User talk:Strikerforce

float

Friendly messages are much appreciated! Please add new conversations below. Thanks! —Strikerforce

Speedy deletion nomination of Supreme Overlord of Knowledge

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Supreme Overlord of Knowledge, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Minimac (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read the edit summary that I used when I created the page, Minimac :-) 'Tis all good, though. Delete away! Strikerforce (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

CSD Removed per ApFaDa   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Userspace edit

Don't worry about the category that I removed for being red. I created it. The Wikipedians who use Chrome currently are you and me. Other than that, it's clear.--The Master of Mayhem 19:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on my page re Barry Bonds

You stated "Your edit summary on Barry BondsI do not appreciate the tone of your most recent edit summary on the Barry Bonds article. Per BLP, I was correct to undo your edit and request a citation. I was well aware, at the time of my edit, that the verdict had come in. All you had to do was provide that citation, which you could have done without adding the comment that you did. --StrikerforceTalk Review me! 21:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)"

Your comments are out-of-line. You could have just as easily put a cite in, as you were apparently aware of the verdict. Failure to do so is conterproductive. Jvsett (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you. My edit was backed 100% by policy (one of the most strict policies that Wikipedia has). I made a simple request for a citation ("Citation, please", for anyone that may be reviewing this interaction at any future point). Your response of "See the news, please" comes across as snippy, disrespectful, and patronizing. For that reason, I left a comment on your talk page, simply pointing out that you may have been a bit uncivil (which, looking at a couple of other items on your talk page, appears to be a problem that you have had previously). In regard to the citation, I was aware of it, yes, thanks to my Twitter feed blowing up with "breaking news" comments about it, but I had yet to read an article about the verdict, myself. Thus, I did not have a citation readily available. In the interest of maintaining BLP compliance, I acted correctly. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 23:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree with you. Regarding my comment "read the news," since you acknowledge you had full awareness of the fact Barry Bonds had been convicted, the proper edit would have been to add cite, not to remove an undisputed fact which simply was “He was convicted on April 13, 2011 on the obstruction of justice charge”. This is nothing controversial nor editorializing about this statement. Your reverting did not increase the utility of Wikipedia, nor comply with policy you cite. I note that another use added additional citation approximately one hour after my citation, which should have been done in your edit. Your inappropriate umbrage and continued posting on this matter is bewildering. You accuse me of being uncivil and personally attacked me on two different pages. I was neither uncivil nor attacked you. I did not make any disparaging remarks about you, which you continue to do. This is inappropriate. You continue inflame this situation for no apparent reason. Jvsett (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Per BLP, the burden is on the editor wishing to add or reinsert information to an article. Nothing about this is inappropriate. You were, in my opinion, uncivil in your edit summary. Step back and read it from my point of view... do you not see how it could be interpreted as a snippy, insulting comment? I very calmly stated my opinion that I did not appreciate the summary. You've chosen to escalate this into accusing me of being "inappropriate" and "bewildering" and "inflaming this situation for no apparent reason". Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My original edit was appropriate with the recent verdict. My revert and justification were also appropriate. You demanded citations in your revert; yet, you had actual knowledge of the truth of the conviction and with numerous citations available. These facts undermine the purpose of your revert. Your original revert and continued justification violates the WP:Common principle. As to the claims of inflaming, it was you who first stated that my tone is inappropriate on my talk page. This means you took time out of your busy schedule to reprimand me. When I responded, you then accused me of not following YOUR rules on my talk page, while simultaneously stating I am "a bit uncivil (which, looking at a couple of other items on your talk page, appears to be a problem that you have had previously)" on your own talk page. These three comments would be considered personal and direct attacks on my character. I believe this violates many Wikipedia rules. In any event, I disagree with these accusations. Now, I find a comment from 174.253.0.250 (talk) at 03:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC) (apparently out of Chicago, Illinois based on the location of the IP address) stating that I am "profane language deleted by SF." Based on your previous comments that you are monitoring my user talk page, you knew this comment had been posted. After this comment was posted, you then you accuse me of escalating the situation. This is simply untrue. At every stage highly prejudicial and loaded terms have been thrown against me. Please stop this harassment. Jvsett (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Harassment? Seriously? Do you really want to go there? I'll tell you what, if you think that I'm harassing you, then feel free to report me. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm more disappointed by the fact that you failed to recognize that my issue has been with your edit summary, not your edit, and the tone that the summary took. Are you aware of some of the reasons why Wikipedia's active contributor numbers are down over the past couple of years? As part of the new Wiki Guides program, I've been enlightened by some interesting information from User:Philippe that will be revealed in further detail in the coming weeks, but I will share this bit with you; snippy edit summaries - like the one that you provided - have a role in newcomers feeling bitten, on occasion, among other reasons. Civility is a problem here on Wikipedia, whether perceived or in reality. My point all along was that you could have used a more tone-neutral edit summary. In regard to the IP edit, I didn't see it until you pointed it out here. I have over 200 pages in my watchlist and since the conversation between us had migrated to my page rather than yours, I'd removed your talk page from my list. Are you trying to imply that I am the IP or simply that I, for some magical reason, had ignored the posted comment? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 06:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Lack of civility on Wikipedia is an issue. Examples would probable include:

• Reverting a good faith uncontentious edit when that the person reverting knows it is both verifiable and truthful.

My action was backed by BLP, as stated above. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Posting on another user’s page because a perceived slight.

Absolutely nothing wrong with this, considering that I did it in a calm manner that simply expressed my disappointment. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Making comments such as another user is “snippy, disrespectful, and patronizing,” along with being “uncivil”.

Please try putting yourself in my position and then try to tell me that you would not have felt the same way. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Creating and/or sanctioning (through an action or inaction) an atmosphere where another user is forced to endure profane language being posting about him or her on his or her user page. The use of profane language in that situation would be clear violation of WP:PA.

I have explained myself already. I had nothing to do with the profane post on your talk page, nor did I know anything about it until you brought it up on this page. Once our conversation had migrated here, I removed your talk page from my watchlist. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All these would reasonably contribute to the problem of lack of civility on Wikipedia. All these actions could cause a person not to want to contribute to Wikipedia. As for the apparent graffiti, no, do I believe you posted it. This sentence doesn't make sense... at first read, it seems like you are saying that you don't believe that I posted it, but your next statement presents the appearance that you do believe that I did? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC) This is especially true in light of your warning to anonymous user in question, as seen here. I thank you for that; however, as you state “[t]his user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers.” As I have been around for about five years on Wikipedia, and do not believe Ihave not had this occur before, it is quite alarming it was posted in the middle of our discussion. I do not beleive it was just a random occurrence. Finally, I do apologize for posting the profane language in question on your user talk page; however, I believe an accurate quote is better than not providing one. Sincerely Jvsett (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No apology is needed. You brought the comment here as a direct quote, not as a new comment. In the context of our conversation, it was necessary. Once I'd seen it and responded as needed, I removed it.Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. My sentence should have read, "I do not beleive you posted the grafitti". Sincerely Jvsett (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)