Difference between revisions of "User talk:Platypusrex256"

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Your changes to Recovered Memory)
(Your changes to Recovered Memory)
Line 91: Line 91:
  
 
:::All you've done is successfully replace two perfectly correct, unassuming, and in themselves complete and self-explaining notes with a boring, dry, repetitive list of barebones assumptions, omissions and speculation.
 
:::All you've done is successfully replace two perfectly correct, unassuming, and in themselves complete and self-explaining notes with a boring, dry, repetitive list of barebones assumptions, omissions and speculation.
 +
:::*my notes contain no assumptions or speculations... could you explain to me what a list of omissions is? - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]]
 
::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 05:13, 30 March 2008 (CDT)
 
::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 05:13, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 23:10, 30 March 2008

A Warning

This message has been copied from Talk:Living with Girls

Actually, I removed your edits because they contained notes that were not note-worthy, were unencyclopedic, treated speculation as fact, and were riddled with bad grammar. Submissions to this, or any wiki need to follow those guidelines in order to be permitted on the pages. This is not me being a "dictator," but an enforcer of the rules of this site. And blatantly badmouthing me, or any user for that matter, is also against our rules (See LGPedia:No Personal Attacks) and will not be tolerated. Consider this your warning. Any future behavior of this sort can and will result in consequences. --Zoey 02:48, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

first, noting that daniel has been lying to his gf and that his gf has no idea what is going on is way more important than your club. second, my notes were not 'riddled with bad grammar' lastly, i am not personally attacking you. i'm calling you out on being a jerk. i didn't call you a dictator. i didn't badmouth you either. i observed you deleted my comments while they were more relevant than yours. you could have done the right thing and just edited them to your encyclopedic liking. but whatever. go ahead and be petty. platy sep 20

In Zoey's defense (and I've not loved her editing at times as well) you did call her a dictator. Nancypants

i said she was not a dictator ;-p but none the less... damn i wish i was an admin because then i'd just slap warnings on people whenever they disagreed with me. it would be great! - platy sep 20
LoL touché Nancypants
"you are the admin of this forum but you are not the owner and dictator!" - by saying this you clearly accused Zoey of behaving like an owner and a dictator rather than like an Admin. Yet, it is precisely because Zoey does not slap warnings on everyone who disagrees that makes her a good Admin. So what's the big deal even if you did call her names? Why are we all so touchy? You were only frustrated by the deletion of the note and wanted an explanation, right? Well actually it is a big deal and you're getting off rather lightly and I have tried to explain this below... Psmith 18:46, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
i'll admit i've been totally pwned in the name calling department. i continue to disagree with whatever reason zoey had in repeatedly deleting my notes. i got the impression she had some e-vendetta or something. somebody else came along and polished my note and that was fine. great. really. i like it now. but the deleting? it was just like a passive 'stfu' to me and i felt that was unprofessional and had to be called out. but whatever. lesson learned? don't get on lgpedia when you're too tired or too drunk to properly communicate your thoughts. - platy sep 21 2:37am pt

Welcome

First of all, welcome to LGPedia.

  • I know you have been around since March and have been contributing notes and making comments on the video talk pages.
  • I remember it was your comment on Talk:No_Trespassing#Sexual_tension that led to creation of the great Relationships page (but only after Zoey promptly did something about your suggestion).
  • I know you started off the Sunglasses and Inebriated pages.

So thanks for sticking around and I hope you continue to do so.

Notes

Some of your notes have had to be edited and/or removed in the past. So, here is some advice on Notes:

  • All of us have our Notes mercilessly edited and critiqued by others. That's life on a wiki. Accept it.
  • Just because a note is removed without explanation, it does not mean it cannot be re-added in a better form. Sometimes an Admin has time to redo a note into a better format and sometimes it is tidier just to remove it and wait for a user to either re-add a better one or start a discussion on the talk page. We are not being petty or personal, just keeping things neat.
  • You admit to being a bad speller on your user page and I'm afraid that affects what other users think of your notes. However, if you take a little more care then most users will be happy to tidy up your note further if it is relevant.
  • On Living with Girls, Zoey removed your first note as it was not substantial. Your second note was much better and she left it alone. Modelmotion tidied up your note and it still remains on the article having had a few more edits along the way. This is normal. No reason to get upset.
  • If you need to start a discussion on a talk page regarding a proposed, current or former edit to an article, do so politely and respectfully. Humour is fine, insults are not.

