User talk:Stijndon

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 15:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Lazarat

Hey, regarding the use of the nonsense db tag here; That tag doesn't cover articles written in another language. Ironholds 22:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh that's ok. First time round for me I made a looad of mistakes. Put it this way; i've had 3 RfA's and not passed. In those cases it's best not to add a deletion tag; instead add a translation tag, and a lovely man who speaks whatever language that is (On first glance I thought it was nonsense too) will come along and translate it. 9 times out of ten it turns out to be nonsense anyway, but google says Lazarat is a place, which means that assuming something has happened there in the last 1000 years means it's worth keeping. Another mistake you might make (nothing personal, everyone does it); you'll see a tag marked "previously deleted in a deletion discussion" as a reason to be CSD'd; people tend to assume this is for any article that was previously CSD'd, when it is actually for ones that were deleted through AfD and so on. I know you've been here for a while, but if as you said this is your first time through new page patrol feel free to leave talk page messages with me if you need any help :). Ironholds 22:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard McLester

I note you used twinkle with this; twinkle has an annoying habit of making links to AfD's display as redlinks even though the AfD is a valid page. To correct it, just click "edit this page" on the article in question, change literally nothing and then save it. Happy patrolling! :). Ironholds 23:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well where's the page in question? Just as an example. Just to clarify; the notice you put at the top of an article to say "this is being discussed at this afd link and so on; the link turns up red sometimes despite there being a valid AfD page. if you edit the article itself, change nothing and then save, the redlink to the AfD page should correct itself. Ironholds 14:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Afterlife (play)

Hey, i've removed the prod; while the only particular source is the theatres own website the RNT is a very well respected institution; it'd be like rejecting an article on an operetta on the grounds that it's "only been performed at the Sydney Opera House". Ironholds 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh that happens to me all the time, it is infuriating. Some of the CSD excuses for hangon tags are wonderful as well; the two most common ones are "dude, it does exist! therefore you should include it" and Stevensons Law; when adding a tag for blatant advertising onto an article, the article creator will respond by listing 100 reasons why the subject is notable rather than actually reading the tag and dealing with the advertising issue. Ironholds 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Tree-pages

I appritiate that, i just couldnt beleive the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th largest tree's in the world! didnt have pages as of one hour ago! lol, i will do the stagg tree (5th largest) page later. I just wish more people would add info to the specific grove and tree pages,

Thank you, Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradluke22 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New Messages!

Hello, Stijndon. You have new messages at EricV89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Prince Jam Ali Akber

I'm not convinced this person is real. All references to him seem to be things added to en.wikipedia.org by the creator of the page in question. There were zero Google hits for ("Jam Ali Akber" Balochistan). The page creator has a history of creating incoherently badly written articles about completely unverifiable people. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Companies

Hi, I find it rather difficult to judge whether a new page on a company should be CSD'd or not. Most of the time, the page is blatant advertising. But, as is the case with IGEL technology, sometimes they do not push themselves. But the page is an obvious vanity page - vanity for a company. It just mentions it, and then gives some links to some pages related to the product or service offered by the company. Since you hangon'ed my CSD over there, do you perhaps have a few pointers? Thanks. Stijndon (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are completely right that companies are about the most annoying articles to deal with when it comes to notability. The big issue with them is that they often balance on the edge of advertising, and rarely have a claim that reflects how important they are. At least articles about other subject give some indication if someone is or is not notable once a small description is up! :)

The best way to judge an article, is first looking if the article complies with WP:CORP. The page gives some very basic guidelines that allows non advertising article to be roughly split between good or bad. (For example, an article saying that its a butcher around the corner or a local charity almost always ends up being not notable, no matter of its advertorial or not)

However, often you will find that the article is balancing somewhere between notable and not notable. The easiest thing to do then is fire up google and do a google test where you try to match articles for the full name of the company ("IGEL technology"). If there are no results it can virtually always be safely tagged for CSD. If there are several thousands of results, its likely to be notable. If you would only get a few results, have a look at the quality of them. 10 results that are external press releases from press agencies are excellent notability granters (Since 2 quality references are all that is needed to establish notability on an article par WP:SOURCE) If there are only myspace pages or similar, its best to tag CSD it as not notable.

