Misplaced Pages

User talk:Limeheadnyc: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:37, 2 February 2005 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →iufid← Previous edit Revision as of 20:49, 2 February 2005 edit undoLimeheadnyc (talk | contribs)1,082 edits →iufidNext edit →
Line 125: Line 125:
Tony, I know you dislike his proposal. I do too. But listing his template for deletion is premature, and kind of trollish. Let the proposal die on its own, and then we can delete the components. I'm going to delist the template from ], and I hope you'll agree to leave it be. You never know what can come of a proposal, and he seems to be working in good faith, so let's leave it be for a short while. Deleting this is only going to fuel animosity. -- ] ] 20:22, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC) Tony, I know you dislike his proposal. I do too. But listing his template for deletion is premature, and kind of trollish. Let the proposal die on its own, and then we can delete the components. I'm going to delist the template from ], and I hope you'll agree to leave it be. You never know what can come of a proposal, and he seems to be working in good faith, so let's leave it be for a short while. Deleting this is only going to fuel animosity. -- ] ] 20:22, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)


: I agree, it was probably premature and I got carried away. I'm copying this to ]'s talk page, too, because he has already voted in support of the listing. --]|] 20:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) : I agree, it was probably premature and I got carried away. I'm copying this to ]'s talk page, too, because he has already voted in support of the listing. --]|] 20:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:: Fair enough. Perhaps the listing was premature, but I hardly find it trollish. As far as good faith: perhaps he ''thinks'' he's working in good faith, but his flurry of POV creations might lead one to think otherwise. From a person who created ], IUFID seems like just another way to revamp wikipedia into my-pov-pedia. ] 20:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:49, 2 February 2005

Picture of the day Amphipoea oculea Amphipoea oculea, the ear moth, is a moth in the family Noctuidae, with a wingspan of 29 to 34 millimetres (1.1 to 1.3 inches). Its range includes southern England, where it is widespread and common, as well as Ireland and continental Europe, with the exception of Albania, Greece and Turkey. Adults are found from June to September depending on the location, with one generation occurring per year. At night the moths come to light and flowers, seeking honeydew and sugar. During the day they feed at the flowers of thistles and ragwort. This female A. oculea moth was photographed feeding on field scabious in Keila, Estonia. The photograph was focus-stacked from 22 separate images.Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus Archive – More featured pictures...

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Misplaced Pages:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam 23:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Tony, I just wanted to say thanks for your efforts at the clitoris page. It seems like you're often the only one there with any common sense. I'm getting a bit jaded with the process, because I suspect many of the antis are simply trolling and not in search of any actual compromise or conflict resolution. I try to keep voicing my pro-photo position just so it doesn't get lost in the ridiculous milieu, and that position would be lost without you. Timbo 03:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. Compliments of the season! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC

If you don't mind me asking, I'd appriciate your support at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mbecker. Thanks. — マイケル ₪ 04:41, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Hey マイケル, I'm terribly sorry I didn't get to support you; I was on holiday until today. The RfC seems to be deleted, but if I can help anywhere else, feel free to drop me a note. Thanks, Timbo 03:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Carson and pussy

Hiya, IB3K here. here's that article about the sadly apocryphal Carson interview. Both Zsa Zsa Gabor and Johnny deny the interview ever took place. Iceberg3k 12:25, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio images

Hi, I noticed that selfsuck.jpg was removed from Autofellatio and replaced with the old picture. Now the original picture's listing on IfD had been removed and the image is still there. Does that mean it survived IfD or is it about to be deleted? Also could you please vote on selfsuck? I think it would be handy to have around as a backup, and I think it would be difficult to argue that it's more indecent than autofellatio.jpg. Given the subject, it might be good to have a spare handy just in case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Sometimes I'll sign and sometimes I won't...--MONGO 12:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)MONGO

Please stop reverting on TFD

If you'll notice, in my last edit to the page I created a separate entry for the template. Vacuum c 14:41, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)


I've done some digging to find out what, in fact, happened. Here's how I understand what's going on with this headache.

