User talk:Neon white

Archives

Dec 2006 - April 2008 May 2008 - July 2008 July 2008 - November 2008

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive "Subject/headline" for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

I'm a little confused about Flyer22 being reported here [1]. I'm not that familiar with Wikiquette so I'm not sure what exactly it is she did wrong here [2]. Are we not allowed to reply to other editor's comments and "votes" during this process? Thanks! Rocksey (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some was a little off topic but ultimately there are no limitations about much you can write in an afd, though i think summarizing can be beneficial. --neon white talk 23:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just to be clear, Flyer22 didn't do anything wrong besides go off topic? She isn't "guilty" of proof by assertion? Rocksey (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to believe I remained on-topic, except for in the beginning when I went on my little rant about that article being created by an inexperienced Wikipedian editor who does not have a good grasp on most or even several of Wikipedia's policies yet and who knew I was already going to create that article. But oh well. I did not do anything so wrong that it needed reporting, which Neon white has made clear. Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the small comment "I point out that Paul75 feels this way about all fictional couple or supercouple articles." that was about another editor and not about the subject. Try to stay away from such comments, they have no bearing on the result so are pointless. Afds, like the rest of wikipedia are decided by a clear consensus based on policies. I'm not saying Flyer22 was doing this but if an editor does merely state an opinion over and over again without backing it up with policy, it isn't going to carry much weight when the afd is closed. The closer is going to look for points based on policy. As far as i can see there is no etiquette rule that says this is wrong, it's just ineffective. --neon white talk 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I "hear" you. I was backing up my statements with policy -- its WP:Notability policy, a policy I saw Paul75 clearly overlooking due to his bias in regards to these types of articles. It's clear that even after it was fixed up, he was not willing to change his stance. I simply do not understand editors like that and do not feel that they are what is best for Wikipedia. If I see an ulterior motive in a deletion debate, yes, I do point it out.

That said, I do get your point. And thanks for the advice. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith with other editors. --neon white talk 01:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 if you continue to make personal attacks on me, accusing me of bias and implying I deliberately set about to destroy your articles, I will take this matter further. Disagreeing with your opinion does NOT mean I am biased. If that was the case I would have clashed with you with over every single soap opera article you have ever been in involved in. As memory serves me correct, we have only ever clashed over two articles Supercouples and List of supercouples. You know the rules of Wikipedia - assume good faith, please stop these persistent attacks on me, and please, as I know you will, do not counter with a response that I persistently attack you. Stop seeing criticism or suggestions on some soap related articles as some kind of unspeakable crime. Paul75 (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been warned about assuming good faith. --neon white talk 13:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, saying "if you continue to make personal attacks on me, accusing me of bias and implying I deliberately set about to destroy your articles, I will take this matter further" is a threat. Do not threaten me.

That said, I cannot help it that I feel you are biased when it comes to these articles. Yes, we clashed on the Supercouple and List of fictional supercouples articles, and I know what you said during those clashes. I also know that the deletion of an article here at Wikipedia should not be about opinion; it should be about whether the article has merit to stand on its own. The Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article clearly did/does and yet you still "voted" Delete. In fact, you did not change your Delete "vote" even after the article was fixed up by Rocksey. I mean, what am I supposed to think of your involvement in that deletion debate? Even the editor who nominated that article for deletion saw that he was wrong after it provided notability and was fixed up by Rocksey. I later fixed it up even more after that. Saying "disagreeing with your opinion does NOT mean I am biased. If that was the case I would have clashed with you with over every single soap opera article you have ever been in involved in." also does not make me think that differently about you on this matter. I mean, we would have likely agreed on a lot regarding the soap opera articles I have been involved in here, considering that most of these soap opera articles are a mess. It is not like I have fixed up every soap opera article I have ever been involved in here.

I do not see criticism or suggestions on some soap opera-related articles as some kind of unspeakable crime. You remember, don't you, that I was open to the changes you wanted to make to the List of fictional supercouples article? It was one of the two fellow editors maintaining that article with me that acted like you were doing an unspeakable crime. In fact, I thank you for stumbling across that article and doing what you did to help it, even the way you started out there by nominating it for deletion when it was simply List of supercouples. I even later thanked you and AniMate then.

