User talk:Son of a Peach/Archive001

Flame's talk page (user | email | contribs | index) Leave a new message

~Archiv es~
Current talk
001 002 003
004 005 006

Hello. Welcome to Flameviper's talk page. This is a place where you can leave messages for me. I will read them and reply, either here or at your talk page. Please do not troll, flame, or do anything else to piss me off. Thank you. ~ Flame vip e r

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Son of a Peach, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using three tildes (~~~), or four (~~~~) if you want date stamp as well; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. And your username is too similar the insult 'son of a bitch.' You might want to consider changing it here. Myrtone:-(

InShaneee[edit]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --InShaneee 20:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --InShaneee 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now been blocked for 24 hours for trolling. --InShaneee 21:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling, eh? Aw crap. Son of a Peach 07:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: Please stop trolling or you will be blocked again. --InShaneee 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect didn't go anywhere, and cross-namespace redirects are prohibited, anyway. Now, if you can't stop being incivil, you will be blocked again.--InShaneee 18:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're going to have to learn to deal with it, because disrespect is not tolerated here. --InShaneee 18:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:BlueHell1.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:BlueHell1.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That shift...[edit]

You know, I've done that quite a few times myself...why didn't I think of that before? Thanks for a nifty solution. --HappyCamper 18:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just curious...[edit]

Was your username, by any chance, inspired by this Flash animation on Newgrounds? :) --Ixfd64 18:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Son of a Peach 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have aleady warned you about you username (see above), you may need to change it, if it offends people as a result of confusion. Myrtone (☏)

Note to you[edit]

Fixing your signture is one idea, but your username and attitude suggests that you are far from *interlectual* and given that we have a whole encyclopedia to edit, we'd prefer interlectuals. Sure, extremists and other non-interlecual groups may be useful here and there (topics not so well known to interlectuals), but e.g. wikipedians that are useful in requests for translation, wikipedians that have a decent understanding of philosophy, etc, do desearve priority (more than they have now), as per the upper hand in writing and updating an encyclopedia. Myrtone (☏)

It was not intended as a personal attack, I was just trying to help you understand that wikipedia is not just any old usergroup, if you too realise that you only have the lower hand, I would say that maybe wikipedia is not your "place." Try haning out at AOL or IRC, or somemother like that, you are clearly better suited to that sort of thing, or make conversation at the "coffee lounge". Myrtone (☏)

Steve Arrington entry deletion?[edit]

Hi Son of a Peach,

I was wondering why you marked the entry I just wrote on singer Steve Arrington for speedy deletion. Please share.

--Pantufla 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling?[edit]

Regarding this edit on the User:Myrtone86 page. The messages of you the user have removed were no good faith warnings nor helpful so the user had every right to remove them from his talk page. I briefly looked into your contributions and you seems to do a lot of productive editing. Please continue to work on encyclopedia rather than trolling. The later could easily get you blocked. abakharev 01:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits such as this: accusations of this sort and tone are not acceptable, and are considered trolling. Further incivility will result in a block. --InShaneee 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for 48 hours for continued trolling and disruption. I strongly suspect that you are an abusive sockpuppet of another user, so the next block will be permanent. --Cyde Weys 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user? Excuse me? SoaP 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Son of a Peach (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

wtf?

Decline reason:

Please revise your current editing and communication pattern when you return, if you can. --➨ ЯEDVERS 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Essjay's Count.php

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Franz Ferdinand. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --[kazikame] 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Joanne B 18:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA[edit]

Hi, you seem to be asking if you are ready for adminship. You might want an editor review to evaluate you. Or ask someone tyou trust to look over and comment your edits. The RfA process is not really the place to go to seek this evaluation. Cheeers. :) Dlohcierekim 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have vandalism recent warnigs.[edit]

Not a prayer. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to withdraw your RfA as I don't think there is any chance the community will accept your application at this time. If you are serious about seeking adminship, please take on board the comments you have received. You will need to make a serious effort to improve Wikipedia and stick to the rules of civility, no personal attacks and others. You should also start using proper edit summaries and take the entire enterprise more seriously. If you would like to try an RfA again in the future, I would consider a polite, thoughtful withdrawal to be a positive (though this is purely my personal opinion). Thanks, Gwernol 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fake userpage[edit]

The fake "no userpage" template is inappropriate and misleading. You should not refer to the removal of this as vandalism. If you persist in placing misleading information on your user page you will be blocked for disruption. Gwernol 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for disruption and leaving inappropriate "vandalism" warnings on the talk pages of editors. Thanks, Gwernol 15:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Son of a Peach (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please do not blank my user page in protest. You could have just left a message on my talk page, but nooo! You had to blank it and then block me for leaving you a vandalism warning for making vandalistic edits!

