User talk:Count Chocula/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Count Chocula. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, Count Chocula/Archive 1!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Learn about some of the Wikipedia landmarks by trying our Wikipedia scavenger hunt!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Wikipedia has a vibrant community of editors. The village pump is a great place to see the goings on.
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun! – Clockwork Soul 06:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not carefully. Siddhartha21 03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Already read them Sid, and your point is what?--Count Chocula 07:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Count, the consensus on this issue if it ever truly existed has obviously changed. You inaccurately seem to be under the impression that consensus is about majority rule. I could make false threats of blocking or reporting you however I believe it is your right to disagree on this issue. Siddhartha21 10:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been thoroughly disucussed amoung the contributors of the michael jackson article sid, and it has been agreed that the nickname 'Wacko Jacko' should stay in the introduction. I've said this a number of times but I'll say it again, if you still disagree with the current consensus then bring it up on the talk page (not the archived talk page). Your concerns will fall on more receptive ears if you handle the issue in a more mature fashion than you are now.--Count Chocula 10:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Before questioning a person’s maturity involving to disagreement, perhaps you should step back and take a look at yourself first. My name isn’t sid by the way. I’m afraid there are still differing opinions on this topic and it’s not up to you to decide whether or not the issue is closed. Siddhartha21 12:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is so then bring it up on the michael jackson talk page. not here.--Count Chocula 12:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Funky Monkey 21:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockproven?

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to place that template on Apple765 (or whatever numbers it was ;) ). I agree that the edits are close enough for it likely to be a sock and block indefintely for it, but I don't have solid proof like a WP:RFCU (and don't think we need to bother them with actually doing a check unless he complains). You could change it to one of the suspected sock templates if you wanted something there, though. Thanks for alerting us to him. --Syrthiss 13:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

no problem--Count Chocula 14:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Beatles image

Hi, you reverted an edit I made to the Beatles' article earlier, which is no problem - I kind of expected to be reverted, really. You might like to contribute to the discussion at Talk:The Beatles#Lead image. Thanks :) Flower party☀ 17:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone

Well, its been one month and Onefortyone has gone straight back to aggresively adding the same information with the same sources that got him banned before.--Count Chocula 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I recommend posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, including diffs of alleged disruptive behaviour, because I'm just about to go off to sleep. Stifle (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I give up. I've left a note on the Administrators notice board a while ago, but no one seems interested in doing anything. As far as I'm concerned Onefortyone can ruin as many articles as he likes. This is just getting too tiresome.--Count Chocula 00:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Two possible reasons for this are that you posted it on the wrong noticeboard (arbcom violations go on WP:AE) or that the alleged misbehaviours actually don't violate the arbcom remedy. Either/or. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind having a look? I'd like a second a opinion. I just thought the edits seemed :like a violation of probation to me.--Count Chocula 00:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's disrupting the article, inserting poorly-sourced information, or being aggressive. If his edits aren't in accordance with consensus, they'll be reverted. If he breaks the 3RR, report that. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Chocoholics

Maybe you should team up with User:Count Chokula, KI 01:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The King

Sorry, but I've about had it with Elvis Presley. It seems an example of what's wrong with WP: a pile of people with the attention-span of fruit flies plus a few people obsessed with "chart performance" and at least one apparently tireless "contributor" who seems to want to turn WP into Hollywood Babylon have turned the article into a congeries of sleaze and trivia. I'm confident that it's not quite as awful now as it was three days or so ago but I'm also confident (?) that the good work I and at least one other person has put into it during that time will come to nothing.

Unfortunately I find it hard to imagine that anyone, or even any group of people, will muster enough energy to lick it into shape -- unless perhaps they're diehard fans, whereupon it could turn into a bland hagiography.

This is a great pity. I make no secret of the fact that I have little love for Presley's music, but I do think that some of his stuff was good, that he had major significance, and that neither his music nor his wider significance had anything whatever to do with such questions as whether or how he porked some starlet or the reason why this or that record was ineligible to enter the British pop charts and how high it would have reached if it had been eligible (really!).

What this article needs, and won't get, is a group of three people who can lock it for three days or so while they radically revise it. (Just imagine: such an article might even find space to mention "Heartbreak Hotel" and "Blue Suede Shoes"!) Oh yes, and thereafter hang around to beat or laugh off subsequent attempts to reintroduce "information" that's actually just blather.

If you can muster up such a group, let me know and I'll consider joining you. -- Hoary 10:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Thanks for the heads up on Ken Y's page -- I really appreciate it. --Mhking 23:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Choco195.jpg

Please tag the above image with an appropriate image tag (for example {{GFDL-self}} if you have created it yourself), or it will be deleted in 7 days. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Count Chocula 14:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)