User talk:Wykypydya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello! How's my editing? Please drop me a line. --Wykypydya

Contents 1 contribution to Spark Notes 2 Need help finding right template 3 Username 4 Vandalism subpages 5 Admin coaching

[edit] contribution to Spark Notes

Note of caution: tagging an edit as possible OR is not an acceptable way to edit/contribute to wikipedia; especially when said edit is blatant OR and admitted POV. By all means continue to be Be Bold. Good luck.--ZayZayEM 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help finding right template

Helpme inquiry: What kind of template (i.e. cleanup template) should one use on Wikipedia for a plot summary that needs to be explained better?

Question, why do we need a plot summary? Why wouldn’t we simply do what we are meant to do? Lovelight 03:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WTF, what are you talking about? Is that some kind of abstract question or something? I meant the plot of a movie: What kind of template message would you put on an article describing a movie's plot that does a poor job?

I'm sorry, for some reason your user page disturbs me. Lovelight 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you must be confused or something, because first you go off on a tangent about "doing what we are meant to do" and then you complain about my user page. (But just to play Devil's Advocate, I find the fake scenario on my user page quite amusing. Don't you?) --Wykypydya 04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What is Devil's Advocate? You are free to remove whatever disturbs you. It's just an opinion. Lovelight 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinions are welcome. To play Devil's Advocate is to hypothetically assume the argument of the other side and make a point about it. --Wykypydya 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand what got you so upset, since I've encountered a number of these "devil advocates" before, thank you. Lovelight 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of opinions, I see you are very devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I wouldn't be too surprised if you're right. Bush has conspiracy written all over him. I don't know about the 9/11 conspiracies, but his corrupt oil and anti-environmentalist actions are really conspiracies.

Fact is, the conspiracy is based on conspiracy, that is, you label decent folks who are puzzled by unanswered questions [emphasis added] with a particular term, and then you make sure that it is as derogatory as possible… It's very desperate approach, since we've passed that event horizon, and you cannot go around and insult the whole wide world. I honestly wonder who will be the first to recognize the libel in label and sue for damage done… these days; one could easily sue a lot of folks. There, that is my only opinion on conspiracy theories… Well, since we are sharing perspectives, let me summarize. I'm not really interested in conspiracy or truthseeking… just facts. That said, I'm glad to know you. Lovelight 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not insulting anyone. Sorry you took it that way. --Wykypydya 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, let me assure you, i haven't taken that as insult, not at all, honestly… we are chitchatting and sharing opinions, right? :) Lovelight 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please try {{Expand-section}}. -- Selket ^Talk 05:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good replacement for {{sectstub}}. For the movie plot for now, I am using the {{confusing}} template and the {{rewrite}} template. --Wykypydya 16:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Hello, Wykypydya. While there had been some discussion here about whether your username met Wikipedia policy on what usernames editors can use, the result was to allow it, and that discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can still find that discussion in the archive (here). You do not need to change your username. However, if you ever wish to do so, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name: simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I didn't know my username was so potent to spark such a controversial discussion. (How come no message was put here while it was going on? I would probably have commented...) It is such a coincidence that a rule about that was made right after. Does this mean that if I created the username afterward, it would have been blocked?

Basically, I sat for a long time thinking about what kind of username would be interesting, but most things were either taken or I had to put trailing numbers. I thought that something resembling the name "Wikipedia" but with different letters for the vowels, and all uniform, would be unique yet unintrusive. As for the comment about masquerading as a misleading identity or authority, I had no intention of that... The statement on my user page about being the "definitive" WP user is just a joke. I'll take it out if there's any objection to it. Everything else on the user page is just me making a creative slate out of my user page.

Anyway, I'd rather think that the username doesn't directly violate policy than justify it by saying that the rule was made afterwards. That being said, I hope a different result wouldn't have happened if I had made the username after the rule... but that's all academic anyway.

As I have no intention of misleading anyone, I'll do my best to correct anyone who is misled. If the fact that the username appears to be archetypal becomes too much of a problem, and/or I can think of something else unique yet nonintrusive, I'll consider changing it.