Decline reason:

I did leave you a message on your userpage. See above. You do not own your userpage and you had left a misleading and inappropriate template on there. User:Quarl's removal of this was not vandalism, it was inappropriate of you to label his edit (and mine) vandalism. Given your history of disruptive edits and blocks, I don't see any reason to unblock you and you are lucky that it is not a more severe block length. You are sorely trying the patience of the community.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TfD nomination of Template:BlockUsername[edit]

Template:BlockUsername has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-11 19:15Z

Moved to User talk:JoanneB § Hi.

Template:BlockUsername and User:Son of a Peach/BlockUsername were deleted, based on discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_11#Template:BlockUsername and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Son of a Peach/BlockUsername. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:02Z

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: ~~Seafoam Islands~~; La Danse; Bismuth subsalicylate; William-Henry Gauvin; ~~Lavaridge Town~~; Wat Tyler; ~~Indigo Plateau~~; Lilycove City; Unaesta; Lavender Town; The New Order (Xiaolin Showdown); Jack Pepper; TI-36X II; Mossflower; The Knitting Girl; Cherrygrove City; Filoviridae; Funny How Sweet Coco Can Be; Mossdeep City

Cleanup: Super Mario Land; Hadoken (disambiguation); Salad Days (manga)
Merge: Software bloat; Super Mario 64 2; Subaru FF-1 Star
Add Sources: Pallet Town; Robert Hardy (bassist); Pewter City
Wikify: Star Road; ~~Ilex Forest~~; The Prize Fighter Inferno
Expand: Bad Company; Minority group

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page[edit]

Hi, you do not own your userpage. If you put inappropriate and misleading content there any editor is within their rights to remove it. Thanks, Gwernol 14:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the message: "HELLO! PLEASE STOP BLANKING MY USER PAGE! THANK YOU!" which you just added to your userpage. WP:OWN, whether you like it or not, is the relevant policy. If you put misleading content on your userpage it will get deleted. Gwernol 14:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting on you and Quark (or whatever his name is) consistently blanking whatever I put there. Please leave it alone! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Son of a Peach (talk • contribs) .

As long as you don't put misleading or disruptive content there we will. Gwernol 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Son of a Peach/BlockUsername[edit]

Just a reminder that these kinds of templates should be placed on user talk pages, instead of userpages. Additionally, I'd like to inform you that email addresses are not against policy (and therefore are rarely blocked), but only discouraged using {{welcomeemail}}. Thanks, — FireFox ^(talk) _{18:05, 15 August 2006}

Just to add my 2c: you have "nominated" at least one user to be blocked for no reason at all that I could see - User:Quesuertequesuerte. This would be a violation of WP:BITE. I am unhappy about your "template" and the usage you are putting it to and I'd like to ask you to reconsider its existance. There are so many downsides to this, and virtually no ups. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting your first Oppose in your forthcoming RfA. I'm afraid your "template" will have to go to MfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I know you are trying to help, but the consensus of admins is that Category:Wikipedia users to indefinitely block isn't really going to help. Could you please use WP:AIV in future? If you want a swifter response, then IRC is what most people use. Thanks. --Doc 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If you really do want to help, then it'd be a good idea to hang out on Recent Changes and, for instance, check stuff made by anonymous IPs, or stuff by people with nonexistent talk pages, or stuff by people without any edit summaries. DS 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man argument #1: Would you prefer that Wikipedia go rampant with nonsense, personal attacks, spam, and sock puppets? No, and it isn't and it won't - your "template" doesn't help in the fight against these things. In fact, it hinders.

Straw man argument #2: Why does it bother you that I'm trying to help the project? It wouldn't bother me if you were trying to help the project. But this seems to be WP:POINT and displays a lack of WP:AGF and judgment. If you think any of those things help the project, you are mistaken.

Also, as above, it's not that there aren't already working, tested and used processes in place for this. I really suggest you drop this idea and move on... for the good of the project. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY EVERYONE!!!![edit]

Okay. I'm trying to do two things at once, and it doesn't work.

Okay, where should I start?

