On second thought, don't read this. I was a different man back then.--WaltCip (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WaltCip, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Community Portal
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you will enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can sign your name on talk and voting pages using four tildes, (~~~~), which produces your username, the time, and the date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for the support on the Fascist category page, your statement is very true and to the point. Usually I would not be so "riled up" about such things as categories but I'm sick and tired of playing the black sheep to everyone's narrow-minded mentality. Thanks again though. Piecraft 14:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not randomly label other editors "aristocrats" - it comes across as a violation of WP:CIVIL. Accusing two good-faith editors with a long history of good contributions of sockpuppetry is most unwise and is a nasty violation of WP:AGF. If you still harbour doubts about the validity of the votes of myself and Folantin, then please take up the case at WP:RFCU. Thank you. Moreschi 14:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing. Any more behaviour like that and I will have no hesitation in posting at the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and/or lodging a WP:RFC. Thank you. Moreschi 14:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of the issue, and as you can see on the Poetry discussion, I have apologized. This is not the kind of message that I like to wake up to in the morning, thanks.--WaltCip 15:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cao Yang Middle School (2nd nomination) - why did you use a different user name to nominate the article and similarly with other schools? JoshuaZ 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've got guts to sling around sock puppet accusations like that, especially in my personal Talk page. I do NOT use a sock puppet (you can run a user check on me if you want). When I said, "I take offense to being blatantly named a sockpuppet," I did NOT say "I am a sockpuppet." I am not a sockpuppet, nor do I willingly conform to or condone the activities of a sockpuppet. Read WP:AGF carefully, and the next time you want to throw mud, look before doing so, or I'll have the admins on you in a flash.--WaltCip 21:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so the reason the article was actually nominated by User:Puerto De La Cruz is because...? JoshuaZ 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exact reason that he stated: verifiability. What's your point? --WaltCip 00:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the nomination was made by your sock. Could you explain why you choose to use a sock?JoshuaZ 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a sock one more time and I'm taking this to the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. I'm not a sock, I'm voting just like everyone else.--WaltCip 01:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is User:Puerto De La Cruz you or not? JoshuaZ 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Puerto De La Cruz is NOT me.--WaltCip 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you say this? JoshuaZ 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I felt offended by being referred to as a mere sock puppet rather than an actual person. Plus, an accusation of sock puppetry is a violation of WP:AGF - kind of like what you're borderlining right now. Furthermore, I was citing the reason the article was to be deleted - WP:V.--WaltCip 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what makes you think he was referring to you? He was reffering to the nominator being a sock. That should be obvious from the context. JoshuaZ 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, it's my mistake. But the deletion was legitimate, and saying "this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations" seemed to, I thought, refer to everyone who voted Delete.--WaltCip 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't accusing anyone of being a sockpuppet, merely that I found it interesting they were automatically voting on nom's AfDs. I also took heat from that, so WP:AGF for me too :) -- See (1) (2) --JStalk 05:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the difference between "no consensus" and "keep" is pretty much semantics, because the result in both cases is exactly the same. Consensus doesn't mean "the debate is unfinished", it means there's no real agreement but people should agree to disagree since the nomination is now closed.

The reason I listed this as "no consensus" is because I considered the four "sandbox" nominations together; the argumentation for and against deletion of all four of them is pretty much the same, and several of the commenters are also the same. The four as a whole don't show anything much of a consensus, hence I closed all four in the same way. But since this is mostly semantics I wouldn't mind changing it to 'keep' if that makes you happy. (Radiant) 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found this on the AFD for the Half Life 1 mods.

"The result was delete, despite sockpuppetry. Not one valid 'keep' vote. Proto::type 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)"

Founded on what? Did you user check every person who supported the keep for the nom? My keep vote was valid and not based on sockpuppetry. A mass majority of keeps was collected, and yet, you found it fit to declare that the debate, out of process, was a successful deletion. What do you intend? This, I believe, is a violation of WP:ASG and Wikipedia deletion policy. Rethink your actions seriously. In the meantime I'm putting the AfD up for review.--WaltCip 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the keeps were not valid. I didn't mean to imply this was because they were all from sockpuppets. They were just not based on policy, or even guidelines, just variations on the theme of 'I like this, it is useful'. Please, do take your query to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Proto::type 09:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for wasting your time by creating the nonsense category Wikipedians who stop the cars and wave in the children. Please accept this peace dove.

