User talk:Giftiger wunsch

This editor is a Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge.

If you left a message and it's no longer here, it's probably in one of my talk archives.

{{{content}}}

{{{content}}}

Panda censorship

I'm on to you, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.141.82 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• The above, from an IP, probably hit you up because he saw your name on my talk page. I'm going to assume this just a harmless joke at this point. (There was a discussion a few days back about what Pandas eat. Obviously, earth-shattering controversy.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • He has now been mostly-harmlessly blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I recently answered a panda-related ANI thread and dealt with an IP which was blocked for disruptive editing to the page and others but seemed to otherwise want to contribute; this is more likely something related to that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hello!! Sorry for the trouble but i am trying to understand why this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyro_Group) has been labelled "written like an advertisement".

Could you please help me out how to make it not seem like one ?

Sorry for any trouble..

Thanks in advance.. diana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.120.33 (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I marked the article as reading like an advertisement as it describes it, focusses on the its achievements, the positive aspects of its history, etc. in a way which seems biased and reads more like an advertisement for the company than neutral encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. You may wish to have a look at WP:NPOV, which describes our neutrality policy. Let me know if you need any additional help. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD notification

Hey Wunsch, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frog in a Suit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to sign...

this. Just so you know :} Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops; fixed. Thanks for letting me know. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I hate to ask you to do this, but could you reply and watch this discussion? Here's the article we're talking about. I totally forgot to respond, and I'm about to go on vacation for a week. (I'm dashing this out at T minus 15 minutes.) I don't think I'll have internet access. Thanks, Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do; right now I'm on a semi-wikibreak (since I'm busy with more important things than runescape ;)), but I should be able to take a look within a couple of days. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

intentionally deceptive

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is not a PA in your opinion? {{trout}}--Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Nope. Slight failure to WP:AGF perhaps, but calling it a personal attack is a pretty wide stretch. Note that personal attacks are against people, not against comments. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is. Please see here "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." According to the above saying that I was "intentionally deceptive" is a PA. BTW why in world did you remove my beautiful trout? Aren't you open for a slap?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC) It's already hit me once, I think being repeatedly slapped whenever I visit my talk page is a bit excessive for a difference in opinion over WP:NPA; my cheek's already pretty sore. On a serious note, the thing's huge and can't be easily resized. And regardless, calling "intentionally deceptive" a PA is an enormous stretch and certainly isn't worth edit-warring over. The better response is simply link them to AGF, explain why they're wrong, and move on. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Well, I do not like, when I am accused in lying. Do you see anything wrong with that, and in my culture such an accusation with no evidences whatsoever is not just a personal attack, but a very bad personal attack. Please do not revert me anymore.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I reverted only once, and have no intention of reverting further; others will and have been doing so anyway. As I said, really not worth getting into an edit war over it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC) never post to my talk page again, and never template the regulars--Mbz1 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I will post to your talk page if and when appropriate, and the template was a formality which you being a regular you certainly shouldn't need, but apparently did. Any more reverts and it's off to WP:AN3. I'm closing this thread, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"No Connection"

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
>Of course this is, however, precisely why making loud accusations of sockpuppetry rather than simply filing the SPI was ill-advised: there was no connection to Epeefleche at all. Um... yes there was. Simply because they don't share an IP address doesn't mean there is "no connection" between the two. You're honestly saying everything I pointed out is mere coincidence and the users - despite out-right lies -- only know of each other through their 99-edit wikipedia history? Bulldog123 00:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Checkuser found absolutely no connection between Epeefleche and the other account. The SPI was closed as Epeefleche being uninvolved. Egg, welcome to Bulldog123's face. Are you saying that you stand by the accusations of sockpuppetry despite the utterly failed SPI? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Facepalm :) Nolelover It's football season! 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Although, after looking it over, were you talking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuki, where Epeefleche was not related, or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive, where he does have socks? If the later, I retract my FP. Nolelover It's football season! 00:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC) The former. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I'm saying you're looking at things in black and white. Which is what many users did with past individuals of this ilk - before the shit hit the fan - shrugging off completely odd circumstantial behavior between two (by your view: totally unrelated) editors instead of duly noting it. If you want me to believe Epeefleche has 0 long-standing sockpuppets actively functioning on Wikipedia and votestacking the AfDs he zealously battles for, be my guest. I welcome both self-directed facepalms once his little hidden ring gets revealed. I'll admit: they don't share the same IP. As if that really reveals much of anything in this day and age -- his previous socks didn't either. Bulldog123 00:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I discourage you from exposing his little hidden ring, I don't think that's a sight we'd like to see. It's well recognised that Epeefleche has operated sockpuppets. He may or may not be operating them now. But making baseless accusations is not the way to discover that. I'd imagine they would have been revealed at the SPI, however, given that another user was identified as being linked to the other account you reported. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC) (moved from different talk page) On the contrary, continuing to make unfounded accusations in the face of a miserably-failed SPI is assuming bad faith to the point of a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I've known Epeefleche for three years on this encyclopedia and have dealt with his antics in countless AfD/CfD discussions. I am no longer required to assume good faith on part of a user who has done nothing but pushed POV and shown a clear agenda since his time on the encyclopedia. With comments like "miserably-failed SPI," you're only adding ammunition by which to discredit any further probes into his behavior (and likely sockpuppetry) -- which is not only going to slow down the process and have misinformed-supporters throw out accusations of "personal attacks" (like you're doing) -- but is also going to make you look really silly for seeing things so black and white once the shit hits the fan. (NOTE: I hate the turn of phrase "shit hits the fan" - but it's the only appropriate visual I could think of) Bulldog123 18:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hangon tags

