User talk:Powerzilla: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 13:57, 24 November 2015

Edits to Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Hi,

I've removed the section you recently added. Article talk pages are for discussion on editing the article - they aren't general forums for talking about the subject of the article. I don't know why the site was down today, but it's not of any great consequence regarding the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it may have been pulled. Seen others of that ilk. after they got pulled. Powerzilla (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

'Zilla, you're slipping back into bad habits at Talk:Unidentified flying object. Talk space is for efforts to improve articles, not for advancing theories based solely on popcorn flicks. Remember, reliable sources. Not "I heard" or "what if" statements. — Lomn 16:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only pointing out what I've found. ASAP, I'll show others what I've found, per WP:RS, per WP:NPOV. Powerzilla (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not been "per WP:RS". Some guy's blog, and that's all MAAR is, is not reliable. Further such additions in spite of this will be considered disruptive. — Lomn 12:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll run future stuff like that by you. I have found one website that says that aliens are mutilating people. When I run it by you, be warned that you don't eat, drink anything for some time, since there are extremely graphic pixes on it. Powerzilla (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in vetting something with graphic images. Is the source noteworthy? Is it reliable? Can the same information be found in known reliable sources? Or is it just another crackpot with a web site? Since you're aware of the relevant policies, I expect you to be responsible for content you add to Wikipedia. — Lomn 20:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alamo situation

It's possibly appropriate -- the sourcing is likely fine, but it's a question of whether the material is suitable for Wikipedia at this point. As we're not an online news source, we don't strive to have up-to-the-minute news that hasn't yet established its notability or notoriety. I'd be inclined to say that, for now, this situation is better suited to WikiNews. Should it continue to garner coverage, particularly at a national or international level, then it may well be appropriate here, too. — Lomn 21:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of what happened in El Paso, Texas earlier this year when a Mormon sect was raided for pretty much the same reasons. Gotta love that Preview button. Powerzilla (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks noteworthy to me. Expanding the Tony Alamo article might be a good place to start -- if this continues to gain media attention, you'll then have a good core for splitting into a separate article. — Lomn 12:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On sources and comments

The reliability of a source is independent of the comments -- CNN, for instance, remains entirely credible while allowing comments on its stories. Simply ignore the comments. So long as whatever you're citing is from the actual article, there's no problem. — Lomn 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABC: reliable mainstream news source
Blogspot: not reliable in any way -- it's a personal blog
Comcast: probably ok, but likely the information can be found somewhere more acceptable (such as ABC).

Hope that clarifies — Lomn 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On typos

Your edit yesterday indicated that you're not sure about correcting talk-page typos. The best guidance I can give you is: don't. It muddles the trail of comment accountability, breaks page subsection links in cases like this one, and runs the risk of changing the substantive statement of another editor. There is a general understanding on talk pages that the portion of text signed by an editor is the work of that editor alone, and I encourage you to respect that. If someone's statement is confusing, then by all means ask for clarification -- but please don't seek to clarify it yourself.

Naturally, this does not apply to article space. — Lomn 19:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsblaster

On further review, Columbia Newsblaster looks like an excellent resource, though I would suggest you reference their sources directly rather than Newsblaster itself. — Lomn 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning IP users

Please do not warn IP users who are not actively engaged in the relevant behavior. You just left this message for an edit that was three days ago. Most recently, however, that IP was constructively editing. Likely you've warned a helpful user who's an entirely different person from the one warned three days past. — Lomn 19:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was out trying to catch some vandals. Appreciate the reminder. One guy claimed he saw Bigfoot in the toilet(of all things) after he/she ate at Taco Bell. Powerzilla (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the edits you were warning about were inappropriate. But they were also days old. Warnings don't need to be left for issues that are no longer current. — Lomn 20:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10-4 Lomn. Powerzilla (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cease adding unsourced unsupportable content

Zilla, I've just reverted three different cases of you adding wholly unsupportable "information" to article space. Since you're also adding {{fact}} tags, I can only assume that you're well aware that the material isn't legitimately verifiable. So here it is: the next time you add content that cannot be verified by a reliable source, you will be blocked. In the interim, I suggest you place all questionable edits on article talk pages for other users to evaluate, as your position of trust is swiftly eroding. — Lomn 13:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my trust is not eroding. I just lost a uncle last week. People do things not normally done when they lose family members. Powerzilla (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn error