Most of the times that covers the articles. If it is something in between, use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead of a CSD tag. Use a prod when you think the article should be removed unless improved, and use an AFD when you are not sure if its a good article. Generally i tend to use PROD's more then AFD's as a case of soubt about an articles worth is most times because you don't deem it should be kept. AFD on the other hand is great if you truly don't know if it should or should not be tagged.

And last: Trust your own feeling what to do when you are not sure. You will end up making mistakes, and thats something completely normal that happens to all of us. I tagged similar articles (And completely ok ones!) when i started new page patrol. Thats why its called a tag, an admin will always check if its correct, so Be bold! As long as you keep an eye on the rulesand don't go in a tagging frenzy, nothing bad can happen :)

With kind regards, and wishing you a happy editing!

Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity

Hello, Stijndon. You have new messages at RHaworth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snotling

Hi there. I noticed that you made a contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snotling indicating that you think the article should be kept. Your comments don't appear to address the fact that no mention of the Games Workshop "snotling" can be found in reliable, third-party, published sources. As the AfD debate has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached, I thought you might like to elaborate on why you think the article should be kept, bearing in mind WP:RS. Many thanks. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Moths

Bedankt dude! And thanks for partrolling them.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Artur Pontek

Thanks for changes;-)--Loveharts (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:-D

Thannnnnnnnnks! You don't know, but it's so important to me! Thank You very much.

Good Luck and keep holding on - --Loveharts (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for adding likes to the hottinger chronology page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richotting (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 

No problem! I've lived in Züri, so helping out something about Hottinger was fun to do. "Näechste Haltestelle: Hottingerplatz." That's what I remember :) Stijndon (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The China Probrem

Cultural influences are fine, but they really need to be cited. If you can't be bothered to do so, please don't add cruft to an article. Alastairward (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep adding them and I'll keep taking them away, until such time as you source a cite. Alastairward (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very disappointing to see that the references are being cut all the time. These are the reason to even read the article! Do we need the storyline? No, we just saw the episode. But do we want to know "Hey, I recognised two of the rape-scenes, what was the third?" Yes, we do. And Wikipedia is not there to help out anymore. How much citing do you need? See the scene, see the original movie it refers to: done. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it's only a duck when Parker & Stone say it is? Stijndon (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much yeah, if you can't cite their say so, then don't add the trivia. If you wish to look up this sort of stuff, there are any number of inaccurate, uncited, user edited websites out there, brimming with rubbish about what someone thought was being referenced. If you feel that wikipedia should only exist to service such ideals, then perhaps you might try other fan based wikis for South Park and other shows. Alastairward (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You cannot be serious that the rape parodies are unreferenced - they match down to every little detail. Yes I agree that "Cultural References" are a breeding ground for crap, but these scenes are NOT crap. They are pure and obvious references. They cannot be more obvious. I dislike stupid references just as much as you, but if I ever saw some valid ones, then these are them. Stijndon (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I make no apologies for pointing out that you completely miss the point. Whatever you add to wikipedia should be verifiable. Not just someone's speculation that something might be a fact, but solid fact, nothing less. All you can say with that last edit you made to The China Probrem, is that you believe that there may be an effort on behalf of the writers to reference one film or another. Look up wikipedia policy on verifiability and citing, perhaps the burden of evidence too. It's notable that there is a distinct lack of cites for these despite your thoughts that they are "pure and obvious". Alastairward (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the one, then look at the other. They are the same, except one is with actors and the other is with animated caricatures of Spielberg and Lucas. This is no "speculation" on my side. You too know it's true, probably. There's just no official document saying it's true. Neither is there an official document saying that the melting point of sodium is 370.87 K, but that's on wikipedia. Because people observed it. People also observe that these scenes are complete matches. What was up with the sentence that the work itself is the citation? Stijndon (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You see, that's the whole point. It's only your own opinion that you're stating. No insult intended, but user Stijndon is not a verifiable source! Alastairward (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How is two things being the same 'my opinion'? Do we need to overlay the images and get R^2 values for relative same-ness? Or is the fact that dialogue, screenplay, camera angles and sound effects are a match enough? Besides, it is now sourced from a non-user-editable newssite Stijndon (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And that's how someone reading the article misses out. Take the case of the cultural influences section in Forbidden Planet, where a similarity between a set in Babylon 5 and Forbidden Planet is noted. It would be easy to take the lazy way out and say "hey, they look the same!" as you suggested. But someone cited an interview with the B5 producer who said that when he saw the end result, he realised it looked exactly like FP, but with no direct intent on his behalf. That's not just improving the accuracy of the article, but adding a deeper understanding of the material. Why can't the same be done for South Park? Alastairward (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I bet we both agree that perfect evidence is great. It's preferable over any other kind of evidence. But it's not always there. We could remove all non-mathematical scientific articles if we need verification from a creator. Stijndon (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reporting Alastairward