Wdflake

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Xiner 17:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WaltCip, I've answered you on my talkpage. Having a quick look through your contribs, I'm struggling to see any mainspace work. Maybe that's why my comment upset you so. Check out this page. There are tons of suggestions and links on it. Maybe you'll find a way that you can be more constructive. Happy holidays. Grace Note 02:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Walt, I don't believe we've met before. In any case, I'd like to thank you for complimenting my vote in the Esperanza MFD. It's great when another friendly voice like yourself shines through such an emotionally charged situation. Many thanks again, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WaltCip, I have adjusted your userboxes to show up, as their name changed after the userbox migration. Have a nice day! bibliomaniac15 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on the talk page for Word Association. If you are interested, I have revived the Word disassociation game. There is a link on the regular WA page. Squad51 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the deletion review on Esperanza should be speedy closed. I see a need in the project, and you are right about its old counterparts becoming seperate projects; but I want to make it into a more encyclopedia encourging project; plus many of esperanza's old projects were deleted. Which I too want back. I think people should show pride for wikipedia. Eaomatrix 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing on the Super Mario Bros Z AFD, you've put your signature after the spa tag. This seems to obfuscate things a touch, and makes the post look like yours. I'm not sure it's necessary to sign those. Just sayin'. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although we have different views on the suicide DRV, but I think a smile would prevent the differing opinions to escalate to personal level :-) When the heated debate subsides, everything would return to normal. I've tried to reach a compromise in the suicide controversy, by creating User:Wooyi/sdissues, you can go take a look and see it's acceptable. I've contacted Cyde Weys but he has not responded to the compromise yet. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all WAltCIp who would waste there time just being on wikipedia to discuse if categories should be deleted or stay respectivly. That is a waste of time. Next I did read your thing fisrt up top. Finaly agian it is a waste of time. No offense. Hope I did not hurt your feelings just hoped a little advice may help.Hpsander456 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To quote Johnny Five, "Input!"--WaltCip 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this.   — The Storm Surfer 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "While highly populated, it serves no ultimate purpose."

• Are you referring to the category, or the galaxy? — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 20:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It depends on whether or not you read Douglas Adams novels. :) --WaltCip 23:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: user has read READ ME FIRST! as requested

Per Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, a discussion has been opened as to the discussion in Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_survived_cancer. Per the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts guidelines, the process is straightforward and it is suggested all parties follow through as directed on that page. Respectfully, Mikebar 07:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. Yeah, I gave him some advice on deletionism as soon as I noticed that was up for MfD. I doubt he'll withdraw it, but nonetheless this shouldn't be a problem anymore. Anyway, I do appreciate your understanding on this matter. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 15:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Hopefully I'll be able to bring his war on the existence of personal userboxen and the userbox migration itself to a peaceful end, and teach him the joys of newpage patrol ;). Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on the "overhaul" that you're talking about. I've been attempting to take this at a slow pace. Would you be willing to at least post-pone your nomination for about a month? I would appreciate it. - jc37 16:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (Though you could have just removed the nom from the page rather than just closed it, if you wished, I suppose it doesn't matter either way.) - jc37 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem prudent to close the nomination as withdrawn, rather than deny its existence, even though the UCFD lasted for only an hour. People need to be made aware that there are problems with the user category system. Call it an exercise of process, if you will.--WaltCip 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever you prefer. As an option, you could move the nom to the talk page to start a discussion about your concerns as well.