Final Advice

Finally, I do have to say you should acknowledge that the Admins are being lenient here and only because we remember your better edits and we don't want to put you off entirely. But let us not forget:

  • You have a history of rash comments directed at Zoey in particular. I'm thinking of Neutrogena/Talk:Neutrogena and of course above and on Talk:Living with Girls. It is not nice being called a dork for merely reading history pages as part of your Admin duties, or even being labelled a jerk, an egotist, petty, full of oneself, acting like a dictator etc. (Looks bad when you read them all next to each other... think how Zoey feels).
  • Are we being "touchy" or too defensive? We certainly have every right to be. As Admins we are high profile targets and bear the brunt of insults from the tiny minority of reckless users and vandals who occasionally turn up on LGPedia. Zoey in particular had some pretty awful comments directed at her a week or so ago that I managed to wipe before she read (I hope). That one led to an instant, infinite ban. Even Admins long since retired still get regularly insulted, so bear that in mind before accusing us of being touchy egotists. If anything, we try to overcompensate by encouraging more discussion and consensus to get the best decisions.

Well, I hope that was useful for you and please try not to dig yourself deeper into a hole! I thought you deserved a full and detailed explanation for the warning and some advice on how to avoid future problems. I also hope other LGPedia users who come across this page might get some extra insight beyond the standard guidelines. Psmith 18:46, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Impending ban (by renegade)

Although I could probably, given the preceeding warnings and the evident previous rollbacks, consider your edits willful spam and thus have you fall within the scope of my extended powers, I will leave you to the real moderators for now and have them decide what to do.

However, should you not wish to be banned, I strongly suggest reading both the history as well as the talk page of Mexican Mating Machine. :~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 13:39, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

  • Yes, the only reason I chose not to do anything was because you are in fact a long-time member here, Platypus, who has done some great stuff before. That said, Renegade is right, there's been a crazy amount of traffic going on at that page, and while I fully accept that there are differing views here, it's just not helpful to continually wipe the page blank. So, if you are willing, please talk about it on that page's talk page. That, at least, would help make clear why there's such a tizzy going on. --Pheon 13:45, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
  • You make it sound like I've been rude or I've personally hurt your feelings! I have reasons for all of my edits. If you don't like them, feel free to message me on AIM or MSN. If you want to ban me, please give me a decent reason. Zoey wanted to ban me before because I was being a jerk to her and she had decent reason. It appears you simply don't like my disagreeing with you. - platy march 17
  • Please don't jump to conclusions, Platypus. I simply asked you to bring your disagreements to the talk page, which you did. Thank you. In the end, I'm just happy that all of this has moved beyond consistant page-blanking/restoring. :) --Pheon 21:54, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
  • I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm reading you words. You accused me of spamming the network and threatened to ban my IP. platy march 17

