User talk:Queerbubbles/Archive 4

Email from Enigma

Ok... let me make this statement now. Should anyone want to see the contents of said email, and you cant in this history since Scarian is obviously exercising his rights to salt my page, feel free to ask. I will let anyone who wants to read it. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 23:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As a followup, I am now deactiving my email. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Logic dictates that we ask permission before, not assume them to take fault with it after. It's common courtesy to not reveal e-mails before asking first. This is disappointing behaviour to say the least, QB. That includes your invitation to people to inquire as to its contents. This is a blatant violation of WP:POINT. Out of common courtesy, why don't you remove that? This is unacceptable behaviour. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you see this as a violation of policy you are free to take appropriate measures. I dont. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 09:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This does not bode well for any argument you make regarding this incident. Please, do not taint E with all of this wikidrama. In the end, you removed and salted the post. Fine. You are free to take any measures you feel are necessary for keeping wiki working, the community thought enough of you to make you an admin in the first place. I am free to allow people who want to see the email, see the email. While I cannot post it, as you would most certainly issue preventative measures again, I see the only amicable way to handle this is to leave a message saying that those who want to see it, can. Your quick and overarching actions, however, leave me wondering if you are just "protecting your interests". None of this helps E. Dont taint him with your actions. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 09:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Please try to assume good faith at our discussion at User talk:Species8473. I have replied there. Thank you. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I assumed good faith, you were wrong to re add a warning that someone else had removed after a lengthly amount of time had passed, and he had tried to carry on a conversation with you about the warning. After 10+ days of no response, he was well within his rights to remove it himself. You were wrong to re add it. As stated in the talk page guidelines, anyone can remove anything they want from their pages, although archiving is prefered. Dont create wikidrama where there was none. You're beating a dead horse. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 12:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Species8473. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just replied again. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop informing me. I know. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I would like to know how my citing a video interview as a reference is vandalism. I was looking at the Dave Matthews Band page and noticed a citation was needed (and now that mine was deleted, still needed) about the use of tapes was a "key reason for their current fame". I had just watched an hour long interview on Youtube when Dave Matthews himself said those words. So if a video of the artist himself claiming the said statement isn't a good enough source, then what is?

Adinkel11 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

When was this, and can you provide a diff of the revert? Are you sure it was I who reverted? I dont remember reverting a YouTube addition in my recent memory. Also, did you add an edit summary explaining why you were adding the YouTube video? If not, please do so in the future. Most people who add YouTube links and not providing reasoning are just spamming. Thanks. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 20:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, nothing in your current contributions shows an addition to the DMB article. Did you do it as an IP? Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 20:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Guess no one wants to talk... Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 18:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's this edit: Dave_Matthews_Band&diff=218533206&oldid=218524855 by 24.160.204.16. I think YouTube is ok as source (in this case), though the edit was without summary, and lacked relevant information such at the time something is being said. Species8473 (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Yongsan Garrison; vandalism?

Protests at Yongsan Garrison and other military posts in South Korea are often frequent. The tragic 2002 vehicular incident, where two young girls were unintentionally ran over, sparked major protest around the country but does not have much to do with the garrison itself. Regardless, if the incident sheds good or bad light, it should be removed. It should be an article of its own.

Also, Yongsan Garrison's formal name is 'United States Army Garrison, Yongsan' and that should not have been reverted through your editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SrSeniorCitizen (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You cannot remove giant chunks of an article without an edit summary. It will be reverted on sight. I never said a word about vandalism. The notice I left on your talk page mentioned that it could be construed as vandalism. Please contribute to the discussion on the talk page, and then we can reach a consensus about the protests. I have reverted your deletion again. Once again; discuss on talk, reach consensus, then we prune. Thats how it works. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So basically, I have to get YOUR permission to change something? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard on wikipedia; piss on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SrSeniorCitizen (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no? I said take it to the talk page. More folks than I patrol that page... Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 21:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That were quite some hours of work removed in one edit. You forgot to mention he has to ask permission before making edits to the talk page though. Species8473 (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again ..

