User talk:Stranded Pirate

This user may sometimes share an IP address with [[User:|]].

Welcome!

Hello, Stranded Pirate, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Sarah (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Stranded Pirate, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

plz stop messing with my edits

I am in the process of edditing. I do not appreciate or welcome you reverts just when i am in the middle of a sentance. You are screwing up my work process and thoughts. please stop it. Stranded Pirate (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be trying to link a person whose name is protected by the courts in a serious criminal case. Unless the name appeared in a published source you must not refer to it on Wikipedia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, what makes you think the name was "protected by the courts"? Or was that just an assumption? (i have evidence to the contrary, but i am curious as to your answer first.) Stranded Pirate (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, that's why I said "you appear. . ." If you have published evidence to the contrary then cite it. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much (the not being sure part). I do have sources which I am trying to add as we speak. It is EXTREMELY frustrating when someone comes along - just when you are right in the middle or working on something - and sits by from afar and tosses rocks at you while you are trying to work. It ain't easy for a new guy like me to figure all this out and put it together nice and neat so that it looks & works like it is suppose to. It is 3am where I am at. I might not get it all finished before i have to go to bed. BUT I AM WORKING ON IT ALL. Cut me some slack, please. Stranded Pirate (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must not add any material concerning this case to Wikipedia unless you also add a reference to a published source which confirms that the material you are adding is in the public domain. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say, dude, I am trying to do that. But you screw up my article and attampts at editing these references WHILE I AM IN THE MIDDLE OF EDITING. And when I save my edit - with its damn references - I can't because you have come along and stuck your nose into places it does NOT belong, caused an edit conflict, and have disrupted my work in mid-progress. This causes me not to be able to add the references that you are complaining about. I am starting to think that you are purposefully engaging in valandizing my efforts here. For the fourth time - please stop. Come back tomorrow at this time and screw around all you want. Right now I just want you to go away!!! Stranded Pirate (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALL changes to Wikipedia articles in this case MUST be accompanied by appropriate references or they will be immediately removed. Is that clear enough for you ? . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're just a jerk and a vandal who likes screwing with new people and messing with their work right when they are in mid typing so you can purposefully create and edit conflict and cause the new editors to loose much time and effort. You play these games because you are a jerk and you like to give people a hard time. You never cut anyone some slack. go away, pest. i am done with you.

I fart in your general direction. Your mother Is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't frighten us, English pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called "Arthur King," you and all your silly English K-nig-hts. Stranded Pirate (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two admins told me not to put all the reference stuff in. That is for the article itself, not a disambiguation page. So it is being left as it is.

Jessica Hardy (disambiguation)

Please keep discriptions short. Your addition to Jessica Hardy (disambiguation) is way too long! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am, or was wanting to, but another user named Mean as custard stuck his nose in and demanded that I put all these references in there and basically screwed things up for me and my work!! Stranded Pirate (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we don't add references to a disamb page. Usually we try to put the reference in the article itself where relevant. If you would like assistance feel free to message me <3 (Love the username btw)

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 08:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is what I had been trying to tell Mean as custard all along. But he just kept coming back damaging and disrupting my work over and over and over, purposefully creating edit conflicts, even though I told him I wasn't done yet. I am new to this stuff and did not appreciate him screwing with me. Thanks. Will get with you tomorrow after sleeping to get more help.! Stranded Pirate (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:wtaf and wp:listpersons it really should not go there. Jim1138 (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good info. Just wish I'd've seen it two hours ago! lol Anyways, the article will be along shortly tomorrow after I wake up. Stranded Pirate (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kardashian

Please do not edit war. Repeatedly performing the same edit over and over will result in you being blocked from editing. Four times in 24 hours and it's virtually automatic, spreading it out over a few days only delays the inevitable.—Kww(talk) 11:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your decision to remove the material. I started a discussion on the article's talk page to see what others think. So we'll see what happens. thanks for the tip, though! Stranded Pirate (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I might aswell put this here: I had to remove your latest talk page comment here. It was a mixutre of using the talk page as a forum and throwing in some slanderous remarks. Regardless of how you feel about her you can't use your own opinion to try to change what the article is about and you can't have a discussion on talk pages like forums. Gorgak25 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your reinsertion of the talk page comment.For what it's worth, the threshold for what I think constitutes a BLP violation is considerably higher than that of a lot of folks around here. Your comment met the threshold and then some. Please don't add it again. As Gorgak notes correctly above, a talk page is not a forum. Rivertorch (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Please do not refer to editors as vandals when the remove talk page comments of yours that should not be there in the first place. Gorgak25 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you call talk page editors that remove content that should have been there in the first place? Stranded Pirate (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't been happening in this case. You've been adding BLP violations to Talk:Kim Kardashian. Look at the difference between my comments and the page and yours. Note that even though you state that you agree with me, my comments have been retained without question while yours have been removed by three different editors.—Kww(talk) 23:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I call that vandalism. What I did, I call removing comments that shouldn't have been there in the first place. The comment I removed has been removed by other people and for good reasons. You were using the talk page as a forum. Not to mention the comments you made were alao against the BLP policy. Regardless of if you use the talk page as a forum or say such things that fall under violation of the BLP doesn't matter. It still has to be removed. Not to mention refering to other editors as "vandals" isn't really assuming good faith. Even if I (or anyone else) were wrong about removing the talk page comment, you should have asked the editor(s) why it was removed rather than just revert the edit along with a personal attack on an editor.

