User talk:Mad Pierrot

Welcome!

Hello, Mad Pierrot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The National Monument to the U.S. Constitution

HelpME: I'm obviously very confused. The information that I have placed into the article is absolutely accurate. I can't seem to figure out how to add catagories and don't quite understand what is being requested as to documentation. I have included many links. I have tried to link to the Wiki article on Brett Livingstone Strong, but it keeps rejecting it. Don't know why. Please help me to get this right. Thanks Larry Creeger --Lawrence Creeger (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk more on the talk page -- Mad Pierrot (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HelpMe: I tried to delete the "deletion box" but it came right back. I'm also planning to add additional pictures of the Monument in major National events. Don't know if that adds any credibilty to the article. Its hard to link the monument to other articles without going into those articles and adding the information about the monument. i.e. The bio of Warren Burger mentions his being chairman of the Commission, but doesn't mention that he commissioned the monument(s). do I go in and add the monument information to his Bio, which by the way is what I did? Still can not figure out catagories at all. I've read and re-read the article about catagories and for my own part, it is Greek to me.

Larry Creeger --Lawrence Creeger (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) --Lawrence Creeger (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HelpMe Are you the one who removes the speedy deletion of the article? Obviously I own the WEB site your refer to: WWW.spiritoffreedomtour.org. I have now sent the email giving Wikimedia permission to use our material. Please advise. Larry Creeger --Lawrence Creeger (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lawrence,

Let's keep this discussion on the talk page. Thanks --Mad Pierrot (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HelpMe I think you put a response to someone on the wrong talk page. I have no idea what the above is about. Larry Creeger --Lawrence Creeger (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry,

Don't worry about that, it's just a disagreement with another editor. Just check out the The National Monument to the U.S. Constitution article talk page. --Mad Pierrot (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"openly straight" edits

Thank you for getting in touch with me, and for stating your position with regard to my edits. I am sorry to hear that you feel they are a "joke." The Wikipedia page for B.D. Wong, another actor who stars in Law and Order SVU, states that he is "openly gay." (I quote: "Wong, who is openly gay, began a long-term relationship with talent agent Richie Jackson in 1988.") A search for "who is openly gay" on Wiki reveals 72 hits. Before I edited several articles, a search for "who is openly straight" turned up nothing.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept your position that this discrepancy represents some kind of neutrality. In fact, I believe that my edits were aimed much more clearly at approaching neutrality than is your reversion.

If you insist that the "openly straight" edits be removed, I must insist that the 72 references to being "openly gay" be removed as well. "Openly gay," when used in this way, implies that the individual should have something to be ashamed of, but that they overcame it. I'm sorry -- that's doesn't feel like neutrality to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.147.142 (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your position that "openly gay," when used in this way, implies that the individual should have something to be ashamed of, that is besides the point. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you would like, I could debate with you why I disagree with you, but I doubt either of us are going to change our positions. Please, let's be civil, and if you find something you disagree with on an article, you should consider including an edit summary and making your case on the talk page when you make changes. One more thing, it is considered good practice to sign your posts on talk pages by inserting four ~'s after your post. Mad Pierrot (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Retain the article Band Nee

Hi,

Please help to retain the article Band Nee, Nee is a music band, which released its debut album on 27th June 2009 at Planet M, Bangalore India... The band has performed several stage shows as well... Including Television shows, there is a huge response in Bangalore and India for this band.

Supporting evidences for the existence of this band is provided in the article.

Awaiting your positive response.

Thanks, Siddeshindia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddeshindia (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Siddeshendia,

If you believe that Band Nee merits it's own article, you should make your case on the talk page. However, looking over your contributions, it seems that you have repeatedly recreated the Band Nee article after it had been deleted. This is generally frowned upon, and administrators will be less likely to want to keep the article on Wikipedia. [mad pierrot][t c] 07:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page The Silver Bears has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alexius08 (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you wanted to revert my last edit? I just was putting the speedy deletion tag back after it had been removed by the author. [mad pierrot][t c] 02:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. I also tagged that page for speedy deletion, but the user suddenly removed it. Maybe I'm doing it too fast? Alexius08 (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

That [1] was fast! Thank you very much Skäpperöd (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Glad I could help. [mad pierrot][t c] 09:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got it.