As for what I'm doing, I've tried to take it slowly, since I know that for some, identification can be a personal thing (as we've seen lately with a few of the nominations), and I would like to have this process be as little disruptive as possible. - jc37 17:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that a better venue be found for discussing the problem of user categories? UCFD doesn't seem to get a lot of traffic. It would seem a little more sensible to bring it up on the village pump to get some more generalized discussion moving. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: this message is being sent out to all involved parties. Dear Friend, the Wikipedia Users’ Alliance has been deleted. I am sure that perhaps you already knew this. I myself just found out. Anyhow during the debate many mean and rude things where said. I am not innocent myself; I too contributed to the unpleasantness. But now Wikipedia Users’ Alliance is dead, gone forever. But we all must move on, for me and my friends, we have to deal with this loss. However it is important that all of us work together to fight vandalism and not argue with one another. There are many things that I want to say, but I know that they would only add to the mean sprit that fills the “air”. As a Buddhist (Risshō Kōsei Kai) I was reading the Holy Dhammapada yesterday. I came across this line, “Holding onto anger is like holding on to a hot coal with the intent to throw it at someone, in the end you are the one who gets burned,” how true! Lets us progress forward. WUA Founder User: King of Nepal has expressed similar views such as these to me via e-mail. His majesty said, “We have to move on, move forward. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia and us all.” I agree and hope that you do to. Thanks. --Greenwood1010 13:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Co-founder of the WUA. If you feel that you recived this message in error please let me know. Feel free to responed on my page if you wish.[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1). As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki. I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me. Gratefully, EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent message on this talk page was not appropriate. No user at Wikipedia is required to be a liberal- or to adopt any particular political point of view. Please, refrain from giving advice in situations where you are not familiar with the relevant policies; incorrect information can confuse and upset other users. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I beg to differ; a majority of the users are.--WaltCip (talk)

I'm not sure that I'd agree with that; I've never seen a study of the question, and so many Wikipedians come from other countries with different kinds of political divides, that it would be a touch study to conduct. In any case, there is no policy saying that conservatives are not permitted to edit, and many conservatives do edit Wikipedia usefully, so you were incorrect to tell another user that he was required to change his politics to edit. If you would like to create a policy that forbids anyone but liberals to edit, you should get community consensus for that policy before you start trying to enforce it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great success! Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before getting involved with Betacommand and the large flamewar around him I think you ought to read about his arbitration case and consider that many of those personal attacks, while certainly innapropriate, may well be responses to recieved insults or worse. I got my foot caught in that mess just by pointing out calling people "dumbasses" is innapropriate and promptly got a nice intimidating threat posted on my talk page. Personally I'd stay out of it alltogether before you get caught up in it like I did. Superslash (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do I find it odd, then, if that man is such a troll as you say he is, I haven't been personally attacked by him yet? If anything, I've been personally attacked by the people who get angry at him.--WaltCip (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were to guess I'd say it's because you've shown support for him which gets you on his good side and the bad side of the people that oppose him. As far as me saying he is a troll, I don't say it, I just link to the records of his behavior. Superslash (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's located on a subpage at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents/Great Cabal Debate. My reasoning behind the deletions was not simply a healthy dose of IAR, but I felt that simply deleting them would be better than going through a long, messy discussion/MFD/DRV/MFD again, etc. That would have been a worse time sink than the cabals themselves. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting Keep in my MfD poll. With your help, the debate ended with "no consensus" (although a large majority voted to "keep"). --GHcool (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's true the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not a Wikipedia policy, but I still feel that your freedom to speech is a very reasonable reward for your service. A pity they closed it as "no consensus," it would've been nice to have a hard-fast consensus on this type of issue.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, there's a proposed replacement. wadester16 20:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, where do I go to complain about the constant bias towards Star Wars shown by Wikipedia? Also the new skin sucks - can I whinge to you about that, too? ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 20:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect (2nd nomination). A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment to me here, I understand your point of view on this, and yes, I'll agree ,WP:Not Censored explicity mentions articles, so no doubt, it applies to articles. Perhaps you and I are reading it a bit differently. I see it as applying to the whole of Wikipedia, articles, pages, whatever. I also realize WP:NotCensored doesn't mean anything goes.

I also see your point on WP:Polemic, it looks like it applies mainly to editors (but not exclusively). I don't see it failing polemic because it's not actually his opnion, but a posting of an event that happened. You follow ? KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 18:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread my comment, plus its context, and still feel exactly the same way. In the context of the thread I had begun, that really was a stupid post from User:Mamyles. It added nothing to the thread and, in fact, was only likely to derail it. The fact that he made that post made the point I was trying to make even more important. I won't back off from pointing out how idiotic and destructive such posts are to Wikipedia.