Your changes to Recovered Memory

  1. Parody
    1. a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
    2. a feeble or ridiculous imitation
      Neither is fitting for the behavior displayed or the intentions that can be assumed of the nickname redSUV51; no matter who it was, he showed no behavior indicating s/he was trying to mock Bree.
  • bravo on our use of a dictionary. parody might not be the best word but it is not incorrect. definition number two might fit. but if you must argue, is it an allusion or parallel development? - platy
How would the anagram be a "feeble or ridiculous imitation" in your eyes?
An allusion, on grounds of probability as well as the fact that there is no known reason for Verdus to pick "15" other than to allude to Bree. The only other options would be the unknown, and if you argue with that, you can't even be sure it's an anagram, or simply that we solved the anagram wrong.
  • again, redSUV51 is still an anagram of verdus15. the significance of this is up for the reader to decide. reference is a better word than parody but yes, i feel that the anagram is a feeble and ridiculous imitation. that is a editorial and i am happy to drop it. are you? - platy
The fact that it's an anagram is independent from the fact that it's your own, personal, unfounded opinion that it is "feeble and ridiculous", and it is clearly not an imitation in the common understanding of the word, but a reference or allusion. She was not trying to imitate Bree. Given that you allow me to change it back below, this point is irrelevant, though.
  1. Not everybody is informed about all details of the Breeniverse, remembers everything, or accesses the page directly. In addition, notes can be quoted elsewhere. As such, it is not helpful to cut down a quote that, as it is, can be read and understood in any context by any reader, to a barebones sentence, which...
  • what does this have to do with my changes? - platy
Simple: Your changes were not accessible outside of their context. My note gave the context for redSUV51, Verdus and the connection to Bree's mother, and would've worked quoted anywhere outside of LGPedia. "redSUV51 is an anagram for Verdus15, a parody of Bree's screen name." is a general statement that neither explains to the uninitiated who redSUV51 is, what "Verdus" is and why it is doubly significant in this context. It just stands there assumingly, claiming it to be a "parody".
  • last time i checked, my structure still remains. you are free to change it but it looks like the popular sway is in my favor this time. - platy
Your structure still remains because I did basic fixes this time instead of reverting, because you don't have the courtesy to adhere to common standards and actually wait until the end of the discussion until re-applying changes, so I stopped reverting in order to prevent an edit war.
But if I'm free to change it, I will do so right after submitting.
  1. ...is in addition also overly assuming - yes, it is an anagram for Verdus15. That is noteworthy. But there's a difference between noting it is an anagram for Verdus15, and behaving like that is the one true meaning of the nick. Who knows, maybe a red SUV with a license plate ending in 51 will be the meeting place? The elaborate phrasing includes the same factual information and is less presumptuous about its meaning. And I already explained how "parody" is simply baseless.
  • redsuv51 is still an anagram for verdus15. the significance of the note is a work of analysis and is not noteworthy. - platy
Yes, it is an anagram. But your phrasing makes it sound like that is The One True Interpretation with no uncertainty and margin of error. And while I agree it is probable, as long as you don't have Creator-contacts, you don't have that certainty. My phrasing includes that there is no confirmation of this interpretation yet and the significance of the separate parts. Whereas, still, yours just sits there assumingly.
  • you injected your own assumings - platy
Where?
My phrasing both made clear that it "had been noted", that it's an anagram, and that it was possibly a reference. Your Phrasing just sits there "it's an anagram and it's a parody!". Looks to me like you're injecting your own assumptions and denying any other possibilities.
No matter how probable, there is still no factual proof this was the intended message of the nick. Noting that something is something is entirely different from implying a direct intention. Like I said before, the nick could've been created this way out of pure laziness - "what nick do we give her?" "I dunno...just pick something!" "Like what?" "I don't know...just.....make it an anagram of Verdus or something! Anything! I don't care!" "k...".
Yes, it is an anagram of Verdus. But your phrasing implies that this was 100% surely the intended meaning of the nick, whereas mine notes that this had merely been an oberservation about the nature of the nick.
You are the one assuming safety where you have none. Not me.
  1. In the second note, you removed the part where it points out that the user switched commands - it is noteworthy that the user did not the entire time demand her to come, but only towards the end. Because it's not a simple black and white. She did not just tell her to come, the told her both to go and to come. That's a difference.
  • that is fair. i'll put it back. - platy
  1. In addition, given that Gina says she's supposed to come alone, it is reasonable to assume E.A. will come alone as well (Bree/Dad style). Apart from that, E.A. is the only person assumed by the community to be redSUV51 - at least on a large scale. Thus, it is not "merely speculation", it is a) a logical conclusion from the comments Gina made, the phrasing of redSUV and past precedent, and b) noteworthy because the vast majority of the community assumes it was Bree's mom. Not to mention that c), once again, not all users are always up to date, and may not know about the meeting in the first place. Leaving this sentence makes the note self-contained and quotable outside of LGPedia context.
  • point well taken. you are free to make a third and fourth note about this. - platy
Why would I make additional notes for that if it is connected to an existing note and fits very well inside it? Mine is a causal phrasing - it said "come", she is assumed to be the only other person at the meeting, thus it can be assumed it was her. Yours are two independent statements - "it said come. it is believed to be bree's mother." - your third note looks like pure speculation instead of a logical conclusion.
  • because they are three separate ideas - platy
They are not. The nick is an anagram for Verdus, where E.A. works, and it said "come" to the meeting, where E.A. was believed (and finally appeared) alone. Thus it is assumed redSUV51 was E.A. It is a direct effect out of the other two observations.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 06:09, 29 March 2008 (CDT)
Third level replies are mine.
Fourth level is mine, too.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:58, 30 March 2008 (CDT)
And in the end, it's also a question of phrasing. My sentences simply sound better - it's the same difference as between "Would you please move your car, we would like to leave?" and "Move your car, we're going.". Both may transmit the same message, but they're subtly different, and the first one sounds far better - in addition to being more polite.
  • i fail to see the connection. could you be more explicit? - platy
Your sentences are short, straight to (what you think is) the point, dull, dry and repetitive. My sentences are phrased more elaborate, more cautious, with references. This was an example trying to illustrate that point to you. I am not arguing that your notes are incorrect per se. I am arguing that they are incomplete, that they imply more security on the matter than we have, and that they simply sound bad.
  • dull and dry is the nature of pedia. but am i incomplete? what is missing? you are free to add points. - platy
All you've done is successfully replace two perfectly correct, unassuming, and in themselves complete and self-explaining notes with a boring, dry, repetitive list of barebones assumptions, omissions and speculation.
  • my notes contain no assumptions or speculations... could you explain to me what a list of omissions is? - platy
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 05:13, 30 March 2008 (CDT)