quote from edit summary: Please, please... just once... I just want to see *one* person put the hang on the place it tells you to do so in bold text immediately after telling you what hangon even is. Maybe bold in the speedy template isn't enough. Maybe we should resurrect the Netscape blink element? Or maybe an animated GIF of a hottie (gender selectable by template option), pointing at the words "directly below", and smiling suggestively at the editor? Every problem has a solution. Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best solution is just replace it with "dump the hangon tag anywhere you like on the page" ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's it! Genius! Invitrovanitas (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Natural environment

sorry bout the change on natural environments i didnt know it would actually change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.251.1 (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Every change you make immediately changes the encyclopaedia. If you'd like to experiment please use the sandbox, where you can make any edits you like (with the exception of personal attacks or defamation, copyright violations, or anything else illegal). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me.

Thanks for informing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 08:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Call Me Elizabeth

Hi

I noticed that you deleted the 'Dawn Annandale' section from this page. I had not completed it and yet it was taking down. I am merely in the process of working on the page. Do you think that there should be a 'Dawn Annandale section' in light of the fact that I wanted to note how the author felt about the novel and other useful information?

Thank you

(Galaxycat (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC))

Having a section devoted to the author seems unnecessary; better to create an article about the author, if they're notable enough to warrant one. In particular though, I removed the content of the section as the phrasing had negative connotations (saying the author "admitted" that she only wrote the book for the money), and was unreferenced; contentious statements about living persons which are not well-sourced cannot remain on wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I obtained the information from an on-line interview with Dawn Annandale. The article is located at http://www.bibliofemme.com/interviews/annandale.shtml if you are interested. You are right in terms of not having a section devoted to the author. In Ms Annandale's interview, she states that she plans to write another novel. If this occurs and she becomes a bit more well known, I shall work on creating an article about the author. (Galaxycat (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC))

When I have a bit more time (at the moment I'm swamped with real-life work) I'll try to clean the article up a bit. In the meantime though, the plot summary is rather excessively long; instead of simply summarising the content of the book, the article should try to focus more on its reception by critics and its popularity, its intended audience, etc. You may also want to try getting help at a relevant wikiproject. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

BDSM as lifestyle choice

I rolled back your change to the BDSM article calling it a "Sexual activity". My apologies.

My reasoning for that is that references have described it as a "lifestyle" for some time. Often people in the swinger community call their choices "The lifestyle" and people in BDSM and the leather community have called their choice a "BDSM lifestyle" and "a leather lifestyle".

Surprisingly, many practitioners of BDSM rarely interact in a sexual basis in public or at play parties, but more often in private. So, for most people who live this lifestyle, calling it "sexual activity" would seem like a misnomer.

Not all people involved in BDSM identify or are interested in power exchange relationships, however a large portion of them do have power exchange relationships of one type or another, and most of those are full-time relationships, not just scene oriented behavior. That is to say they are involved in a "lifestyle". Most of them live their roles every day, all of the time.

Atom (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that after referring to it as a lifestyle choice rather than a sexual practice, the article spends a disproportionate amount of time specifically referring to the sexual practice; maybe it needs to be rebalanced somewhat. If it's widely considered a "lifestyle", however, then fair enough. Note that the edit should have been undone with an edit summary, however, and not rolled back; rollback is reserved for uncontroversial changes such as vandalism reversion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a reasonably-sized section dealing with more than the sexual practice, rather the surrounding culture; never mind. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you are right that an edit would have been better than a rollback. Atom (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas :)

Nolelover ^{It's football season!} presents you with a very merry Christmas tree! May it light up your talk-page and be a beacon to Santa Claus and all of his elves.

