Jump to content

User talk:BrightR/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:CP violation‎

Guidelines are for work on wikipedia. They are not applicable for various rants by crazies. they only distract wikipedians from work, and they are routinely deleted. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Time travel

Hi BrightRoundCircle, in view of your edits to Time travel—good job!—and your message at BruceGrubb's talk page, you might have a look (and perhaps comment) at Talk:Time travel#May 2016. I like your username, by the way. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Chung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Miller. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Using archive.is

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Using archive.is. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome

It wouldn't feel right if I didn't let you know that I argued from *my* interpretation of policies. ;-) In the end, WP:Ignore All Rules is our overarching policy: what matters is that we can get to collaborate and make the encyclopedia better.

Your reading of the "In popular culture" case (which was a good decision, since those sections are often awful) was prompting you to purse what could become a deletion spree; I limited myself to point out the reasons why, sometimes, having some content in bad shape is preferable to having no content at all. Diego (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For your patience in withstanding this old wikilawyer doing his tricks without loosing your good mood. Diego (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thoughtform

Where do you see consensus, I only see discussion Talk:Tulpa#Merger_proposal. Valoem talk contrib 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've revert back to the redirect because I see that version of Thoughtform is actually in reference to the Tulpa concept only, in reality thoughtform refers to much more than just the Tulpa. This article needs massive expansion not merging. But I do want to point out any editor can bold unmerge when there is no discussion. Consensus through editing is not consensus. Valoem talk contrib 17:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Tulpa#Merger_proposal for my reply, and Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing for the policy on consensus through editing. As for expansion, I suggest expanding first and splitting afterwards. Work on the thoughtform section, improve it, show that it's a notably distinct concept from tulpa, and then split. Personally I wouldn't bother, both are mystical concepts that can be broadened or narrowed in scope by their believers with ease, so tulpa can include or exclude thoughtform and vice-versa with ease. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Ren & Stimpy Show, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orange County

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Orange County. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Simpsons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Family Dog. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Undid Ren and Stimpy changes

Hello. I noticed you undid my changes to the Ren and Stimpy article, classifying my changes as "apparent vandalism". There is a good external citation for my changes which I included so I undid the changes. If you wish to dispute my source please do, but do not prematurely classify another person's contribution as "vandalism" until you do so. My source is a video and an article. 87.198.51.173 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The information you added appears to be cherry picking which is why I classified it as vandalism. Even as a good-faith edit, it's still cherry-picking, taking one inflammatory comment out of a number of reconciliatory comments. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The whole interview is inflammatory as is Howard Stern's style, Howard tries his utmost to provoke both Billy and John. But there are no "reconciliatory comments" in the video. John K said he thinks Billy is a good guy but in a sarcastic, passive-aggressive, sniping sort of way. He compares what Billy West did to the extermination of the Jews and he demands Billy apologise for what he did (which Billy refuses to do). They only hug and shake hands at the urging of Howard Stern. He indirectly accuses Billy and the other people who went back of setting the industry back 10 years. At the end of the interview, he is asked if there is a reconciliation and he says it "didn't look like it" and he said it's up to Billy to call him an apologise if there is to be a reconciliation. The bottom line is no cherry-picking took place, as far as I can see there are no reconciliatory comments. I won't revert the edit but please provide examples of "reconiliatory comments" 87.198.51.173 (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The interview is very long and practically every other comment John K makes about Billy West is reconciliatory, although there is a fair share of snippy comments as you say - "he's beyond my means now, he's a very well-to-do fellow, he doesn't consort with lower-types anymore," and there are some indirect comments about Billy regarding Nickelodeon taking over the show, but the majority of comments are reconciliatory: "Cut Billy some slack, he's proud of his chosen profession," they shake hands, "Billy and I should be pals," "Billy's alright," "If he'd apologize I'd work with him," "He's allowed [to get re-hired]... it's not in the contract," "It'd be nice [to patch things up] but it didn't happen." Quoting solely "exterminating the Jews" is cherry-picking an inflammatory joke out of a generally reconciliatory interview. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You are the senior editor in this conversation so you have the last say. I want to finish by saying though that I have a totally different read on the situation than you. Billy looks uncomfortable throughout the interview and John K is generally reserved but you can see a lot of suppressed anger which is bubbling under the surface. It comes out a bit more when he is talking about when Billy went on Conan talking about Ren and Stimpy and neglected to mention John even once. When asked if John K was angry after hearing about the interview John K's assistant said he was "at the top of the pack, yeah" which I interpreted as yes. I have a link to an interview here where William Wray talks about his bad blood with John over the incident. John K was crying after he was fired, the cartoon meant so much to him. Wouldn't you harbour animosity for Billy West and Billy Wray even if it was irrational? I would. Here is the link, read it yourself and make up your own mind. I won't press the issue anymore, thanks for taking the time to read this. 87.198.51.173 (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, but one out-of-context joke is not a good representation of the entirety of the interview. Perhaps in an entire paragraph devoted to the interview, one throwaway snippy comment can be included, but picking that one comment to represent the entire interview in one sentence is a bit misleading. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can't do it myself, I'm knee deep in PhD applications and cover letters and so forth. Maybe some other time. 87.198.51.173 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A request

Can you please point me an article which you either created or expanded out to over 100K or more? I'd like to run through the article and make sure that it adheres to every single MOS guideline, regardless of whether it improves the article or not. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You realize you're WP:POINT? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
But as long as you're here, I want to remind you that "I'm a senior editor" or "better before" or "status quo" is not a valid reason to revert an edit, and status quo is not consensus. I've run through your recent history and you're very fond of what appears to be abusing the BRD cycle through "better before" and personal appeals. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
By the way, you bring up editors whose opinion is untrustworthy because of their history on AN/I. Do you know an editor with a history on AN/I about abusing the BRD cycle to enforce their own "better before" edits? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BrightRoundCircle. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ren and Stimpy

I'm done with Wikipedia now, because you think the edits are "vandalism" when the 6th season is real and it is coming, trust me, that season WILL be back in 2017 once the premiere airs. Thanks for making wikipedia horrible again. -- TheJasbre202 - REAL (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You should consider reading Wikipedia's policies, in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, before you decide which of us is making Wikipedia "horrible". It's bad enough Wikipedia is perverted subtly by conflict-of-interest editing by paid editors who promote their workplace or clients while still following the letter, if not the spirit, of the policies. When it comes to obvious self-promotion with disregard to the reliable-source policy then it's outright vandalism, and that's downright horrible. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bronze Wolf Award

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bronze Wolf Award. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit filter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrightR/Archive_2&oldid=1139155989"