User talk:WhipperSnapper

Welcome!

Hello, WhipperSnapper, 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:

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!

AfD Nomination: Global Labor Arbitrage

An editor has nominated the article Global Labor Arbitrage for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Labor Arbitrage. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Global Labor Arbitrage during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, people had the good sense to realize that Global Labor Arbitrage is a very legitimate concept and one that deserves an entry. WhipperSnapper 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I took out the GTCMS Ep. 2 link

I keep taking out the additional links in the Gorgeous Tiny Chicken Machine Show article because there isn't a need for a link to each and every episode; people who visit the 1st will see links for the 2nd, etc., and as the series goes on, it will get ridiculous to have episode-specific links. Now that they have an actual web site, we probably could cut out the individual-episode links entirely, and I may yet do that. Just wanted you to know that it's not personal — I know one of the people involved, and if it were appropriate, would link everything they ever made! :) But that's not what Wikipedia's about. Lawikitejana 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Tournament III

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles, as you did to Unreal Tournament 3. Advertising, and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox", is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Gscshoyru 12:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to engage in WikiNazism! The parts of my editions that you removed were not advertising; they were merely an attempt to point out some of the aspects of the game that make it notable and distinct compared to many other games in the category. It was information that newcomers would want to know. The information about anticipated organized league and clan activity and the previous games' having had thousands of servers and custom maps and mods is, in fact, very pertinent! That information adds context and helps people who are unfamiliar with the game and the series to better understand what it is.WhipperSnapper 21:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Tournament III will be primarily an online multiplayer first person shooter game offering a variety of game modes, including large-scale Warfare (a revamped version of UT 2004's Onslaught game), Capture-the-Flag, and Deathmatch. Thousands of public servers were (and still are) available for UT99 and UT 2004 and people could easily access them for free (using their Internet connections) and play and compete against other people of widely varying skill levels over the Internet. If UT3 is as good as the original UT, then it is likely that hundreds of servers will be available for it. UT3 is also rumored to include an extensive offline single-player game with an in-depth story.

People who are new to the series may be unaware of some of its most crucial and important aspects. Enthusiasts can design (on a computer) their own custom user-made maps and game modes and make them available via free Internet downloads for online multiplayer or single player play, adding tremendous variety and dramatically increasing the game's longevity and replay value. Thousands of custom maps and game-type modifications (mods), many of which are excellent and first-rate, are available for UT99 and UT 2004. Consequently, if Unreal Tournament III is true to form, then enthusiasts will probably create hundreds if not thousands of custom maps and several worthwhile additional game types. Additionally, UT99 and UT 2004 enjoyed having strong and active online communities, including organized competitive leagues with hundreds of organized teams (clans) often composed of players who started out as newbies and who met on public servers. If UT3 is as good as the original UT, then it is likely that it, too, will be patronized by leagues and an active clan scene.

Controversial mention of the upcoming pornographic film Who's Nailin' Paylin? at the Sarah Palin article Discussion page

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Sarah Palin. Thank you.

Let's slow down and get consensus on this. If you continue adding POV material to a BLP, you may be blocked. Ronnotel (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this really clear: if Palin had been in a porn flick, you'd be able to find MUCH better sourcing than a forum and a Youtube video, neither of which meets Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing. So stop adding this to the article OR talk page, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Palin herself had been in a porn flick nor did I ever imply that. Read more carefully next time, please. WhipperSnapper (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure BS and Wikinazism. There are PLENTY of references for that. Just visit the Wikipedia entry for the subject itself. For that matter--this was on the DISCUSSION page and not the entry itself. Since when does content put on the discussion page need to meet the same strict criteria as content for main article itself? WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus among editors is that the Hustler material is highly inappropriate for the Palin article. Given that, there is no further reason to discuss it on the talk page. Please refrain from doing so.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, when a professionally produced movie is made about someone, it would be relevant to their biography even if its purpose where to degrade and/or humiliate that person. The other editors, some of whom may be Republican partisans or campaign staffers (I'm sure they check their candidates' Wikipedia entries constantly), are wrong that the general subject of "Sarah Palin as an American Sex Symbol" is irrelevant to the article. It's probably a very fascinating sociological topic and perhaps it will become the subject of Ph.D. theses and academic papers in the future. WhipperSnapper (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant for the article, and the people who are nailing you on this are all Democrats. There is no partisan conspiracy to exclude this from the article -- merely an editorial consensus.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Democrats? I find that difficult to believe. WhipperSnapper (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless. You continue to ignore the vast majority of the editors working on this article. Insert discussion on the pornographic Palin video again and I will seek action against your account. There is already a very tense ongoing debate there and you are helping to poison the discussion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. You're issuing threats over the content of an article's discussion page? Do we need sub-discussion pages to discuss what should and shouldn't be placed on discussion pages now? (Note that a "vast majority of the editors" NEVER even became aware of the issue since it wasn't allowed to stay on the discussion page for very long.) I've done absolutely nothing wrong by raising the issue of whether Sarah Palin is becoming an unwitting American Sex Symbol as evidenced by the professional production of a pornographic movie about her, Who's Nailin' Paylin?, and then urging the people who wanted to squelch all knowledge and discussion of the issue to keep the discussion visible so that other people could comment on it. What's ironic is that your threat reinforces my claim that the almost immediate deletion of the subject was an exercise in bias and Wikinazism. WhipperSnapper (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely no reason why this should have been deleted from the NPOV-2 discussion. WhipperSnapper (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing that she is going to the subject of a professionally produced movie, Who's Nailin' Paylin? and her biography page makes no mention about it. Almost every other biography page would mention that a professionally produced movie had been made about the person, but not in this case. Heck, an attempt to even 'discuss' the issue was deleted from the Discussion page of all things! NPOV? What a joke. It's almost as though her campaign controlled the content of the article.

I've explained in pretty decent detail both here and on the talk page why the comments are in violation of policy. This is not to mention that your supposedly earnest discussion didn't include a single mention of this "professionally produced movie", or the supposedly poignant issues it raises that would be relevant to Palin's BLP, in any reliable source whatsoever. If you think I am engaged in "Wikinazism", allow me to suggest that you are engaged in Wiki-shameless-shilling-for-a-commercial-interest-ism. And it is not my goal to issue "threats", but I am eager to keep the discussion on the Palin article productive, and as previously mentioned it, repeated spamming of the talk page with this irrelevant and frankly offensive material is way outside the spirit and letter of acceptable conduct on the talk pages. So . . . . don't do it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, WhipperSnapper. You have new messages at Eastlaw's talk page.
Message added 01:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 01:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]