Just a small note (if you didn't know it already): the difference with article talk pages and User's talk pages is that User talk pages are for discussion of anything. The article's talk page is for the article itself. Wondering if there will be sex tapes of her sisters and if they'll be sold as a box set has nothing to do with the article whatsoever.Gorgak25 (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

You appear to be edit warring again, and, as before, your edit warring is of extremely questionable material. In the case of Renee Olstead, you have attempted to devote an entire third of the article to her involvement in a minor, but lurid, FBI case. You've reverted two removals of the section, and have falsely accused other editors of vandalism. If I see this kind of editing again on any article, you will be blocked from editing.—Kww(talk) 10:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the basic facts in a more acceptable form. Note how everything is still here, but it isn't presented in a fashion that would make it appear that a huge amount of Olmstead's fame is based on this single case.—Kww(talk) 11:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are upset, but you have to stop reverting. In theory, I should block you right now for having blocked the fourth time in 24 hours. I'm going to let it slide this time, because it's at least possible that you didn't realize that it applies to different reverts. It doesn't matter whether you are reverting to my version or your version, a revert is a revert, and you can't exceed 3 in 24 hours.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well i didn't your edit. Once you chnaged it, it seemed okay. But the other guy totally removed YOUR edit and i just had ur edit & its language restored. He's done this three times previously without any explanation, so he got warned. No different then what you're doing here, eh? Stranded Pirate (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's at 3, but you are at 4. You reverted him twice, me once, and then him again.—Kww(talk) 21:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But how does that count? Isn't there something on Wikipedia that says the 3RR rules does nOt apply to cases of obvious vandalism? I am pretty sure there is cuz when I googled that term lots of stuff came up with ppl saying that 3RR does not apply to valdalis. That dude created a single purpose account that was only made to remove stuff from her article. Correct? If someone goes on a page and fills it with profanities and the n-word and I keep reverting it, that isn;t covered by 3RR, right? My thoughts anyways. Stranded Pirate (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit wasn't obvious vandalism. You may not have liked it, but there's no reason to believe it was vandalism.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has repeatedly chopped out whole portions of her page. The same portions over and over and over, all without any kind of discussion. I may not like what you did with the wording that I used, and you may not like what I did with the wording, but at least we are having a discussion and we seemed to have resolved the matter to both of our satisfaction. That guy has not participated; he just cuts and slashes and won't talk to anybody about it. His account was a purpose created account and the only contributions he has made to Wikipedia is removing that stuff from her page. My guess is the reason for the account creation was to hide her IP address so as to make it less obvious to all that these edits are coming from an LA based ISP & business. Stranded Pirate (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take my word for it: you won't find an admin that would consider that edit to exempt from our reversion limits.—Kww(talk) 22:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera

I've kept most of the facts, but reduced the overall emphasis in Christina Aguilera.—Kww(talk) 11:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your changes. Seem good. But I had a hard time finding them because they are buried at the bottom of a section regarding her most recent song. Would it not make sense to have it under a seperate subheading so that people solely interested in that part of her can find it? Even when I could see you charges when I pressed 'view history', it took me some time to find them on the main article page. Stranded Pirate (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting pretty old

I would hope that by now you've started to sense a trend: many editors disagree with the emphasis you are placing on relatively tawdry topics: Kardashian's deflowering and Olmstead's pictures are extremely minor topics. By the time you've seen that your material has been trimmed in every article it's been placed in, you should be getting a hint that it's considered to be inappropriate. By the time you see that your contributions on talk pages are generally deleted or redacted for you, you should be getting a hint that the way you discuss material is inappropriate. I've been patient and trying to provide some guidance, but my patience is wearing a little then. You obviously are able to write reasonably well, and are able to find sources and cite things appropriately. Can you please focus some of your energy on thing that you not only find interesting but are also suitable for inclusion? You complained above that the material you had added on Aguilera would be hard to find by "people solely interested in that part of her". That's not our audience: that's not who an encyclopedia is written for.—Kww(talk) 22:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also getting old when I've got a guy like Bbb23 going through my stuff and haxing it for no good reason but simple vindictiveness. Why do you say the stuff about Aguilera being solely for people interested in that part is bad? Some people come to read up on her songs. Some don't give a shit about that, but want to know where and how she grew up. And some are going to be wondering how she got caught up in a hacker scandel and why the US Govt wants to give her $7500 in case. Not everyone who comes to an article is there for the entire article. Who the hell is this so-called 'encyclopedia' written for but by the masses of people who are interested in extremely diverse stuff?? This encyclopedia is not being written for the sole purpose of Kww and meat puppet BB23 and others. Did you ever stop and think about that for a moment? And do you wonder why it is each year that the number of editors here has gone down by tens of thousands? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html And why do you htink it is that women never come here to edit on Wikipedia? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=1