  1. Raul654 adds Template:Enduring single-issue dispute to TfD (01:49, 21 Jan 2005).
  2. Frazzydee adds Template:Content dispute to the Template:Enduring single-issue dispute section (21:51, 22 Jan 2005) because "it's virtually identical to the first, except uglier. It's saying almost the exact same thing, but if anybody feels that it warrants a seperate entry, go ahead and move it there. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)"
  • A nonsensical semi-permanent dispute tag. →Raul654 05:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The goal is to fix the article, not load it up with ugly tags. Rhobite 05:53, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The dispute isn't going away any time soon: in the mean time, people ought to know what's going on, like any dispute tag. (Note: the article in question is clitoris, and the issue is whether the "vulva image" should be there.) —Ashley Y 05:55, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 06:13, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there's an NPOV issue, stick an NPOV tag on it. Incidentally, the enduring single issue at Clitoris appears to be whether or not to have an enduring single issue tag on it. Odd, that. --fvw* 03:09, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vacuum tc 15:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -Frazzydee|✍ 15:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Jirate 15:27, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Dan | Talk 17:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Timbo ( t a l k ) 17:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm just about as positive as I've ever been about anything that these votes would not change for Template:Content dispute. They have the same content. But keep reading on.
  1. A number of votes follow.
  2. Vacuum removes Template:Content Dispute from TfD (15:27, 24 Jan 2005) with the misleading edit summary: "the templates are different. undo grouping." In fact, Vacuum removed the template from VfD entirely.
  3. Vacuum then removes the {{tfd}} tag from Template:Content Dispute (15:30, 24 Jan 2005).
  4. After my reversion of TfD, Vacuum reverts again (15:38, 24 Jan 2005) with the same logic. I revert for the second time because it's an instance of an author removing his/her work from TfD before voting completes.
  5. Vacuum finally moves his/her template to another section (16:51, 28 Jan 2005).
  6. Netoholic votes delete (18:27, 28 Jan 2005).
  7. I reinstate the grouping (23:53, 28 Jan 2005) because the templates are, in fact, almost exactly the same. I forget, however, to delete the separate section for Template:Content dispute.
  8. Vacuum took out the grouping and added a second separate section for Template:Content dispute (15:36, 29 Jan 2005).
  9. MikeX voted delete (15:53, 29 Jan 2005) and then deleted the duplicate section (15:55, 29 Jan 2005).
  10. Frazzydee, added yet another section for Template:Content dispute (16:46, 29 Jan 2005).
  11. Vacuum votes keep in this duplicate section (17:05, 29 Jan 2005).
  12. Vacuum then deletes the duplicate section, along with Frazzydee's vote and comments (18:15, 29 Jan 2005).
  13. I just voted to delete and added Frazzydee's deleted vote and comments to the section (22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC).

So there you have it. Instead of being deleted now, we'll have to wait another week to remove Template:Content dispute. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for watching the stuff over at WP:TFD. I'm shock that vacuum deleted the entire section, including my vote. Thumbs up for catching that! Anyways, I just wanted to say wikithanks for guarding that, see you around! -Frazzydee|✍ 23:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yngwie

I agree with you that Yngwie is pretentious, cheesy, and I've heard from friends of friends in the business that he's quite mean and annoying. I think it was Ty Tabor (of King's X fame) who was practicing in a rehearsal studio with his band next to Yngwie and his band one time in the early 90s. Yngwie wanders into Tabor's room (still playing, mind you, via wireless) and starts wailing to show how cool he is. Then he hands his guitar to Tabor, daring him to repeat what Yngwie just played. Tabor picks up the axe and fumbles with the scalloped fret board and super-light strings, finally saying something to the effect of "I can't, man." Yngwie lets out a haughty chuckle and walks back to his band, then proceeds to joke loudly about how lame Tabor is to the rest of his bandmates. Classic Yngwie - such a tool, yet he'll never know that he's anything less than a messiah.