Hey go to Anthony's discussion page and look at the new section i posted. --J miester25 (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The China Probrem

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Before we break 3RR

Which we might, so I'll say here why I disagree with the cites provided that we're having trouble with on The China Probrem's page and perhaps we can resolve things;

http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_12/episode_1208/

Southparkstuff is a fan site, Southparkstudios is the actual producers site for the show.

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/south-park-prem.html

A blog, no quotes from the creators of the show.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/10/south-park-whip.html

Just another blog, even if it is featured in a newspaper website. No reference to having spoken to the creators of the show.

http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/The_China_Probrem

Southpark wikia is just another wiki, its as good as citing another unreferenced wikipedia article. Copy their references by all means, but remember they're subject to the rules about verifiability.

I noticed that you had testified against me on the wikiquette page, but I appreciate that you haven't been abusive there or on other pages that we've disagreed on. Alastairward (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Stijndon, I appreciate everything you have done. I have set a final destination to this problem. Since the admins in the Wikiquette alerts won't help us, it seems we have to take matters into our own hands. I am calling for a 4 party plus admin that includes me, you, Roger (admin who will help us), Anthony, and Alastairward in the Talk Page of The China Probrem. The new discussion will be called Final Compromise and it will discuss this issue and it be regarding what Alastairward has done (we can copy paste what we posted in Wikiquette), have administrative guidance so that Alastairward will learn his lesson, and include insite from Anthony in this matter. I will be posting information from time to time, and i hope that you and the others will as well. Again, Thank you for all your time. --J miester25 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, we came to a compromise where the cultural references will be included in the article (not the talk page), only with a fact tag above it until we can (get this) Use the SP dvd commentary as a reference to remove the tag for good. Best of all it stops Alastairward from removing anything from the articles, so all we need is your testimony for the compromise and we'll have enough users to go through with it. Please visit Talk:The China Probrem and vote for this down in the Final Compromise sections mentioned above to finalize this for the best of all of us.

Anthony cargile (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Testimony", "compromise", "votes"? It's a simply editing problem that you insist on stringing out, bullying me for reasons lost to me entirely. I take it by your "get this" comment, you don't beleive in citing properly? Alastairward (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, it is rather clear that "at least" three other editors do not agree with you or your behaviour, so please at least acknowledge that it's not the case that the others are 'loco in el teto' and you are righteous. I guess that at least I myself are not loco or unreasonable, I cannot vouch for the others, but I assume good faith et cetera. But your attitude is unbendable. It is not a simple editing problem. It is a persistent I Want It That Way problem where you single-handedly and obstinately oppose multiple other editors. You keep saying we do not cite properly, even when we do. And then you say "no you don't." While we do. And this keeps dragging and dragging. Please read up on the "compromise" and cut your losses. It looks perfectly reasonable for all parties involved.

<lament> Why did I watch The China Probrem the day I did? If I just accidentally read the article while the cultural references were up, I would never have hit "page history" and gotten involved in this... </lament> Stijndon (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Stijndon, 'loco in el teto' ? Sorry, living in Northern Ireland means I've never had a pressing need to learn how to speak in Spanish. And that's a point to raise, Northern Ireland articles are considerably more contentious issues there than there are in South Park articles. I saw off several editors, determined to turn an article about my home town into some sort of sectarian mess, violating quite a few policies along the way (they did, not me of course!) So I hope you'll see that I understand what it means to edit against superior numbers or people threatening and wikihounding me, although I can see that of the three of you, you were the one who didn't engage in those last two.

Wikipedia isn't for us alone, even if it is a free encyclopedia and this is one of the more frivilous articles, we still have a responsibility to edit and provide facts, not speculation. Too many cultural references and trivia come under the umbrella of viewers who suddenly think "I know what they meant by that, I must share it!" which is cool, except that it gets in the way of objectivity. The resulting edit war and wikihounding is evidence of that.

