User talk:Exploding Boy/archive 5

In recognition of your efforts in editing and removing unverified speculation from the Harry Potter pages, I hereby award you the Editor's Barnstar --Death

I award you this Editor's Barnstar for your work in dealing with the recent anti-gay trolls on homosexuality and related articles. Guanaco 03:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I award you this barnstar for your persuasive arguments presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to homosexuality and for consistantly standing up to those who try to re-write Wikipedia to reflect their world view. ReformedCharacter 15:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tea names

Sorry for late, I answered you on my talk. --Aphaia 10:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hey, I started this article a while ago, and it still needs a lot of work. I thought you might like to help. Pro-gay slogans and symbols. On a non-related note, as others said, I do think your username was quite amusing considering our last interaction a few minutes ago. The Ungovernable Force 05:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oddness

We keep ending up at the same articles at the same time; I wonder how that happens :-) --Julien Deveraux 05:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, I know we have our differences when it comes to the whole sig thing, but I just wanted to say thanks that the whole picture fiasco at Ejaculation went civil and discussion went productively. Thanks again, and hopefully (since I won't be commmenting on the signature thing execpt for a final statemnet tomorrow) we can not hold our previous experience against each other once the dust settles. Later, Chcknwnm (talk) —The preceding signature was simplified .

re: signature

Hi Exploding Boy, thanks for the note. Last I checked, lots of editors used images (some even several) in their signatures, and I did not know that it was against policy. I have removed it per your request (as you can see), and after reading the reasons for removal of unnecessary images. romarin [talk ] 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!! Exploding Boy 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Watching Tattoo?

Not sure if you've kept an eye on it recently. A little flare out with a new editor trying to insert some anti-tattoo spin into the "health risks" section; not anything wildly false, but just at the level of "undue weight" and negative connotation. The editor, User:Doug rosenberg, has pissed me off a little bit, but it probably means I react too impatiently. So maybe I could borrow your wisdom, since you've made good edits there in the past. LotLE×talk 22:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this properly, but you're an admin, so...

User:86.132.121.49 has vandalized Tamil gangs twice. If he should be blocked, could you please do so? Random the Scrambled 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Random the Scrambled 14:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality-related topics

You mentioned to Ros Power that she needs to look at Wikipedia's sexuality-related topics. I agree, she does! So, however, do I. Can you point me in the right direction, please? Thanks! ReformedCharacter 16:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A good place to start would be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). Exploding Boy 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

Hey, I think the issue needs to die...so please let it. I shouldn't have made the comment in the first place and there's no point in continuing a discussion that is going to get people heated. Thank you for understanding, Chuck^(contrib) 05:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the issue needs to be dealt with. The current situation is untenable. Nathan and I need to discuss this; please, stop getting involved. You're not helping. Exploding Boy 05:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, I'm trying to help. By removing the thread, the situation and conflict was over. No need to continue it. I can get involved if I feel like it, I'm the one who started the comments (even though I shouldn't have). Please leave it alone. Chuck^(contrib) 05:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, clearly the situation is not over. If a good faith reversion of vandalism causes that type of reaction, the situation is clearly not over. Please for the last time, stop getting involved. You are not helping the situation. Exploding Boy 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) It wasn't the reversion...it was the groveling for gratitude. Don't look for "thanks" for reverting a user talk page. Please stop telling me to stop getting involved. You say that too often, IMO. You and I both know that if you leave Nathan's talk page alone, the situation is over. So that sounds simple enough. You can't force someone to discuss an issue, unless you've become part of ArbCom recently and I didn't find out about it. Chuck^(contrib) 05:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Grovelling for gratitude? Are you actually insane? What actually happened was, I commented that one might expect a thanks for reverting malicious vandalism from another users' user page rather than an unwarranted sarcastic attack. See? Once again, you misunderstood, got involved, overreacted, and exacerbated the situation, quite probably making it far worse than it ever was. You are not helping. Nothing you've done each time you've inserted yourself into the situation has helped. Each time your incorrect take on the situation has only served to make things more difficult. So yeah, once again: stop getting involved.

As for my RFM, a request for mediation is just that: a request for mediation. No more, no less. As I've stated repeatedly, my only concern is to prevent this type of thing from happening again. Simply ignoring Nathan is not the answer here. I will not sit by and allow vandals to run wild on Wikipedia, and I won't go out of my way to avoid ever interacting with Nathan. Neither is a tenable position, or a constructive solution to this really very minor issue. On the other hand, an outright refusal to even consider mediation when offered as a good-faith solution is certainly indicative of a user's lack of willingness to solve a problem. And that is certainly not what cooperative editing is all about. Exploding Boy 06:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough, please.

Every time I say/do something you don't like, you push me and push me, constantly test the limits of my patience and I've about had enough.

There was a very good reason why I said (on my talk): "I ask for those involved to please leave me alone". During the whole signature issue, you attacked me, had a dig at me several times, you were constantly incivil and even when you were told what exactly you did that was wrong and how it could've come across as incivil and disrespectful, you showed absolutely no remorse or guilt whatsoever.