Accidentally made a error. Still new here. Powerzilla (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally hit a archive by mistake. I thought the Archives cannot be edited, as seen in many archived areas. Powerzilla (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Att. Admins: Got Logged out

Got logged out when editing the Amazons article. Powerzilla (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazons

Zilla, do you really not see that a sex club is utterly at odds with everything else in the Amazons article, and even in the "See also" section? Regardless, I'm taking this to the talk page in lieu of escalating a stupid edit war. — Lomn 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10-4 Powerzilla (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No war here at all man. After all, is not what the Talk Pages on the articles are for? To smooth out any and all problems that may come up. Powerzilla (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations: 'Zilla, justifying something on the basis of a self-proclaimed micronation's self-proclaimed "courts" and "police force" is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Absolutely nothing to do with any micronation has any legal basis. No "court" decision is considered legally binding, no "police force" authorized to detain people, no "bank" capable of printing legal tender except so far as voluntarily identifying members agree to use it themselves. There's no more legitimacy to these structures than those of Monopoly -- the money and jail matter only so long as I agree to play the game. I don't really get $200 every time I circle the board and I certainly don't amass a rap sheet. And this is the sort of thing you want to place alongside legitimate scholarly topics like valkyries and Artemis? I'm baffled. — Lomn 03:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this one would be appropriate, since it has similar philosophies and attributes to the legendary Amazons. Really. Seen the Youtube linkage yet? Powerzilla (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be notable, due to the similarities. Thats all. :) Powerzilla (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC) :)[reply]

There are a great many things that are similar to Amazons. Similarity, however, does not confer noteworthiness. — Lomn 03:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10-4. :) Powerzilla (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC) :)[reply]

Block notice

'Zilla, per my warning above, I am blocking you for repeatedly re-adding unsourced content such as this and this. You can appeal the block by posting the {{unblock}} template. I suggest that a firm statement that you will not further add such content would be appropriate ("10-4" is probably not verbose enough). — Lomn 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How long? I have been there in the Gulf Breeze, Florida myself. As for the other, I DID state that there is stuff on the 'Net about the Mental Health system, but I have NO idea IF any of it could be used. Powerzilla (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Lomn, what is your 10-20? I'm NOT trying to "out" you at all. IF you're in a BIG city, you don't see the sky at all anymore, because of the lighting. You should check out the TOPIX website as well. I have found things there that will shock you. Powerzilla (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and personal observations do not qualify. As for my location, it's not relevant. Please drop that line of conversation. — Lomn 00:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to also place some "cites", but my ISP AND Wikipedia was fucking up BIG TIME. I Kept getting really weird versions on Wikipedia, and then MY ISP went down as well. Powerzilla (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACORN sources

I've addressed in more detail on my talk page, but the short version is "find mainstream sources, not this wonky crap." If it's a worthwhile story, then surely it will be covered by mainstream media -- CNN, the BBC, the Washington Post, whatever. If it's not covered by mainstream media, then perhaps it's not a worthwhile story? — Lomn 13:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logged OUT

Damn thing logged me OUT. Just moved in from another location, and just got on DSL. Powerzilla (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caution... again...

Powerzilla, I notice that you're still confused about what sources are appropriate. This sort of editing remains unacceptable. I strongly suggest you restrict yourself to adding sources that are in the absolute mainstream. Additionally, it's probably best to avoid vocabulary such as "right-wing", "zealots", "militants", and other polarizing POV-type descriptors unless you're quoting directly from aforementioned mainstream sources. These restrictions will establish your ability to edit within community norms. Basically, the number of your edits that are reverted is unacceptably high, and I hope you can build on those positive contributions that you make. It is important, though, that I remind you that the community's patience is not infinite. A consensus that an editor provides more harm than good can be grounds for long-term blocking or even a site ban. — Lomn 16:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was only reporting on a alleged medical agenda, NOT any political ones, no more, no less. Powerzilla (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even politically active at all, much less making a political nightmare here. Powerzilla (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd read the message Scott posted (or any of the numerous things I've posted), you'd know: Reliable sources. You're not using them. No one but you is bringing up the notion of a "political agenda"; that's a non-starter. Likewise, "medical" has nothing to do with whether your edits are appropriate or not. — Lomn 15:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logged Out - AGAIN

