User talk:Deterence

Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury[edit]

I have removed the prod notice as the article is not eligible for this procedure. Only articles which have not previously been prodded or nominated for deletion are eligible. You are welcome to nominate it for a second AfD.-gadfium 04:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel ya[edit]

On that AfD discussion for "Put Your Hands Up". It'll get deleted I'm sure of it, but that won't stop me putting my point across. :) Paul237 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having now looked at the editorial history of his soapbox page, I think I understand his zeal for deleting that article - he's protecting his page. I have to say, I had been confused about why he was so bloody determined about this issue. Deterence ^Talk 00:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I see the page has gone now and you just get redirected to the Aphrodite album page. Despite the fact the article was fully sourced and the single is shortly due to be released. Part of the reason I visit Wikipedia is to find out about single release dates and information. I'm sure people didn't used to get so het up with all this "if it hasn't charted, it doesn't warrant a page" nonsense. If it's been officially announced and the article is well referenced, what's the problem? It seems to go against what an encyclopedia is all about. Paul237 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You're one of the few sane editors here who "gets it". Paul237 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at ITN[edit]

Hey, Deterence. IMO, you're generally a constructive and insightful participant at ITN/C. However, (and I say this with respect) it's usually a pretty peaceful place, and criticizing the way other editors vote, using words like "flippant", that kind of stuff is never going to be constructive and it pretty much just results in unnecessary arguing. Don't get me wrong, arguing different points is part of ITN/C, but just try to focus on the matters at hand and avoid criticizing other editors entirely, solely because it's never constructive. Thanks, Swarm ^{u | t} 01:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dang[edit]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For an insightful statement at ITN The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously going to be quoting this for the next few weeks. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Deterence ^Talk 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deterence. TBH, I'm surprised that ResidentAnthropologist, as an experienced user, would encourage that kind of behavior. I probably wouldn't have said anything otherwise, but I fear he's sending the wrong message. Your comment was sort of an unproductive and inappropriate tirade, and per WP:NOTOPINION, such comments are not allowed on Wikipedia. Regardless of the merits of your particular viewpoint, we simply can't (and don't) tolerate opinion pieces like that. This is especially important to remember at ITN, where plenty of polarizing, controversial, and political issues are discussed and it may be tempting to leave your own commentary. Some users have been blocked, or even banned from ITN because of this (I don't mean that as a threat or warning, but it's important to realize). Please keep this in mind in the future. Thank you, and regards, Swarm ^{u / t} 18:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astrologers[edit]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For correcting yourself with a grin. jorgenev 02:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Swarm 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To build off of this topic: would you mind keeping off the soapbox while you're on Wikipedia? While your opinion is definitely valid, insightful, and I agree with a lot of your points, ITN/C is not a place for personal opinion. We discuss whether or not criteria are met for a subject's notability on the front page news section - we don't tell everyone our personal feelings on a matter. Again, it's not a bad thing to do, it's just not the right place.

Now, if you continue, then we'll have to start looking at long-term preventative measures. If I were you, I'd consider this a good place to get off the train while things are still relatively quiet. Cheers, m.o.p 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, m.o.p :-) Deterence ^Talk 21:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you continue. -- tariqabjotu 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tariqabjotu , you need to relax. I have said nothing wrong since m.o.p's friendly warning. I have exchanged constructive commentary in an attempt to build consensus with my fellow editors and my comments are certainly no worse that those of numerous other editors on that page. I'm not going sit in the corner like a limp moron just to please you. Deterence ^Talk 00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that is borderline, but I'm inclined to agree with Deterence - nobody on ITN/C can truthfully call themselves unbiased (in my opinion), and, from time to time, feelings can flare. As long as Deterence isn't going around trying to spark those feelings intentionally, or jumping at every point of contention, I think the occasional (short, condensed) conversation about something like protesters getting arrested is OK. As long as we're not sidelining discussion and introducing irrelevant facets, we'll be ok. m.o.p 01:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused then. If you don't consider this soapboxing, then what was the original comment(s) that caused you to write your notice above? At least his NYPD retards remark was in the course of a support; here, the comment is just for the sake of political debate. -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's flight asked Deterence a question in response to one of Deterence's earlier posts - Deterence replied. Like I said above, this is bound to happen once in a while, and not just with one particular editor. As for what caused me to write the notice, there were some earlier edits by Deterence that were far more expository and, sometimes, inflammatory. That's the kind of stuff we don't want to see. The occasional statement of opinion as an answer to a question isn't bad. m.o.p 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the comment you left on Jonathan Cohler on ANI - given recent discussion (namely, the stuff above), I'd tread lightly if I were you. There are a lot of eyes on the administrative noticeboards, and comments like this have the potential to stir the flames in a way you don't want. Take this on good faith, if you please. m.o.p 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I trust your judgement. Deterence ^Talk 12:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's appreciated. See you around, m.o.p 12:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2011[edit]