It really looks to me that you constantly 'spoil for a fight'. You don't care whose toes you step on as long as you get what you want. There are other admins on Wikipedia who fit into this category.

I feel, by you continuing to bother me on my talk page, that you have absolutely no respect for me or my preferences.

Now, I am sick and tired of conflict on my talk page - if it's not one thing, it's another, if it's not one person trying to stir up crap, it's someone else. Kindly leave me alone.

Kindly leave Chuck alone as well, he's quite often very helpful to me as a third-party observer. He doesn't come and stir up trouble, he says his piece and that's that. It looks to me that every time he opens his mouth (so to speak), he immediately gets a "Leave me alone, stop commenting, this has nothing to do with you, you don't know what you're talking about, etc". That's rude. It really is. If he wants to speak for me, he has my full permission. Yours is not required.

Whether it's watching my pages, or even good-faith reverting of vandalism, I would appreciate being left alone, period.

You can't force me to discuss something I don't wish to discuss. You can't even block me for defiance. If you think you can though, I'd welcome you to try - and I'll get the block removed very quickly.

Now, this is over because I say it is. If you don't like that, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Thank you and goodbye. — Nathan ^(talk) 05:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nathan, this is ridiculous. I have stated time and time again that I have no problem with you. I have asked you repeatedly to observe Wikiquette by assuming good faith. Yet you continue to react negatively to even good-faith remarks, and actions such as the reversion of vandalism from your user page! This situation cannot go on. We seem to find ourselves on the same pages fairly often. Either you must stop taking my every action as an attack, or we need to try mediation. And once again, you cannot prohibit anyone from using your user talk page (which, it should be noted, I haven't done for some time). Your behaviour is becoming increasingly uncivil, and certainly does nothing to contribute to a cooperative editing environment. Exploding Boy 05:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/{{{1}}}]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

For the record, I left a polite note on Nathan's talk page about a Request for Mediation. As of this time, he appears to have deleted the request without even bothering to respond, an outright rejection of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. At the same time, he continues to post thinly veiled comments about me on his talk page header and elsewhere (again, violating both policies). This needs to stop. I've offered a solution. Exploding Boy 06:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Exploding Boy, don't you see? There was a perfectly simple solution without all of this complication - you could have just left him alone. Sergeant Snopake 11:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not a workable solution, as I explained above. Exploding Boy 14:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? This 'thinly veiled' nonsense - if you've read it so much you can start making assumptions about it, can't you just start respecting it and leaving him alone? Why is this all about you: 'I have no problem wih you'? There would be no problem if you would just leave him alone. Oh, and my names not 'Sergeant', it's 'Sergeant Snopake'. Sergeant Snopake 14:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not involved in this, and I have no need to discuss it with you. As for your signature, kindly do not use extravagant signatures on this talk page. I find them very distracting. Exploding Boy 14:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that just leaving each other alone would be a good idea. Prodego 14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My dear Prodego, I have tried leaving him alone. I didn't post on his talk page for some time. This whole bullshit incident happened because Nathan persists in interpreting anything I say or do as an attack against him. In this case, the supposed "attack" was using my rollback button to remove some malicious vandalism from his talk page. As I tried to explain to Nathan at the time (after he started getting all huffy about it), this is standard procedure. At the same time I reverted the vandalism on Nathan's page, I removed vandalism by the same person from another user's page as well, and then warned the user responsible. I am an admin; this is standard operating procedure.

I didn't even post on Nathan's page after I reverted the vandalism, until Nathan started taking my edit as some kind of attack, at which point I tried once again to calmly explain to him that I have no problems with him, and to request, once again, that he assume good faith. "Leaving him alone," as his gang of protectors keeps bleating, is not a viable option in a cooperative editing environment, particularly one where the two of us edit the same articles and discussion pages. The only option is to assume good faith; thus far, Nathan has demonstrated himself as completely unwilling to do so. Exploding Boy 14:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you took his comments to someone else as an attack. And it's all very well to tell me that I'm not involved, when you've just run off for mediation from a bunch of other users who aren't involved either. Really, what do you expect to gain from this? You and Nathan to run hand in hand in fields of green, the best of friends? Sergeant Snopake 15:58, 15th of June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, an attack's an attack. Whether a user posts an attack on my talk page, or continually makes disparaging remarks about me elsewhere the result is the same. Second, the reason for requesting mediation was so that an impartial mediator would be invovled, rather than users such as chknwnm, whose involvement has in nearly all cases served only to fan the flames (for example, it was his original post to Nathan's user talk page that started yesterday's fiasco). I'd hardly call you a disinterested party either. Exploding Boy 15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there would have been a fiasco if you hadn't commented. Maybe I'm not a disinterested party, but I can see there would be no dispute if you would just leave him alone. Sergeant Snopake 16:14, 15th of June 2006 (UTC)

A more accurate characterisation of what's happening is that Nathan continues to assume bad faith, even when I have left him alone. Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere. Exploding Boy 15:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm going to stop commenting because I don't think you're going to listen, and I can't see why you won't just leave Nathan alone. Sergeant Snopake 16:30, 15th of June 2006 (UTC) - ahem.