Att. Admin: Damn thing logged me OUT AGAIN! Powerzilla (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia caches logins for at most 30 days, and frequently less. It's normal and not really worth getting angry over. — Lomn 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want someone claiming I was using smelly footwear, worse. Powerzilla (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to avoid that is, when you notice that you accidentally edited as an IP, to log back in and sign as yourself. Happens all the time. — Lomn 03:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Att. Admins:

I have found this UFO matter and have been placing it in appropriate articles. Nothing improper is going on. Thanks. Powerzilla (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source says that Sacremento, California has reported that a UFO was in their area. Source is "Subject specific". Powerzilla (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source is a TV station in Sacremento, California. Powerzilla (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UFO thing

Zilla, I wanted to let you know that you did well following up on the UFO thing. I hope that the resolution helps illustrate why Wikipedia isn't a catalog for current events -- the thing came down to a misidentification of an airplane with unreliable eyewitness accounts. I encourage you in the future to hold off on shotgunning the latest possible controversy across Wikipedia -- much like this one, there's a good chance it will simply require us to go back and remove stuff a couple days later, work that gets harder the more a poorly-supported story is spread around articles. — Lomn 23:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Powerzilla (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Att. Admins:

MY terminal had shown that I was REMOVED from a arbcom election for Bishzilla. Error was corrected. Powerzilla (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got logged out. Thanks for the assist. Powerzilla (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got logged out, Wikipedia acting like maple syrup in a Alaskan winter. Are the servers out? Powerzilla (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Servers are still out? Uploads and downloads are S....L...O....W. Powerzilla (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you all know that I got logged OUT again. Powerzilla (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here we are again

Let's see, how can I phrase this so that you might understand...? Stop bringing claims about goofy crap when you don't have sources.[1][2][3] This does not improve the encyclopedia; it merely requires myself and other editors to go back and clean up after you. In particular, do not add said ludicrous and unreferenced claims to article space.[4] Got it? — Lomn 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~See UFO Casebook and the primary sources there. Too many to mention. Some are purely British sources.~~ UK primary sources found regarding the UFO matter
I have dealt with police who did give Viet Nam War era "draft dodgers" hell. That was a question, in case the current war gets worse.
~~I used to live in Louisiana, thus I know this is a real law.~~ Carjacker law sourced.

— Powerzilla (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. No. No. Show sources. Show the specific sources that validate your specific claims. Not "over there somewhere", not "some guy I knew", not "I lived there once". Sources, or nothing at all. — Lomn 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10-4 — Powerzilla (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :)[reply]

Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect The Register to be highly-regarded. It's effectively a blog and, as best I recall, plays loose with journalistic standards. But go ahead and pitch it on the talk page, I guess. — Lomn 20:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carjacking sources

For what it's worth, my concern was whether your sources were still current. The sources themselves are good, to be sure, but they're also 10 years old. Can you verify that they still reflect the current state of Louisiana law? Also, note how carjacking has been rewritten to avoid making specific legal pronouncements beyond the scope of the source -- specifically, claims to the effect of "you can kill someone without being prosecuted" have been removed, because the source doesn't support such a blanket statement. — Lomn 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of CB slang

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is CB slang. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CB slang. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 169: / Line 169: @@
 '''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a [[WP:BOT|bot]]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --[[User:Erwin85Bot|Erwin85Bot]] ([[User talk:Erwin85Bot|talk]]) 01:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
+== [[WP:ACE2015|ArbCom elections are now open!]] ==
+Hi,<br>
+You appear to be eligible to vote in the current [[WP:ACE2015|Arbitration Committee election]]. The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia [[WP:RFAR|arbitration process]]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[WP:ARBPOL|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to [[WP:ACE2015/C|review the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on [[Special:SecurePoll/vote/398|the voting page]]. For the Election committee, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
+<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692210171 -->