I note that you criticised my response, but made no comment at all to the person who made the stupid post to which I responded. It suggests that you're more interested in keeping things nice than in actually making things better. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking of moving to another country. Maybe you need to learn a little about the culture of other countries. The way I see it, you're not donating anything. You're selling it. In Australia, we don't expect money for contributing to the health of other other members of society, and nobody gets it. We also use the term "bastard" in very different ways from the rest of the world. You are the one planning to move. You're the one that needs to learn the language and customs of other countries. Go and find out how "bastard" is used in Australia.

I'm sorry, but your attitude is on collision course with my culture. Maybe not your fault. Maybe it's just YOUR culture that's the problem, but if you're planning to move, you need to learn about it. HiLo48 (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take further action now. I only know of a couple possible instances. However, I will consider supporting an RfC if there are further problematic comments. Superm401 - Talk 21:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on the Talk:European_Union_sanctions_against_Iran page, if you wish! Your merge suggestion is sound, in my opinion. :D ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's been userfied at User:WWB/Forward (publications). Neutrality^talk 15:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was reading through some past discussions, and had a "where are they now" moment. So stopped by to say hi : ) - jc37 21:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your most wise comment at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Alternatives_for_April_Fools. Have a great day, — Cirt (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is wrong with the article? There was an objection that the game summary wasn't filled out. It has been filled out, and there are no active content disputes. A couple ITN regulars seem to want to lord their power, rather than be open to greater participation. I hate when this dynamic develops on Wikipedia, and hope that you will see the damage it can cause. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you help to add news with this source or with the other sources. [1]--Many baks (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for seeing sense in all of this --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You dont need to inform me of your intention to report me to your admin. By all means, if you feel you have a case then do so. Whats offensive is you sending me orders and threats, on my homepage.

Do what you will, but know that we are not friends and I do not court or welcome private correspondence.

I dont see you anywhere when people are choosing to be rude to me, and you seem to be getting aggravated by arguments made in a debate, that carry no personal grievance. So by all means, make your case to admin, and not to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started an ANI about the IP77 user from ITN. Please feel free to contribute to the ANI discussion. Andise1 (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the very clear instructions, the place to query the logic behind a particular closure like the declaration there was "no consensus" to put Adams on the front page, is that talk page. Rather than tendentious, it's the advice given to people like me, who think that something went very very wrong. What would be classed as tendentious, according to an right minded person anyway, would be to pretend those concerns can simply be ignored, and swept under the carpet, just because, for whatever reason, you find it too uncomfortable to actually respond to the queries. So in conclusion, be very careful how you deal with these sorts of things, because as I've just outlined to 331dot, your actions are going to have consequences for the future reputation of this site. At least amongst the people I can influence anyway. Lokie Dokie (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from commenting on my talk page about this matter. The matter was over and done with long ago. --WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rude and mean-spirited. Sca (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how, I was not commenting on the contributor, but if my observation regarding the sensationalist blurb offends you, then I apologize.--WaltCip (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...one of the worst blurbs I've ever read. – You don't see how? Sca (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No.--WaltCip (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Water under the bridge. Sca (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so.--WaltCip (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you'd feel that admin closure would be nice, but do you really think consensus to post is a possible outcome of that discussion? GoldenRing (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contentious recurring issue that needs an admin to give a final say-so once and for all, otherwise we'll just keep retreading the same ground year after year, as we always do when it comes to college sports. Someone else brought up the point that the NCAA basketball finals were posted recently, so there is precedence for consensus to be made.--WaltCip (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a precedent, but I can't see that particular discussion going anywhere good. Every year an admin gives a "final say-so" and it never helps. But I'm not going to fight to close it. I hoped that closing it would calm things down, but since it hasn't I'm very happy for it to be someone else's problem. GoldenRing (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally with you -- sorry you got jumped on for starting a most needed discussion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strict gun laws did not protect the people of Nice from being killed in large numbers, they did not protect the people of Charlie Hebdo, they did not protect the people at the Bataclan Theatre, and they didn't protect the police officers killed by machete in France. And about my point made at ITN/C, I very well knew that a truck was used in the attack (though technically he had a gun too), my point was also trying to state that even if you entirely ban something that can harm a person, hate doesn't stop there, it just finds another object to carry out attacks with. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 06:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be shocked to know that almost any adult non-felon citizen of Louisiana can carry a loaded semi-auto model of our current Army's "machine gun" in plain sight. (or any other gun that only fires as fast as you can pull the trigger). People will get scared and call the police to question you, if you're black you might lose your life but state law allows it. This is not the only state where you can carry a gun on your hip like a cowboy (or even in your hand if no one felt threatened or bothered).