There are no winners or losers here, just an article that is undermined by your refusal to discuss the cites provided. Look at The China Probrem talk page, right above the "Final Compromise" section, I freely laid out why I felt the cites provided were inadequate. Last time I checked, there was not one reply from you, Anthony or JMeister. Evidence that none of you are serious about doing anything but stamping wikipedia with your own opinions and speculation. Alastairward (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you blatenlty did not undo a revision, you would have noticed that none of those sites were the references. What i provided all came from SouthParkStudios, a primary source.--J miester25 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

J miester25, I didn't remove the section you created on "episode continuity"! Check the edit history, it was an anonymous user. Alastairward (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you feel like it, provide your insight on the china probrem talk page. He-who-remains-nameless did not agree with the final compromise, which was backed by all of us and two administrators, and followed what Jimbo Wale's talk page had to say on the issue. If you are as sick of fighting this as I am, don't worry about it, but if you still have a last comment in you, leave it under his section "STOP IT!!", ironically under the "Final Compromise" section (sigh). Anthony cargile (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

New edit war

I notice that a new edit war may be about to erupt over The China Probrem and Overlogging.

With regards The China Probrem, all that was agreed was that uncited material would be fact tagged on the article page. If another user, or indeed I, would like to return and remove it, we may do so after a short time has elapsed. Citations are available on other parts of the article (reception) already, we could reasonably expect them to be available for the "Cultural References" too. If not, then they have been challenged and can be reasonably expected to be removed.

As for Overlogging (and the semen/goo argument, that's a heck of an edit war!), we don't need to cite the plot. If you don't understand what's Randy's doing, I'm sure there are other articles I could refer you to, but in the mean time I'll just give friendly warning that I see the plot as straightfoward enough that no citation is needed. Alastairward (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because user Alastairward thinks it's semen, it's not necessarily so! We have to wait for Parker or Stone to confirm it, or you have to show up with independent, non-user-editable, non-fan-site references that are approved by Parker or Stone. Adding this speculation to the article can only confuse readers. Citations are available on other parts of the article already, we could reasonably expect them to be available for the "white goo" too. What do you want to gain by adding this original research? Do you want to show off to others that you "got it?" User Alastairward is not a reliable source. Stijndon (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, plots do not need citations, the proof is watching the show itself. Therefore, your actions are tantamount to vandalism. Alastairward (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So tell me how you know that you're right. Because you think you are? Did any source verify your opinion? It's just original research, and should be scrubbed as such. Stijndon (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Stijndon, referring to our previous discussion of "Cultural References" in this case is not applicable. We are discussing the actual plot, as can be seen on screen. Cites are not required for such. Alastairward (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How is WP:NOR suddenly not applicable? Again, you cannot assume that everybody 'get's it' like you do. As long as it's not confirmed, you should leave it out. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. This cannot be verified. Stijndon (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR, it's simply stating what was on screen. Cites are needed, the episode itself can be viewed and used as a source for the plot. I mean, if your logic was continued, how do we know it was "goo"?...

Deducing the thoughts of the writers cannot be, so speculation of that sort is deemed OR. Otherwise, a TV show is it's own cite. Alastairward (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You can draw any arbitrary line that you want to draw, but obviously you are concluding what you think is being shown, and presenting it to unwitting readers as fact. Those people come here to read encyclopedic stuff. Not your opinion on what you think you saw. You cannot take your own interpretation of something, and put it in an encyclopedia! Stijndon (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not abitrary, just that what's seen on screen is your cite, what is not has to be cited or is speculation. You're trying to foist your opinion on me too, the difference is that you don't seem to want to use any WP Policy as a guide. Alastairward (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So when I see "the grapes of wrath" on screen, I do not. But when you see "semen" on screen, you do? How is the one more valid than the other? I would guess you know your guidelines, so I took the liberty of only waving WP:NOR around. But you can go read any guideline you want, it'll probably apply. Stijndon (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You saw the "grapes of wrath" on screen? So Randy and family starred in the film/book? Cite that one please!? As for Over Logging, it's pretty obvious from the plot what's happened, it's rather literal that way. Alastairward (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you just said that I needed to cite something, even though I saw it in an episode that was already aired. Your words. And in the same comment, you say you do not need to cite your favourite happening, because "it's obvious?" Your words. I still have lots to learn. Stijndon (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy hell, this is quite interesting! The shoe is on the other foot for once, its almost as if someone went in and reversed the signatures between you two! Even worse is the fact that this discussion is still going on, but still very interesting to see. I'm remaining neutral, by the way, as I really don't have any time to get involved in another one of these, but still gotta stop and enjoy your typical internet flame war! Anthony cargile (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the shoes are on the same feet. Something literal, seen on screen, does not need to be cited. Assuming intent on the behalf of the writers, does. Nothing has changed here (sadly).