Personality aside, though ... as well as cheesiness of his music ... I' definitely respect Yngwie for his discipline. It's been very sad for me to listen to the decline of the solo as an integral part of a song. I think there's a synthesis that needs to take place in order to make some great strides in the rock arena; that is, a synthesis between chops and vibe, for lack of better terms. Chops are, after all, possibilities. Capabilities. If you don't have the chops, you're severely limited in terms of your sonic capabilities. That's why so much nu-metal guitarring sounds manufactured, flat, and unoriginal. What happened a lot in the 80s, I think, is people focused so much on chops that they forgot their purpose. That's why there's so much pretention, such a "look what I can do" attitude.


I think Yngwies an ass who doesnt make good music (except his cover of Mr. Crowley with Tim Owens, that was good). If you dont make good music, I will never give a shit about how well you can sing or play your 'musical instrument' or ax as some metal fans call it.

And just because you walk into a room and play some random notes and ask someone to play what you just played by ear without any preparation doesnt mean you are good. You know the notes exactly and could of been rehearsing them for months. Doing that just means you got a hell of an inferiority complex. Or maybe just a narcissist.

Until Yngwie starts writing some good music I wont care about him. Ill stick with Iced Earth/Black Sabbath and when I'm stoned on DXM, Stratovarius.

And your little cliche about arguing about nu-metal guitaring being unoriginal and manufactured, I agree. I dont see the metal world sucumming to shit. There has always been horrable commercialized music disguising itsself as real talent. Nu-metal is just the crap that was diguised as good metal that came along after hair metal and grunge. Nothing new. Some assholes found a way to make guitaring harsh without requiring talent and exploited that.

So I close this because just like my last rant it was pointless and a waste of time. Though you are a huge improvement over the last Yngwie fan I argued with. You havent resorted to name calling or saying things like "You dont know shit about music." "Yngwie ownz Kirk Hammet."

--Arm

Whoa, dude. I didn't mean to argue with you. Haha, I was actually agreeing, or so I thought. My little anecdote was meant to illustrate how Yngwie is, in fact, a huge "ass." And I do agree that his cover of Mr. Crowley with Tim Owens was quite good, although his other music is quite cheesy. I fancy myself a musician, and I love metal, so I tend to ramble on about such things.
Perhaps I offended you about nu-metal? I don't mean to categorically belittle it. I love System of a Down, Deftones, and a bunch of other supposed nu-metal acts. Anyway, apologies for any misunderstanding. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nah no offense taken. And I hardly ever listen to nu-metal. Now once Yngwie starts writing some songs with a tune to them then maybe ill give him a listen. He can have Tim Owens since his high-pitched wailing is annoying and Jon Schaffer can find a better vocalist elsewhere. I like Matt Maggard Myself. --Arm

Tag

Frankly I'm sick of this whole damn edit war myself, however I think a tag acceptable for now...however, I think a compromise should be achived.--198 05:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Well I think the tag is pretty ugly, and I'm not sure what purpose it serves. There is a tag on top of the talk page.... Not good enough? Regards, TIMBO (T A L K) 05:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

iufid

Tony, I know you dislike his proposal. I do too. But listing his template for deletion is premature, and kind of trollish. Let the proposal die on its own, and then we can delete the components. I'm going to delist the template from WP:TFD, and I hope you'll agree to leave it be. You never know what can come of a proposal, and he seems to be working in good faith, so let's leave it be for a short while. Deleting this is only going to fuel animosity. -- Netoholic @ 20:22, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

I agree, it was probably premature and I got carried away. I'm copying this to Timbo's talk page, too, because he has already voted in support of the listing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps the listing was premature, but I hardly find it trollish. As far as good faith: perhaps he thinks he's working in good faith, but his flurry of POV creations might lead one to think otherwise. From a person who created Category:Possibly offensive images, IUFID seems like just another way to revamp wikipedia into my-pov-pedia. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)