No sweat regarding that Twinkle mix-up. It's happened before. :) Couple of things, if I may: Since you're involved with Linux, would you take a peek at my talk page? A new editor is trying to build a page on a new event called the Southeast Linux Fest and he's building it on a subpage. I'm unfamiliar with the names he's listed as speakers for this year's event. If they're notable, then it's likely the event is as well. Kind of borderline. The other thing is, I used to work a lot with RickK some years back when I was getting started. He and I became internet pen pals for awhile. Sadly, I've lost touch with him. It would be my pleasure to make the wish on your userpage come true since Rick was truly an asset to this site. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For exemplary dedication to the often thankless task of keeping this site free from vandalism, especially in light of the fact that you're a relatively new user, it is my pleasure to bestow on you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Rick would approve, I assure you. Well done! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! I've been neglecting my real life to fight vandalism these past few weeks... Anyway, after looking over the list of names, I would say that most those people are notable in the Open Source community. It's actually pretty impressive for a college level gathering. Especially Pete Graner (Kernel manager at Canonical), Chris DiBona at Google, Paul Frields (Fedora project leader), and well they're actually all pretty impressive. Lbyrd1984 should consider joining the various Wikiprojects about open source stuff: Wikiproject Free Software, Wikiproject Linux, along with Wikiproject Computer Science, and Wikiproject Computers.

On a side-note, would you mind taking a look at the The National Monument to the U.S. Constitution page for me? The article's creator Lawrence Creege and I have been going back and forth (civilly) about whether the article should be included on Wikipedia for a week or so now. You can see the whole thing play out over the page history, but essentially I didn't think it was real, until I found a few websites (which it turns out he owns) about it. I have requested a third opinion, but maybe you could just have a look at the page to tell me I'm not crazy? My gut tells that it has too many factors working against it (copyright infringement, conflict of interest, notability, lack of third-party sources) for it to be included on Wikipedia, at least in its current form. This is all said with no ill feelings towards Larry, it's obvious he just cares about the subject and he wants more people to know about it.

Well anyway, thanks again for the barnstar, and I look forward to working with you!

Oh and, would you mind signing the barnstar? I would like to proudly display it on my user page. Thanks. [mad pierrot][t c] 08:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure to sign the Barnstar. I'd merely forgotten to do it (blush). Definitely feel free to invite Lbyrd to join the Linux project. I'm sure he'd appreciate it. I'm signing off and heading back into a "semi-wikibreak," but I'd suggest leaving word at WP:AN/I regarding the content dispute. See you soon! :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have Pierrot granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. [mad pierrot][t c] 16:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy

Your reverting of my edits on the page democracy were quite disappointing. I will below lay out the points for why my version should stay.

1. It's not like anyone's ever going to read all that crap that's there now
2. If anyone ever does read it, they'll be pleasantly surprised when they figure out they're actually reading something interesting.
3. You didn't even read what I wrote, I bet. I spent a lot of time on that, jerk.
4. See points 1-3

If no ones ever read all that "crap", how do you think I thwarted your efforts?
I will say this, you are very creative. However, what you deem interesting, most people would call it vandalism.
Democracy has a long a rambling history, from the rings of Saturn to the twelve moons of the slave planet Doomulon 12X. The first recorded history of democracy can be seen in ancient Benetarian texts. From one text found in the tomb of Pat Benetar XII (translated from its original Bentese... is as far as I read before I reverted your changes.
I decided that your edits weren't constructive, which does constitute vandalism. [mad pierrot][t c] 00:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were just in the neighborhood and decided to check out the democracy page? Please, don't insult my intelligence.
You know who else they used to call "vandalism"? Democracy, the thing which you seem so sworn to defend.
Point 3 still stands, you didn't read everything I wrote so you can't say anything about how accurate it is.
Your mom isn't constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.48.50.250 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, with comments like your mom isn't constructive, it's hard to engage with you intelligently. Most of your argument is nonsensical, so I'll focus on the third point: you are correct, I didn't read everything you wrote. However, I read enough of it to decide it was silly vandalism. [mad pierrot][t c] 00:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]