I do apologize, Paul, for making you feel like public enemy #1. I do not want to continue to have you as an enemy here, and I sometimes like your strict attitude regarding some of these articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could spare the time, could you rejoin the discussion over at Talk:Interactive fiction#Third_Opinion? The discussion has continued. I would be interested in hearing your further thoughts, and Thibbs has asked as well. — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to get the band Rites of Spring placed in the right location. I tried that before, only to be shouted down by some other editors and I gave up. Here's the thing: people keep messing with it. One guy went on a rampage after his speedy delete was rejected ([3]) and people keep moving it around and creating redirects. Today, I spent 2 hours fixing a bunch of broken redirects. Can you see about getting the page location locked by an administrator? I have no idea and you seem knowledgeable and helpful.--Emotional Wiki Dude (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it was correct before. According to the guidelines, disambiguation is only for where articles would have the same title not for similar titles and only for where there are more than 2 articles or where there is no obvious primary topic. In this case the titles are not the same so disambiguation is not essential, although it is conceivable that for someone to search 'rites of spring' when wanting 'the rite of spring' by mistake and that's why the link exists on the band article and i believe is sufficient. I cannot think of any reason how someone would find it confusing. --neon white talk 21:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you will pardon the pun - WOW. Removing references because they need improving seems a bit excessive. Am I missing something? cygnis insignis 10:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can easily be put back once they are verifiable. --neon white talk 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote on your User page... are you aware that Albert Einstein was referring to you when he stated that? 204.112.216.94 (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He had been dead 35 years before i was born. --neon white talk 03:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==

==

ahm?! how did u upload a picture on this website??? can u tell me how..??? please........ and one more question.. is this website don't have that lots of images?? like 5ive girls the movie.. they don't give any images..T.T and lyrics of songs...i didn't find any song lyrics of paramore..

oh well, i guess i'll just used yahoo for me 2 do my research for school projects! .. my dad give me this website last night.. and its so mean! because this is the only website i have in my internet.. i was thinking this site is good to do research since its named is wikipedia.. but sad to know.. they give only a little information.. and so.. i only have few information about my research..T.T waaaaaaaaaaa??!?!?!?! --Vanessa2403 (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Vanessa2403 November 29,2008[reply]

pray WP:DTTR. --dab (𒁳) 19:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern but it is rejected (see WP:DoTTR), a warning about edit warring is necessary and i advise you follow the advise. --neon white talk 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "concerned". I was asking you that, if you feel compelled to drop me a warning or advise, well, then you drop me a warning or advise. You have done that now, so thanks for your concern. If you feel your expertise can be put to use on the Sanskrit article, I'll be happy to hear your input, at Talk:Sanskrit. Your dropping me a uw-3rr doesn't really show that you are aware of anything that is going on. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone viewing the articles history can see edit warring going on. I cannot claim any expertise on the subject but clearly edit warring is not the answer. --neon white talk 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time I've caught you making unhelpful commentary on the Wikiquette alert pages, and it seems I am not the only experienced user who shares that concern.

Wikiquette alerts is a stage in dispute resolution and while incivility is the core, it does divulge on conduct issues - it's not a mere matter of throwing accusations around when diffs have been provided. Parties generally come to the page due to conduct or content issues with another editor. If these issues are not resolved at this stage, it moves up the cycle to another stage. It appears you fail to understand how this process works, and lack the understanding on how to apply relevant policies, guidelines and norms. While the community values all the input in trying to resolve disputes, repeatedly providing incorrect or unhelpful commentary simply disrupts the dispute resolution process in general.

If I see more of this sort of unhelpful commentary, I intend on pursuing dispute resolution so as to have a consensus to admonish you for the largely unhelpful nature of your edits and comments. If the problem continues beyond that point, and the admonishment does not have a sufficient effect on you, I will request a ban so that you are prevented from making edits relating to complaints made on the Wikiquette alert pages. I hope that such a measure will not become necessary. If you intend on regularly commenting on complaints at WQA, please take greater care to ensure you are up to date with the norms of the relevant page and seek clarification where needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this attack to the alert as more evidence of incivility. --neon white talk 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than one user has found your commentary to be simply unhelpful, and if you are going to tendentiously insist that you are right when you are not, then this is likely to move towards a binding form of dispute resolution. I have told you once; I'm not going to tell you again after this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All editors involved with Wikiquette alerts give their opinion on a voluntary basis and it is perfectly ok to disagree with it, however attacking editors giving a third opinion simply because you disagree with it is utterly innapropriate behaviour. If you disagree with the opinion given you are welcome to respond to it in a civil manner on the wikiquette page. Responding is such a poor manner is not helping your case at all. I will not tolerate any further personal attacks or baseless accusations on this page. As has already been pointed out wikiquette alerts is about civility not article content. --neon white talk 04:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Ncmvocalist is quite right. You need to consider at some greater length the nature of the comments you are posting WP:WQA. They are too often unhelpful and counter-productive. I urge you to be more circumspect. Eusebeus (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, whilst i respect both your opinions, i completely disagree. I stand by all the comments made. I can only find this particular case where an editor has react badly (unecessarily in my opinion). Of course some editors may react badly to comments made about them, i think this is sometimes unavoidable. We must remember that WQA is to hewlp editors improve, some seem to feel it exists simply to condemn other editors and tag them as 'bad apples'. This is not the way to improve matters. Please also note that comments on the page only carry as much weight as people allow them to. If you have any particular examples i would be happy to address any issues with them in the same way i would have done had Ncmvocalist requested it. I am disappointed that you have chosen not to maintain neutrality on this matter. --neon white talk 06:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]