Here we go again :) 12 *sigh* Species8473 (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh... that was vandalism. Payin the price for being out there, babe.  ;) Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I should restrict myself to homeschooling and the homeschooling talk page again. It's much safer. Species8473 (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium ^Talk 00:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac15--Lenticel (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for help on Juno

The Good Article reviewer Gary expressed a concern about the article Juno (film) on Talk:Juno (film)/GA1, that a whole lot of information is cited from screenwriter Cody Diablo's blog, which is now defunct. The Internet Archive does not turn out any cache. Please take a look and help me, thanks! Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Vick

I was commenting on how the article was written by stating that it had no place as a featured article due to the disgusting nature of the subject. Dog fighting should not be supported by wikipedia. If that is NPOV then I guess I just like dogs too much. 24.28.70.129 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, lots of things are on wikipedia... such as Anal Sex, Pedophilia, Rape... the list goes on. None are pretty cool things, well... if your into anal, what can i say? But the fact is that we report the truth, and the truth is that if Michael Vick ran dog fighting, then thats going to be on there. And if the article is very well written, then it will be up for nomination to Featured Article status. We try very hard to keep points of view (POV) out of articles. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 20:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Queerbubbles, I noticed that you do quite a bit of vandal-reverting. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to make vandal-reverting easier for you? Rollback is a lot quicker at reverting than regular revert or the undo button. Just remember that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and misuse of the tool can lead to its removal. Tell me what you think. Thanks. Acalamari 17:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well hey... I'm not one to deny when someone offers me extra buttons! I'll have to play around with it a tad, but sure, why not? It cant hurt, yeah? Thanks! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 19:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted. :) As for "playing around with it a tad", there's both additional information and a practice page mentioned on Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback where rollback can be tested before use in the mainspace. Good luck. Acalamari 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

About your username

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

• If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
• If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
• You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know, GO-PCHS-NJROTC's report has been commented on and then declined. Bit of an odd username, from my perspective, but there's no accounting for taste, as they say. I'll hope to see you around the wiki. Cheers. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the nickname is offensive. Or meant to be offensive. The latter is stated on the userpage and can be backed up by half a year of constructive edits. =Species8473= ^(talk) 11:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Score. And yeah, I figured folks would raise an eyebrow or two, thats why I wrote a quick missive about the history of the name. Thanks all who say I'm a good editor! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that 'queer bubbles' is a well known slur for homosexual men. The origin of the term comes from the fact that sometimes, when a man ejaculates into another man's anus, then the receiving man commits flatulence, bubbles are created. I feel that the name is meant to be offensive. Above, under the Michael Vick section, the user casually mentions anal sex, which is clearly a reference to the username being based on the slur. 24.28.70.129 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's so well known, why doesn't Google or Urban Dictionary know about it? And given edits like this one from this IP, why should we take you seriously? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm... I mentioned that as an example of stuff we might not exactly like on wikipedia. *Sigh* This drama will be over soon as folks will quickly find something else to obsess over. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 09:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so anal sex is as widely unaccepted and disgusting and evil as animal abuse and animal murder? I don't understand how you can put anal sex into the same category of things we may not like as pedophilia and rape. This smacks of a strong homophobic stance to me, and with a username being questionably based on a homophobic slur, I come to the conclusion that 2 plus 2 equals 4. 24.28.70.129 (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Go away 24.28, you're trolling. The username is fine, has been discussed and concluded that it's fine. 2 + 2 = 4 in most circumstances, but real life really has nothing to do with elementary math, now does it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

re:Oooo

Thanks for pointing out my "friend"s new account. He's been blocked and the copy of my user page deleted. I've also notified a CU who's familiar with my "friend" of the new account, and so the IP he's been using will likely be blocked again for a while. Thanks again for your help! Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Np... I was just clickin through that picture of your car upside down, and noticed it was attached to that dude's page. Figured something wasnt quite right.  ;) Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 09:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Double You Tee Eff

As you can probably tell by now, I am sort of new at using Wikipedia. I just noticed on almost every talk page I have talked on, you have chosen to talk back as well. Are you watching this account or something? Do you like dog fighting? Do you like sports? Do you like professional sports? Do you realize that I can suggest you to do things by editing talk pages? Do you like spending so much time on the internet? Wouldn't your time be better spent writing articles about things you understand or care about, rather than following me? Errr... I know my time would be better spent not responding to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.70.129 (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet you are. I went to the pages you went to in order to ascertain if you were discussing the article or the subject. As it turns out, you had asked questions that folks hadn't answered, so I went ahead and answered them for you. If you have better things to do, then by all means, go do them. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RFA, which closed as a success. Thank you also for your compliment to my poem "If-"; I think you're the first to compliment it, or even admit to having seen it! Others may well have read it, but decided to distance themselves from it - I don't blame them... Seriously though, I do apreciate your vote of confidence, and I look forward to working with you in the future. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)