I have already tried Recent Changes and New Pages, they're just too massive to all be done...it's a nightmare to try to get them all.
Nobody else seems to be paying heed to these new users, and I find it my duty to try and keep Wikipedia clean.

I can't really respond to all these sudden messages, all at once.
It's a pain in the arse, as I'm trying to flag inappropriate usernames and write replies, and it doesn't work.

WP:AIV and WP:ANI I don't find as useful.
I have to have more edits; if I leave them in batches of 5, that's 5 times less edits. Admins have beefy edit counts, that's what I'm trying for.

Well where are you getting the new users from? In all honestly, more than half of the new users you tag are already blocked when you tag them. There is a whole community of us out there paying attention to these new users, and you're fine to help, but maybe this isn't the right way. If you find a username which hasn't been blocked yet, perhaps you can leave a message on WP:AIV for it to be blocked, more people are likely to see it there. And you don't have to have more edits – large edit counts aren't important on Wikipedia. — FireFox ^(talk) _{18:27, 15 August 2006}

It's not the size of your edit count that matters, but how you use it. Ideally, we're interested in admins who start out as valuable contributors first. Then they become Admins out of necessity. Fast-tracking your adminship is not a good idea. Bastique▼^parler _voir 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YEeeeeeeeearrrrrrrg![edit]

Okay, no more RC for me. SoaP

WP:POINT[edit]

You have just warned two users about their usernames being email addresses. Thanks for that, but please note the following:

Please ensure you always subst: templates on talk pages unless the template asks you not to.
Do not use edit summaries like "nonononno" (as you did on User talk:Chuck.p74@google.com) especially not "pwned" (as you did on User talk:Badawikassala@canar.sd).

The edit summaries bit is most disturbing. This is not only WP:BITE of new users, this is also using the language of vandals against non-vandals. Don't do it. It makes you look like a vandal.

Honestly, SoaP, it really looks like, for the second time in an hour, you have been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Stop this - for a quiet life, someone is liable to block you if you continue. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage?[edit]

Your userpage leaves a little to be desired... perhaps, if you truely want that "deleted" look, you can tag it with {{db-u1}}. Anyways, I was going to blank it but then I looked through the page history and realised it wouldn't have been funny. BigNate37_(T) 02:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks...SoaP 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Stop putting gibberish edit summaries such as you did here. They are useful to no one and make you look like a troll. --InShaneee 22:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, for reference, if an IP ever made a productive/civil edit but used such over the top edit summaries, it would be reverted on the spot--205.188.116.195 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected--205.188.116.195 22:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I was imitating the usual chatter of people selling things on RuneScape and getting filtered out for no reason. SoaP 02:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it an okay edit summary to use on Wikipedia, and your most recent edit summary on this page [1] is also not useful. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-18 08:05Z

Okay, I don't need this section anymore, thanks![edit]

He/She[edit]

Well, given your parents are obviously not soft fruit, I chose not to read real-life meaning into the "Son" part of your username either... Gwernol 16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arr, that be understandable, matey. SoaP 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage[edit]

Hey, I'm sorry that you came back to this, but while the discussion is running at MfD, you'll need to leave that template up there. Also, and this is the reason this whole issue resurfaced while you were on break, placing misleading pages like this on your userpage is not something you should be doing. You've probably seen it before, but please recall you do not own your userpage. Having said that, I'm going to revert your changes to it. Until the MfD discussion is over, please leave the template there. Please watch your edit summaries and try to remain civil at least there where your comments cannot be easily responded to or removed. After the dust has settled, feel free to tag your userpage with {{db-u1}} if you wish it to be deleted. BigNate37_(T) 18:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "this page exists" is misleading now? How stupid are people that they would be mislead by a page saying that a page exists? SoaP 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. -- Nataly a 18:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MfD[edit]

Hi,

I cannot stress this enough: While non-admin editors can sometimes close overwhelming keep debates, they must NEVER close a debate in which they are involved -- EVER. The fact that you failed to realize that you are an involved party in an MfD on your userpage shows poor judgment. In your case, given your recent blocking, and the fact that you attempted to close an MfD on your own userpage, I'm going to extend this a bit: until you become an admin, you should never close any XfD discussion under any circumstances.

I will re-close the MfD as a keep myself. So you know, all XfD discussions run five days, unless an admin determines (consistent with policy) that there is an exceptional reason requiring early closure. If you see any other debates that you feel need closing, feel free to contact me at my talk page, but do not close them yourself. Best wishes, Xoloz 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okely dokely then. Soa P 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]