And the amount of new editors who quit after just a few months is in the tens of thousands. Why do you think that is? No one wants to be surrounded by a bunch of jerks who only want everything to run their way or the highway. Is your rank higher than mine? Do you get paid more than me for this? No. But guys like you two are what makes this place suck so bad and it is just not any fun at all. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-11-23/tech/30012937_1_new-editors-jimmy-wales-wikipedia

You guys are of the opinion that if things do not go YOUR way, your response is "Well, fuck those guys. I don't care what they think." You guys (not just u and Bbb23, but all the rest like u guys)but you guys take yourselves way to seriously, in my opinion. If someone disagrees with your decision on an edit, then you block them or ban them. Some jerk, whom I can't remember (not you two guys), even has some kind of graph on his talk page showing how many times his talk page has been vandalized, like that is something to be proud of. Such a meter is really a measure of just how much the community hates you and what an asshole you must be. That makes about as much sense as saying, "I've had my front windows busted out 50 times this week. That must mean I'm doing something!" No! It does not! That just means that at least 50 people were super angry enough at you to take time out of their day to go mess you up. How many more equally hate you, but just don't want to take the time to toss a brick through your window / talk page?

Millions of people come here each day and you guys think that a "consensus" is just one or two or three other editors agreeing with you on something. NO THAT IS NOT THE DEFENITION OF CONSENSUS! And how do you know that those three other consensus makers aren't just as stupid as you are?? 3 or 4 out of 100's of thousands of editors?

Your standards and ideas as to how things are done are not the same as mine. And it certainly does not mean that yours are any better than mine. Both y'alls minds are too closed to realize that, though. Whatever. I've said my piece. Stranded Pirate (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've come very close to being blocked again here for personal attacks. I'm trying to show patience with you, but that's not a popular position. Tabloid journalism isn't our focus here, and won't be.

As for the Spahn v. Messner edits, I tend to side with you that the material is relevant, and people should be editing it rather than removing it. Try to argue your case calmly, and I will be supportive. If it just descends into another round of epithets, it's going to result in a new block.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Disruptive editing. Every edit has been either warring, tabloid BLP violations or clearly inappropriate in nature. It has become an undue burden on the other serious editors who take the time to actually edit properly and within policy. It would do you well to spend the next 48 hours reading up on our editing policy. For now, this is the only way to prevent your disruption.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stranded Pirate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I strongly suspect that Kww and Bbb23 are meat puppets since one invariably follows the other when editing disputes arise. To be honest, neither one of them provide anything useful here. According to a brief look at the contribution history for both of them, their sole contributions is reporting other editors and tearing articles apart. I have not seen ONE SINGLE article written by them. Oh, they may add bits and pieces here and there. But articles? That'd be too much like work for them! In a look at the history of the Admin incident boards, I can't find anyone who complains more then these two! Seriously, do y'all cry at weddings, too? Meat Puppets. But, whatever. We'll see how I feel after 48 hrs. i may stay, I may just go.Stranded Pirate (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That "unblock request" was clearly not an attempt to be unblocked, but an abuse of your talk page access to post personal attacks. Consequently, talk page access has been removed for the duration of the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen Valor

Pirate, please take a look at WP:OR. Basically it says we can't take bits of other peoples' work and combine them to advance our own theories. In the Stolen Valor Act article, we don't even have legal scholars commenting on the case or the law. We have judges in unrelated cases making rulings, and then someone thinks that those rulings somehow apply to the SVA. This is a no-go in Wikipedia editing, even if it sounds right to us. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Didn't realize that was wrong. So how do such comments by the judges and legal scholars get put into the article then so people can get the proper context? Stranded Pirate (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noproblemo. First, go back this page and look at the 5 pillars of Wikipedia and the principles. 90% of the important stuff is there. The other 10% is in the technical stuff -- and those details really contain the devil. Re what judges say, you're pretty much confined to what they say in particular cases. Going beyond their opinions and seeking to interpret or apply to other topics/issues/etc. is the OR problem. So that leaves the actual legal scholars. What commentary have they published on the topic? Can we verify what they said? You will find all of this to be interesting, if not challenging. Enjoy.--S. Rich (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity_University_(Texas) article

Hi Stranded Pirate,

I reverted your most recent edit on Trinity_University_(Texas) . As the other user (Blurpeace ) was saying before hand that edit is sadly just not appropriate. I understand you're concerned about white washing but I don't think this is there. We have very strict polices on being Neutral in our wording and the text that you were trying to remove (which was added only a week or so ago) is much more neutral then the text you wanted while getting the information across (and even linking to the same sources). If you still think it's inappropriate then please think about a discussion on the Talk page because I'm afraid that I may have to block you if you try to reinsert the same text again. If you have any questions please feel free to let me know here, or on my user talk page. James of UR (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]