Jesse Dirkhising

Please stop edit warring over this article. And you are sorely mistaken, there are homosexual pedophiles just as well as there are heterosexual pedophiles. The fact that those individuals were homosexual was exactly what caused the controversy over his murder and subsquently the notability of his murder. Also, you stated that there was a contradiction in the article over that, however, nothing in the article nor news media ever claimed that the two individuals were not homosexual - in fact, that's what the whole controversy was about. --Strothra 17:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've requested a Third Opinion over your edit as per WP:3O. --Strothra 17:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, who's edit warring? Certainly not me. Second, where is this request? I don't see it anywhere. Exploding Boy 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It was placed up on the WP:30 earlier today and responded to by User:Hetar. Your may see User:Hetar's response in the talk page of the Dirkhishing article. It is policy to remove those requests from the page once they have been responded to. You may see the history of the page for the request itself. --Strothra 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

See my response on the talk page. Exploding Boy 20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, I've got to go now though. I'll come back later. --Strothra 20:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure if he was kidnapped. I've been reading some things in the past couple days which refer to a history of the boy having pseudo-sexual encounters with at least one of the two men. You may want to check into whether he arrived on his own will or not. Although, I think it may also be feasible to say that once the torture began it was probably kidnapping. --Strothra 16:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Let's discuss on the talk page. Exploding Boy 17:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Images on my signature

The page you quote is only a guideline. Furthermore, it's a relatively recent addition (in the last month) that has added this new policy regarding images. I'm rather fond of my union flag, so I'll keep it for the time being. If this guideline remains in place after a few more months, I'll consider removing it. Regards, --Oscarthecat 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Guidelines represent the community's whishes for how a given situation should be dealt with. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states: "A guideline is something that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus." Exploding Boy 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the change in policy happened only 3 weeks ago [1], so I'll see how it pans out. --Oscarthecat 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your response. Exploding Boy 00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Brooke Brodack

I have answered claims of notability on the articles talk page: Talk:Brooke Brodack. skorpion 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Those silly people at White people

Thanks for having previously added a tag to that odd little mess. There seem to be flames brewing there again. Like Lar I'm very reluctant to involve myself on those pages and I was hoping you might take another look? Or pass the buck to someone else? I'd actually like to nominate the page for AfD but I know that I'd get shot down. I had left the page on my Watchlist out of some morbid curiosity, but that's really unproductive and I'm going to correct it now. Thanks for your time. --Doc Tropics 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lilith Crane

Can you explain why you deleted my edits entirely on the Lilith Crane page? I thought they were well-thought out and reasonable. If you disliked one or two words you could have just edited it.

Please let me know so I can try again - I think it was good overall, but I am open to suggestions. 216.194.4.2 06:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits took information from three paragraphs and combined it into one, non-NPOV, cumbersome, unencyclopaedic, poorly-written paragraph that was (in some places) pure speculation. The tense was also wrong. The article is better as it is. Exploding Boy 15:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Doom127

Just thought you should know that I've also had issues with Doom127 over-reacting to the simplest of comments. If you disagree with him, he will likely label you a harassing vandal and/or accuse you of the very things he's guilty of (he'll add crap to an article but call you the vandal if you "blank" it.) I once tried to report his behavior to the admins but was told to "take a chill pill" by a non-admin user, which was further backed up by an actual admin (read here: [2]). He not only accused me of vandalism but also claimed I made sockpuppets to gain the upper hand in the particular issue we were discussing (when in fact, I've seen comments from other users that he himself may in fact be a sockpuppeter, but I haven't verified these claims. For the record I only have one wikipedia account.) I made peace and have tried to stay out of his way. However, I have kept tabs on his behavior from time to time (like when I saw your comments on his talk page) in case we ever butted heads again I'd have more evidence to take to the admins since his blantently disruptive behavior apparently wasn't a good enough reason last time to gain at least a stern warning or even a block. He appears to have never heard of the phrase "Don't shoot the messenger" and if you try and call him on his behavior, he will only send up a smokescreen of garbage against you in hopes that the admins will think you're the problem, not investigate, and basically warn you about making mountains out of molehills while he gets off scot-free. Bottom-line: be careful around this user and pick your battles. If I'd known then, what I know now, I wouldn't have bothered dealing with him and just left him to his own warped view on reality. Danny 16:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Trevor

Hi there, the merging of Trevor in to the Neville Longbottom article was the result of an AfD. I have, so far, just cut and pasted the merge and therefore the Neville article could still do with a bit of a clean up to make the inclusion of the Trevor info a bit better. Regards. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 08:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)