe your timezone is well represented, but you leave out others, and you leave out people who are on wikipedia less. As the time of a discussion decreases the sampling bias increases I think. This has to be balanced though, since you don't want things to go on forever, and in some instances there is some amount of urgency involved.

Generally I see the role of an admin as helping other users and helping the project. I certainly think there are numerous limits to their authority. I don't see admins as being above the consensus driven policies at all, so all policies that are decided for any wikipedian I see as applying to admins as well. These are all limits to their authority. There are more admin specific policies that further limit what is acceptable for them to do with regard to admin functions etc. So as a summary I see admins as people that can be trusted to have access to some functionality that could be dangerous if they were out to hurt wikipedia, but that are needed to maintain the site. They are still bound by policies though and membership in a community, more so since they have been given trust. I don't know if I would say they have "authority" I don't see this as a governance situation, they have abilities that they have been granted due to trust, but if I were an admin I wouldn't want my vote to count for more in any debate for example. I think this opinion is pretty common and is one of the reasons I like wikipedia so much :)

(If you removed the question because you thought I was ignoring it or didn't want to answer etc and would otherwise still want it to be on the page feel free to add it back with my answer if you want. If you'd rather it stay here though that's fine too. Sorry I missed it in the edits :D ) - cohesion★talk 18:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What IS bluelinked ?

LoveMonkey 23:22, 31 July 2006 (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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]