User talk:Sticky Parkin/Archive 3

MfD Again (You voted before)

The article formerly known as VP:Admin Abuse is back up for a MfD, in spite of its new title and greatly expanded sections highlighting great admins. (The MfD is believed to be a veiled personal attack.) The new page is WP:What Were They Thinking? (or simply WP:WWTT). The deletion question is here. Please visit and voice your support or, if your opinion has changed, opposition to this article. As you'll recall, it was a UNANIMOUS KEEP the first time around. Thank you for your time. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your implication that I'm in favor of pedophilia

In response to your implication that I'm in favor of pedophilia I wrote on the relevant talk page:

Not at all and I'm rather insulted by the implication. Of course I feel it's abominable but other people feel differently. To approach such a controversial issue effectively, wikipedia must demonstrate the arguments from both sides of the coin as it were, rather than giving anti-pedophilic sentiments, i.e. using words such as abuse. After all its our job only to report the goings on in the world, not to tell people what to think, and I'm sorry but words like abuse immediately give off a negative feeling. It isnt our place to judge, its for the courts to do that. The article should be renamed sexual relationships between adults and children, be re-written so as to be neutral and provide a "criticisms" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you agree? The article as it is currently gives off a very we hate pedophilia vibe. And of course pedophilia is a terrible thing to most people, but when constructing an encyclopedia, we have to try and avoid our personal feelings and act with a sense of professionalism that involves distributing both sides of an argument. Also, in response to your question am I in favor of pedophilia, I am not, I myself was a victim of such a dreadful act however, I still vehemently believe in ignoring personal feelings when trying to write neutrally.

For what it's worth, Merkinsmum, your link to surprise sex set me on a laughing fit, one much needed after an extraordinarily stressful Wiki-week. Thanks, SSBohio 02:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

Copied from User talk:Tijuana Brass:

Hi I just opened a section on ANI about your recent block of VigilanceP for 'canvassing.' I just thought it fair to let you know as a courtesy. Merkinsmum 02:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. However, I already began a thread there asking for another admin to review the block. User:Avruch moved your comment to the thread for you. By the way, I am a man - so "he", not "she". Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's an honest mistake. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and no offense taken. I also see the point you make, and agree that it can be seen in that light. Thanks for the kind note on my talk page - I appreciate it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and "{{Cleanup}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 15:48 31 January 2008 (GMT).

The problem was with a merge template - one of the reasons not to "susbt" is that, as you say, the wikicode is harder to read and edit. Another is that a widely used bot function moves explicit categories to the end of the page - those associated with the templates should go when the template is deleted, and may be conditional. For me the problem is trying to date these tags with my bot User:SmackBot. I un-subst several of these tags a day (well the bot can now do most of them), so don't worry, lots of people do it. Rich Farmbrough, 09:38 1 February 2008 (GMT).

Messiah complex (self-concept)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Messiah complex (self-concept), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.network54.com/Forum/419882/thread/1165953224/last-1166101415/Messianic+Complex. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Reed

I think Reed is definitely notable. I did a Google News search for "John T. Reed" today, and he was quoted in two news articles as an expert on real estate and on football coaching. I don't think those mentions alone assert notability, but I can't imagine that plenty of reliable sources aren't available. He's been involved in a well-publicized lawsuit with Russ Whitney, and even though he's self-published, he probably sells as many or more books as a lot of published experts.

Good to hear from you! :) Rray (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to lean towards inclusion rather than deletion, but I'm glad you agree about Reed. He's actually a VERY entertaining writer too. Rray (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/16/SPGRUFL8O.DTL covers Reed in a little bit more detail than I originally thought. Some of these might even make a nice addition to his article. Rray (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment

I'm new to Wiki so I apologize if this isn't where I'm supposed to post this, but I was curious about a comment of your I read recently:

about Islam's view of paedo-ism, seeing as by our modern view of the issue, muuhammad married a woman far under the age where she could give full consent, or even be anywhere near physical maturity. Merkinsmum

Were you aware that Muhammad's first wife was a woman 15 years older than him? Or that she asked for his hand in marriage and not the other way around? She was his employer actually, and was impressed by his honesty and charisma. And about the extremely young girl he married, it was a common custom in those days to marry women who had lost fathers or husbands in war or disasters, as a form of protection. It may be odd to you, but it was how the culture worked in those days. And, not surprisingly, a lot of cultures still do work that way today as well. It's not wrong, it's just different from what you grew up with.