As an aside, I think its somewhat silly of some users to mock internet flame wars and declare they have no time to be involved, when they went to all the trouble of creating and maintaining a secret list of people that they don't like on wikipedia. Alastairward (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, secret? Its linked on my user page. Another example of incorrect drivel flowing from your keyboard. Anthony cargile (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep personal attacks out of this! Discuss content only! Glad you say that stuff seen on screen does not need to be cited. This could have saved us the entire "China Probrem" discussion, since we all saw the literal parodies on screen. Stijndon (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation. And I see now that you've moved up to vandalism of the article in question. Is there any reason you think an episode should be cited? Alastairward (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So what makes me a vandal and you a crusader? Please don't resort to name-calling. How is your info "plot" and the Grapes of Wrath imitation is not? A lot more screen time is dedicated to The Grapes of Wrath than is dedicated to ectoplasm. I thought the plot was that Randy used up all the internet, not that he was the butt of a visual joke that is not explained by a legit source. If you get to keep your OR, then it would seem fair that Grapes-OR can also stay. But if one OR has to go, than all OR should go. We all want consistency, right? Stijndon (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I stated what was seen on screen, you stated what you thought the writers had wanted to portray on screen. There is no subtle difference, it's pretty obvious. Alastairward (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How can you say what was seen on screen? The explanation given in the series by a character is that a ghost did it. Who are you to say "Ha, I know what REALLY happened!" I Got it!" Once more, User:Alastairward is not a reliable source! I can exactly use your own previous argument. I stated what was seen on screen, you stated what you thought the writers had wanted to portray on screen. Or we both stated what was seen, or we both stated what we thought we saw. It cannot be that you are right and I am wrong, or vice versa. We're either both right, or both wrong. Stijndon (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you're quite wrong again. We're not discussing the intent of the writers to reference something, we're talking about something seen quite clearly on screen.

Your edits to the article now seem to be more akin to vandalism. Your edit history certainly seems to back that up, that you're doing this to raise a laugh (careful about saving something, we can always refer back to it remember) Alastairward (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am wrong, you oppose me. I, too, can say "we're talking about something seen quite clearly on screen."

Are you threatening me about trying to keep an article consistent? You're trying to intimidate me by citing my edit history, which does not really look like I'm trying to raise laughs, or like I saved that which should not have been saved. The "we" that you are talking about can refer to anyting they want. Your edit history might look a lot like mine at the moment; you're playing "Good Cop / Not a Cop" since you are right and I am wrong. Rather annoying. You don't really discuss - you just keep stating "when I do it, it's okay." Stijndon (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to intimidate you (you did enough of that yourself in that debacle on The China Probrem's talk page) or indeed threaten you. If you wish to avoid accusations of vandalism or bad faith editing, why did you leave comments on another user's talk page (here) about how much of a laugh this is?

I've been consistent in what I've said. If you're trying to extrapolate the intent of the writers, it's not enough to simply say you think you see them on screen.

Also, it's good cop/bad cop and that requires two people on my side of the discussion to gang up on you. Alastairward (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

well, this is terribly funny, isn't it? You just tried teaching me what "Good Cop / Bad Cop" is, since I've shown not to grasp the concept by parodying it in a previous comment. That made me smile. But of course, parody is arcane and ungraspable, because it needs to be explained by the creator itself, and cannot be interpreted by a receiver. Parody looks like it's the perfect form of cryptography. Nobody will see or get it, until you yourself decide to let them in on it.

So please explain how I have intimidated anybody or anything in any previous talk page. Don't just say I did it, like you've done above. Really show it to me. Who or what did I intimidate? Tu accuses!