There's even businesses where anyone can pay to shoot machine guns. One in Las Vegas has 400 machine guns like AK-47(s) ($45), M2(s) (a heavy duty machine gun that can use 5 pounds of huge cartridges per second) and a machine gun with 6 barrels that can shoot 100 bullets per second ($199.99). [http://ktar.com/story/1169401/arizona-congressmans-bill-would-stop-children-shooting-machine-guns/ Another place let(s) 8 year olds shoot machine guns. One of their instructors died when a 9 year old girl couldn't stop her machine gun from rising till she shot him in the head. They also hire a Santa Claus so kids can get their picture taken while holding machine guns. In another state an 8 year old died cause he couldn't stop his machine gun from rising till he shot himself in the head. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

calculating a net benefit

Thank you for discussing, for more than ten years: articles for deletion, the Main page, especially ITN, the department of fun, thanks also for supporting content creation, - advanced mathematician, calculating a net benefit, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1465 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention that the Angelina Jolie article gets in excess of 16,000 words! Sca (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca:: Really no reason why this shouldn't have gone through the full rigors of an ITN nomination. Their articles are in great condition. Tish tish.--WaltCip (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no longer on the main page, which means the comments on the errors page are going to be blanked soon. So please excuse me for bringing the discussion here. As the author and DYK nominator of the article, I would like to note that I proposed the blurb which made it to the main page only after being told my first two were too boring; see Template:Did you know nominations/Akigin Stadium. Pinging the other editors that commented, Floquenbeam and The Rambling Man. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WaltCip. 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)[reply]

On 26 November 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Fidel Castro, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dabbling too. I'm using what MediaWiki uses: regular JavaScript, and JQuery.

My current JavaScript project is a script that hides/shows list item annotations. It's called User:The Transhumanist/anno.js.

A good page to test the script on is Outline of chess.

Do you know anything about positioning the viewport? A unwanted side effect of the program is to shift the viewport relative to what the user was looking at. I need a way to reset the viewport to the place in the article it was set before each time the toggle is used.

Another thing I'm working on is the Draft:Outline of JavaScript, which is intended to become a comprehensive outline of the subject, and double as a table of contents of Wikipedia's coverage of it.

It is far from complete. If you can think of anything that is missing, please add it in, or tell me about it.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 06:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I need to track down everything' about JavaScript that pertains to viewport control. -TT

Some specific questions...

1. What are the problems (if any) with the script User:The Transhumanist/anno.js?
2. How do you determine the current viewport location with respect to a regex match?
3. How do you set the viewport location relative to a regex match?
4. Are you familiar with JQuery?

I look forward to your answers. The Transhumanist 00:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Want to die for that nugget? Sca (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Reminds me of this. What is it about fried morsels of all white meat chicken that drives people to such extremes, Sca?--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long ago I concluded an ABM Treaty with my stomach. (Anything But McDonald's.) Sca (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 April 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aaron Hernandez, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic_behavior_by_User:Medeis_at_the_reference_desk μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given recent IP comments at the bottom of my talk page, for example the one by IP 24, who is an obvious sock, and this most recent provocation by IP 2600, would you please indefinitely semi-protect my talk page? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fuck? I'm not an admin.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, explained at the ANI, my mistake in reading edit history. μηδείς (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dito

@81.204.120.137: - I see you were too cowardly to sign your asinine comment. Go kindly fuck off.--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you want to have healthy fats, like from avocado, for breakfast. Consult your nutritionist and/or doctor for a specific dietary plan. StuRat (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]