I understand that you may not be fully aware about Islamic history, but why is it so important for you and a few other people on Wikipedia to make Islam sound vile? I've been noticing some very strong anti-Islamic feelings being aired here. Anyway, I don't usually just start writing to people, but I just thought I ought to at least clear up this small misconception about Muhammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankledeep (talk • contribs) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lucky escape

Have you seen this?; I was involved in that article and made a lucky escape before the proverbial hit the fan. After my run ins with IPSOS & Co. (who turned out to be sockpuppets and were blocked as you know) I could tell it was going to happen. Talk about perfect timing :) I could write a book: "Top 10 Tricks for Evading Wikidrama" :D Coldmachine^Talk 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks once again for sticking up for me. It does boost my (sometimes very sagging) moral! Mattisse 16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek...

Heh, you had the imperative alright, but that was just the problem: it works only in the positive, not when negated. With negator mē, you need the subjunctive :-P Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff in Greek

Well yes, I see your point about it looking nicer. You could always use a pretty font, though ☺ However this being the en Wikipedia stuff needs not to be in Greek (or German, or Croat, or Georgian, or whatever). There's a Greek-language version just over there and let's face it, machine translation (be it Babelfish, Systrans, Google) always looks like Klingon anyway! Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester meet

Hi, I think it's the Manchester & County Pub which is right next to Manchester Picadilly train station. It'll be door to door service, near enough! I don't think I'm going to make it: I can still leave it until the last minute since I'm only an hour away and don't need to book tickets, but, I'm still undecided. There's shopping to be done on a Saturday! If I don't make it I hope you have fun; be sure to let me know how it goes and what everyone is really like! Coldmachine^Talk 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DrugScope

Thanks for editing, looks much better! New to this... BTW Your cat looks sweet Jazzee-B (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2008

Re: Any clue about notability criteria for computer games?

Stealing Ryan's thunder a bit here, I know, but I happened to notice your question on his Talk page.

Typically, any game that has been released to retailers through standard wholesale channels is going to be notable. There will be reviews in hardcopy magazines, references in "history of (x) company/game series/console"-type articles, etc. This goes double for anything released for a console, as the process of releasing for a console all but precludes publishing of trivial titles. Games released outside of those channels have to be looked at a bit more closely, but given that your referenced example was released on three console platforms and utilized two exceedingly-notable brand names, I'd almost reflexively put it firmly in the "notable" category. Jouster (whisper) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By popular demand...

This User believes that posting on WP:AN/I makes you stupid.

--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for yours - I replied on my page. I think this version might be better? --Major Bonkers (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't cry!

Here you go, one person has noticed you. :-) delldot talk 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

email

You can email me at joe.transmitfailure[at]gmail.com Hazillow (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the [at] with an @, of course. :) Why do you want to email me? Hazillow (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Merkinsmum, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Blingy moving pics

Cool hummingbird. I don't know if it counts as a "blingy moving pic," but check out the Wikipedia logo at the top of my user page (I think it only works if you're using the default MonoBook skin). It's the last line of code in the source. I copied it from someone else, and now I can't remember who it was. – jaksmata 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

Can you please consider changing the color of your sig? It is almost impossible to read and would likely be much worse for someone who has any form of eye-disability. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. & it's quite distracting. Eusebeus (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered it for you and am improving upon it - unfortunately it's gone a bit wrong at the moment- I've just posted somewhere asking for advice.:) But it will be pink, I'm afraid. As it is bold type, I've actually asked someone with poor eyesight to take a look, and they don't have a problem reading it. But I will improve the font for it to be stronger. Once I'm over the current problem lol! So bear with me. [[User:Merkinsmum|special, random, ]][[User talk:Merkinsmum|Merkinsmum]] (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new version is much easier to read thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much like your sig — either of them — but this is a bit tighter implementation;

special, random, Merkinsmum

Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]