And you are not consistent. You say "I think they want to show Randy soaked in spunk" and you get the right to include it. I say "I think they want to show The Grapes of Wrath" and I do not get the right to include that. Stijndon (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, no you need to call it "bullying", since thats what he always calls it, being paranoid and all of that. And as far as the comment made above regarding my ultra secret list of users I dislike, its always been clearly linked to from my user page, duh! Nobody is doing anything secret to complete the alastairward conspiracy, so this nonsense about bullying and secrecy needs to stop along with the personal attacks, mainly issued via Alastairward this time. Anthony cargile (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Stijndon, your talk page stated that you're not a native speaker of English, in good faith I was trying to correct you. Sorry if I've simply stumbled over a lack of humour on your behalf.

And yes, seeing a pent up Randy on screen, mastubating over internet pornography, then calling the resultant "goo" semen is just saying what is seen on screen. Suggesting a comparison between two works of fiction is speculation unless you can cite the intent of the writers.

The intimidation is pretty easy to trace, the edit warring from the gang of three you were part of on the talk page for The China Probrem for example.

Anthony, I can refer back to plenty of personal attacks made by you against me through your edit history, please try and do the same for me, I doubt you'll come up with anything. And yes, it is a little bit funny that you would accuse others of having too much time on their hands, when most of what you seem to do on wikipedia is update a list of users you don't like with false accusations! Alastairward (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Intimidation etc

So please explain how I have intimidated anybody or anything in any previous talk page. Don't just say I did it, like you've done above. Really show it to me. Who or what did I intimidate? Tu accuses! (And I would hate to reduce your condescending momentum, but you not getting my 'parody' would imply a lack of humour on your behalf, not mine.) Stijndon (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

False accusations, too much time? Pot to kettel: "black". Anthony cargile (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I accused you of being abusive towards me, an admin admonished you for such, no false accusation there. I never accused you of having too much time on your hands, you did so to me, hence my amusement that seem you come onto wikipedia solely to rant. Alastairward (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You must have me confused with somebody else. Please explain how I have intimidated anybody or anything in any previous talk page. Don't just say I did it, like you've done above. Really show it to me. Who or what did I intimidate? Tu accuses! Maybe use links? Stijndon (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bit late to be asking isn't it? In any case, see the debacle on the talk page for The China Probrem and the Wikiquette case that was brought against me (and summarily thrown out) would suffice. You (and others from the gang of three) went to long lengths to discredit me and try to get admins to stop me from editing wikipedia. And to what end? Especially since I was the one who provided most cites for South Park articles in the end.Alastairward (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how I have intimidated anybody or anything in any previous talk page. Don't just say I did it, like you've done above. Really show it to me. Who or what did I intimidate? Tu accuses! Maybe use links and say where I intimidated something or somebody? Stijndon (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Already did, seems that you're bored or at a loose end though, so I suppose there's no point in continuing the discussion (why start it again after so long?). I'm glad though, that after that debacle on Talk:The China Probrem, you've given up your negative habits on wikipedia. It took an admin warning for Anthony to take heed, so I suppose you're one up on him in that respect. Anyway, glad to see you could join the wikipedia community properly, perhaps we'll collaborate purposefully in another article in future :) Alastairward (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how I have intimidated anybody or anything in any previous talk page. Don't just say I did it, like you've done above. Really show it to me. Who or what did I intimidate? Tu accuses! You are an adept dodger of questions. Stijndon (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted the link, if you want to go on, fair enough, it's your talk page. I'm not sure why you're dragging this up again, looking back at the article, it's plain to see that my way (the wikipedia way) prevailed. Of your gang of three, one ended up agreeing with me, another was warned by an admin for their behaviour towards me and then there's you who doesn't seem to be over it. Leave a message on my talk page if you feel I'm acting inappropriately on wikipedia, otherwise I don't see the point in continuing this. Alastairward (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how I have intimidated anybody or anything in any previous talk page. Don't just say I did it, like you've done above. Really show it to me. Who or what did I intimidate? Tu accuses! Read the question. Answer it. Tell me HOW and WHERE I have intimidated anybody. Ever. Stijndon (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, between you and me, Stijndon, he freely points out a mere admin warning I received, whereas he's been blocked two or three times for this childish shit. You should look at how he stalked me to two different admin notices about me, and all that happened was a warning (yet to be blocked) and my little "hall of shame" was deleted. I still get requests from people/IPs to help out, but honestly I'm sick of it. I get my SP news elsewhere, and because of that I've stopped donating to a project that no longer does what I (and you, and everybody except "him" and other barnstar-seekers) want it to do. Just let it go man, if he has absolutely nothing better to do then don't let it waste our time.