I was grateful for your comment on the issues raised on the above talk page. I have had a lot of grief over trying to include some of the reported social events in the house and hope to get more support to get some acknowledgment that the show is a social exercise as much as a gameshow.86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. To be perfectly blunt, I cannot understand why some editors are objecting so strongly to the inclusion of the most notable social events in Big Brother. The whole point of Big Brother is our somewhat voyeuristic examination of the social developments in that program - showmances, fights/arguments, moral/social issues that arise. Why they want to treat the program like a scripted game-show is beyond me. Deterence ^Talk 22:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful for the points you have raised. I have grown tired of the unpleasantness surrounding attempts to update this article but maintain that BB is 90% social 10% gameshow in content, though, of course, ultimately a gameshow with a prize. I shall leave it others to judge which "social" elements to consider including. Much of this has been lewd in tone this year and focused on male body parts, but that's the nature of the show, it's what the housemates have talked about and done, not what others wish it to be (i.e. a cosy task show). Big Brother if often raw and rude but that's the nature of the show, relationships, rows, alliances are all part of the "content", the tasks are mainly there to break the boredom. Keep up the good work.86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

You're quite right to say I shouln't really have cited Hanlon's Razor at you - actually, you should apply it to my citation thereof if you'd be so kind, since the version in my mind is generally "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained as a cockup". I still disagree with you on the point in question, but it was never my intention to call you stupid. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard[edit]

I have opened a request for dispute resolution.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Big_Brother_2011_.28UK.29.2C_List_of_Big_Brother_2011_housemates_.28UK.29

Regards

Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure the above that their allegation raised on the DR NB is totally false. I have posted a couple of talk page messages to this editor who shares some similar views on BB12, no worse than what the above has done posting to other posters and raising dispute resolutions over minor edits they objected to. Posters can post to whomsoever they like, just as the above does all the time.86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy at ITN/C[edit]

Hi,

I appreciate your energy, your passion and your effort. I've been there. I fought many a fight at the Israeli/Palestinian front before I burned out and walked away. I can tell you from bitter experience that sarcasm doesn't win here. Comments like "tear you a new one" will result in long rambling discussions that divert attention away from your topic. The best way to combat absurd remarks is to demonstrate that they're absurd, not to call them absurd (which would not be WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. I'm rather disgusted with WP right now, because of the slavish devotion to Steve Jobs and "JoePa". Best of luck to you Sir. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than a little disgusted with Wikipedia these days myself - the "JoePa" sham was basically the last straw. Ironically, I disagree with the vast majority of the Occupy agenda, but I find the mind-numbing wall of political-agenda-driven opposition to posting anything about it to be significantly more disgusting. But, your point is well taken. Deterence ^Talk 03:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

You've thoroughly exhausted my patience, Deterence. Responding to your juvenile insults is tiring enough. You just had to make me waste twenty minutes of my life filing a report to keep you away. Please spend some time reflecting on what you're doing and whether it's worth it. Have a good day. Jim Sukwutput 07:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it worth it, kid? Jim Sukwutput 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please chill![edit]

Have a read through this, take on board as much as you can. You don;t want to end up with escalating blocks, topic-bans, and bans. That's not why you're here, I'm sure. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuous attacks on others. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to this ANI discussion, I've just increased your block duration to indefinite. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll appeal it! He's lovely. Paul237 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theory-dependence of observations[edit]

BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results. Jim Sukwutput 04:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]