Thanks for understanding. --Wykypydya 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in that you should have been notified of the discussion, it appears to have been an oversight. The discussion took place here. In answer to your question, if you had made your username after the rule it may have been disallowed depending on people's opinions. The discussion about your name very quickly, and almost unanimously, decided your name was fine. It was not really a controversial name. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism subpages

Please note, your userspace /vandalism subpages have been deleted following a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wykypydya/Vandalism. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, chum! >:-( Those pages weren't bothering or infringing on anyone, were isolated in userspace, and were free for people to contribute to. You ascetic people are so intolerant of the most benign things! It wasn't vandalism of the encyclopedia itself; it was voluntary vandalism of my own userspace. It was the utilization of Wikipedia's free environment without adulterating real articles. Either way, again I wasn't notified when the debate was brought up, which isn't a very big deal other than that I might have considered commenting, unless that's actually the policy for debates about specific users.

I like my vandalism, and you people just take it away, take it away, take it away...

My vandalism lies over the ocean, my vandalism lies over the sea, my vandalism lies over the ocean, oh bring back my vandalism to me... --Wykypydya 02:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they are utilising WP:NOT#WEBSPACE--ZayZayEM 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, in one interpretation, in some abstract way. --Wykypydya 02:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute! On the debate they said what I was doing was similar to WP:BJAODN (bad jokes and other deleted nonsense)! If Wikipedia can have a bad jokes/nonsense page as a Wikipedia meta-article, then why can't I have a personal userspace tree for the same genre of content? --Wykypydya 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching

I noticed you signed up for a coach. I am an available coach! Since I'll be with you for a bit, here's a few things:

• You probably don't go for your RfA or accept an RfA nomination until I think you are ready, and no body guarantees you'll get it.
• Take the advice provided by me to heart—you signed up for advice, help, and guidance on Wikipedia, so I would expect you treat me with some respect and don't completely ignore what I have to say (it's happened before).

Please let me know if you agree, and we can get started. I look forward to your reply, but I'm going to bed. I'll check up on you to see a bit of who you are tomorrow. I have got a lot of work right now (and for the past few months) in real life for the next month, and won't be on Wikipedia my normal 15 hours (don't laugh). I should be done in about 5 weeks, but I think I should be here plenty.

[Mαc Δαvιs] ❖ 07:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, User:Mac Davis! Thanks for volunteering for this. It sounds like you are one motivated WP editor. I wasn't sure if this was something interactive or if it worked by edit-then-respond, or if we have a schedule. I go on WP a lot, especially when not doing work, but am not on all the time. I have a lot of editing experience but I definitely have not seen it all, and am quite accepting of input. Well, sounds like fun! --Wykypydya 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What would make a good first task on the path to administratorship? --Wykypydya 03:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Arrrgh! I had written THREE replies back but each of them were lost or deleted. I'm sorry about taking so while to "respond;" how this goes, I believe differs for different coaches, as per the different coaching styles. I would prefer that you respond on my talk page, as well, since I am not so good about remembering each person I left a talk page message to. How much editing experience do you have? It looks like you have a few for your account, but how many as anon (no account editing) and other accounts previously? Here's your edit count and my edit count. People are going to be looking at that! Everything on that page, they generally want to see more of. The more green, the better. See all those boxes? It would probably do you a lot of good just to fill those up. I haven't. Since we're on the subject: "are there any edits or collection of edits have you made that you are particularly proud of so far?" Answering this question well is important. WP:RfAs and WP:ER hold these preliminary, mandatory questions. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed to death before, and we decided that the edit counter is legal (in real law, and Wikipedia) and was controversial when the first edit counters were written. I'll try and find a discussion for you if you want. The first thing you needed to do, is get some more edits. No matter how good a user's edits may be, or for that matter, low-quality, you are expected to have several thousand, and you'll get better and better the more that you do. It seems like a big number now probably, but they'll come if you really like Wikipedia a lot. The quest to adminship is a long one, and experience is possibly the most vital part. I'm getting some good ideas on helping you out I think :). I'll come up with something for you to do every so often I think. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 02:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)