I accidentally got suckered into this whole mess via an edit history like you did, and stopping the bickering is by far the most mature thing to do here. I just visited this page for the first time since either late November/early December and from my perspective, nothing has really changed. We still edit articles for the best, and we get reverted just as fast each time. So I just say stop. In times past, I've alerted admins and even J Wales himself for this, but nothing is being done so lets just give up, take home our consolidation prize and actually move on with our lives, unlike some people. There are more important things in life than this :).Another-anomaly (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthony, no way, I am totally intrigued by how question-dodging a person can be, and this one just keeps going! I keep asking a question, he keeps dodging. It's just wonderful to see. I only need to repost my same question again, and he keeps thinking of stuff to say that is not actually an answer. He just called himself "The wikipedia way!" I wonder when he will answer instead of dodge. :) Stijndon (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Stijndon (and Anthony now he's replying), didn't it ever occur to you both, that if your editing "for the best" keeps getting reverted, there might be something wrong with your edits? In any case, since you were rebuffed at The China Probrem, I noticed you haev both toned down your editing style, which is good for all concerned.

I also wonder, since Anthony was so keen to bash me for editing in a way that didn't meet his approval (spending too long on what he saw as frivolous edits), why you both find yourself editing in circles (as Stijndon freely admits to above)?

In any case, my edit history is, as ever, available to view. If you feel that I'm breaching wikiquette or any wikipedia policies, please let me know. Or bring me before an Admin as you both did before. I can only assume that I will be found not guilty as before. Alastairward (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, you dodge so much, you must have +1 to AC!

Please explain how I have intimidated anybody or anything in any previous talk page. Don't just say I did it, like you've done above. Really show it to me. Who or what did I intimidate? Tu accuses! Read the question. Answer it. Tell me HOW and WHERE I have intimidated anybody. Ever. Stijndon (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's your talk page, ask again if you want. I gave you the links, others who had joined you were suitably chastised and told to stop, what else would you like me to add? Perhaps you might explain your actions on the talk page for The China Probrem and explain why it wasn't intimidation or bullying.

As I said before, why does it even matter now? Anthony was given a final warning for his behaviour, jmeister changed his mind and saw the benefit of what I was doing and you yourself just stopped. I'm not saying I won, just that common sense prevailed and wiki standards were maintained. Who doesn't benefit from that? Alastairward (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You said I intimidated you. Tell me how I intimidated you. Please explain how I have intimidated anybody or anything in any previous talk page. Don't just say I did it, like you've done above. Really show it to me. Who or what did I intimidate? Tu accuses! Read the question. Answer it. Tell me HOW and WHERE I have intimidated anybody. Ever. Give an example of how I intimidated anybody. Stijndon (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Final warning? Hardly, the "warnings" were given by non-admins on my talk page, and the fairly recent admin warnings were for being dragged to the wikiquette pages for my comments and the hall of shame (by the way, you should really have read what they said pertaining to you). Weren't you blocked several times for your edits? Oh yeah, you were. Another-anomaly (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't catch that, what did they say about me? I don't think they warned me for anything, you were the one on trial as it were (I was glad to see your so called "hall of shame" removed, how many times did I quote WP:CIVIL to you?). Alastairward (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Ward, you said I intimidated you. Tell me how I intimidated you. Please explain how I have intimidated anybody or anything in any previous talk page. Don't just say I did it, like you've done above. Really show it to me. Who or what did I intimidate? Tu accuses! Read the question. Answer it. Tell me HOW and WHERE I have intimidated anybody. Ever. Give an example of how I intimidated anybody. I don't need anything else from you on this talk page. Stijndon (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: I am not an admin

Neither am I, I'm just wondering why you were leaving that fake warning on my talk page. Also, I wasn't sure when I blamed you for something an anonymous IP did. The accusation of vandalism was made after an edit that you seemed to be making for amusement's sake. Alastairward (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, again with the "fake warning." What, pray tell, is fake about it? Come on. Go. Say it. What's fake? Where's the lack of verity? Why is it not real? Which of its characteristics distinguish it from being a real warning? I've got questions, you've got answers. Do your thing. Stijndon (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I assumed it must be fake, as it relates to nothing I have actually done! Alastairward (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It warns you against calling me a vandal again. You called me a vandal. Repeatedly. How does that not relate to anything of your doing? Stijndon (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mpiri - candidate for deletion?

Hi Stijndon. I am not sure if this is the appropriate way of contacting you. You have made my page on Mpiri candidate for deletion. I would like to enter a dialogue about this. Is this the right forum for that?

Regards
Bogi Mouritsen
08:41 CET 18. november 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.3.95.240 (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You would want to use the talk page for the appropriate page! Stijndon (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Internal wrenching nut

Hi...I noticed you added a {{confusing}} temp to the article internal wrenching nut. Please add a explanation as to why on the associated talk page or remove the template. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll have to model one up in solidworks and post it on monday when I get into work. Wizard191 (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds great :) Stijndon (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Asetta

Stephen Asetta isn't really an attack page. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It kept getting recreated with new made-up (I hope...) facts about the eponymous guy. I thought "Attack page" would be fitting. Thanks for the tip, I'll reread the description of attack page. Stijndon (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bunk buddy

Hi, please be careful using WP:CSD#G1. It only applies to pages which contain only incoherent text or gibberish. So "he is teh cool", for example, wouldn't count (although it does meet speedy). Bunk buddy wasn't purely gibberish, so shouldn't have been tagged as G1. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So how should one of these incoherent stories be labeled? I couldn't find a more appropriate tag... Stijndon (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If the story obviously isn't true, then use G3. If it's attacking someone (as Bunk buddy was) use G10. If it's so short that you can't identify the subject then use A1. If it uses chat-like-comments etc. use A3. There's a few common ones. But take a look at the CSD page for more. Thanks for your work :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I got warned above about not using G10 too lightly... But I think I just discovered how G3 and A3 probably cover pages that I used to use "nonsense" for: those that are readable, but don't mean anything. Thanks Stijndon (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I feel a bit of a prick going around telling everybody to stop using G1 ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So... what's the deal with tagging something as G1 or not? Do you guys get additional executive deletion rights against G1 stuff or something? I'm just wondering. And don't feel bad, somebody's got to enlighten the untamed masses. Stijndon (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the main thing that bothers me, is the fact that NPP often involves many newbies, so there's a high risk of biting potential editors. For example, this template may scare good faith editors away. Also, I'm a stickler for perfection ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course - it matters because of the templates you leave on the "perpetrating editor's" talk page. That makes sense. Thanks for the info. Stijndon (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Speedy Deletion Of Cosmic Nitro

Video games are notable on wikipedia and this one is NO EXEPTION. I respect your point of view and know your only trying to help but please know what is notable and what is not before you go nominating pages for deletion. As a general improvement/commpromise I shall find more reliable references and sources and try to expand the article. Thanks ISmashed TALK! 17:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please check the related talk page Stijndon (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Peptide synthesis

Good catch on that incorrect-diagram! I don't see the correct one anywhere in the commons or english-WP image collections either:( DMacks (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how does File:Poly(styrene-co-divinylbenzene).png look? DMacks (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That one looks like it might just be the truth. Stijndon (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Austria

You're right in noting that there was no official Austrian Empire before 1804, and only then was it proclaimed so; and likewise, it's a good idea to clarify it in such articles to avoid any confusion to the reader. So thanks and well done for picking that up. However, do also note that the term Austrian Empire was used before 1804, and simply wasn't officiated - just so you know, not that it should be altered on the page, because it's a safeguard against any confusion, as I mentioned earlier. Cheers. Kfodderst (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, he was 1.) an emperor, and 2). from Austria, so that also technically made him an Austrian Emperor ;) Thanks for the feedback. Stijndon (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Stijndon! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Upper Barrakka Gardens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neo-classical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Stijndon,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Stijndon. 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)

WikiProject Apple Inc.

Hello Stijndon,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleinc ^connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.

RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)