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Holidays/Christmas2}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks Nole; sorry I didn't get chance to look into your previous request, I hope you got it sorted out. I've been extremely busy lately and (I shouldn't actually be on wikipedia right now; unfortunately trying to get down to work can be difficult when work keeps dragging me back to wikipedia to check some definitions ;)) I'm looking forward to relaxing over the holidays... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I got it; thanks though. And I understand - term papers can be extremely tough to write when you're trying to wikify 11,000 word articles at the same time. :) Ahh yes, relaxing. That would be nice. If only... Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Many apologies

You were too quick. I hit the rollback button in complete error and then was trying to revert it with a message stating such. Your quick revert stopped that so again apologies to both you and HJ Mitchell. MarnetteD | Talk 20:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem; I figured as much. Perhaps I should have waited and let you revert it and avoid embarrassment, I've done that a few times myself (to AIV of all places, at one point!) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I even managed to do the same at AN/I once and it was changing it back to a huge blanking by an anon IP to boot! Cheers of the holiday season to you and yours. MarnetteD | Talk 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks II

If this is your definition of wikibreak I'm eager to see what you'll do when the break is over :) I'm not often looking at AN and such here, but whenever I do you seem to be around. You seem to be doing a lot of good work in a rather tedious section of Wikipedia, my thanks. Also thanks for taking the time to copyedit Donald macRonald when checking it (though I do believe that comment on the talk page was harmless and funny enough to have been kept ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement; it's a semi-wikibreak since I've had an enormous amount of work to do, so my contributions are about 1/3 of normal, though with the xmas break I've contributed a bit more this weekend. I try to make my contributions as useful as positive even if not as numerous as normal though. Thanks again :) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: No reason. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Gavincollmusic

Leaving a note for clarification. The user has been blocked by me as the name alludes to a website promoting the music. If Gavin had made a username that did not allude to the website, he would not have been blocked. If the user had made a name that represented only his name (say the name were Gavin or Gavin Coll), he would again have been blocked pending confirmation that he really was Gavin. Your contributions are highly appreciated, so this block should not be seen by you as a wrong interpretation by either you or me. Regards, Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I wasn't aware that there was a connection between the username and a specific website (I believe a page he created had been deleted) so it appeared to just be his name and a mention that he's a musician, not particularly promotional in itself; naturally it's a different matter if it's also a website. Thanks again for taking the time to explain your reasoning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing another editor's rationale

Thanks for your helpful responses on AN. I wonder sometime if admins and very experienced users realize how intimidating it is for some of us to post messages on AN or ANI. Wikipedia can be a thicket for the unwary, and I consider myself moderately experienced. Anyway, your responses were both informative and pleasant.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Giftiger wunsch. You have new messages at 64.120.47.10's talk page.
Message added 18:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Additions by sock IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You may wish to use your comments here on the talk page for this article, as they are trying to add the content there. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus among editors

Please take a look at the edits I made on the List of conspiracy theories article to see if you agree with the edit or do not agree with the edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dougweller has removed the edit saying (please stop - you've added it right after "and include the following:" which makes no sense, but the main thing is that you are arguing about the subject and that's inappropriate here, this is just a list of conspiracy theories, not a place to argue) and (who says they add support? this is not good content and probably block evasion) User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer undid the edit saying Block evading socks aren't allowed to edit in any manner. This isn't good content.) and Block evading socks aren't allowed to edit in any manner, even if it's good content. The comments are here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history More info on the subject is on my channel here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.120.47.10 The start of all this was to correct a untruth here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Water_fluoridation Where the article says have found no association with adverse effects. The 2 sources I cited that challenge that are http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571#toc and http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33280.pdf Please post on my channel if you agree and are in consensus with the proposed edit or not in consensus. The proposed edit is this. The 2006 National Research Council's report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards and the 2008 CRS Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues did find associations to adverse health effects with fluoride in drinking water.[54] [55] This can be seen here in the water fluoridation section.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=404710257 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.47.10 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Freedom5000, you're not allowed to edit here at all. This current IP needs to be blocked for a long time as the previous block didn't help. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

BR, perhaps an SPI should be filed since you're confident that this is block evasion? I note that User:Freedom5000 already has a long list of confirmed and suspected sockpuppets. It'd be more productive to confirm that they are a sock and have them blocked rather than simply making accusations. As for the content dispute, I'm not involved and I'm not sure I want to make myself involved in this messy affair. I'll have a look at the discussion when I have a spare moment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There are old SPIs, but currently this user has been attacking using roving IPs and on multiple articles that often aren't even related to the subject, so their IPs are being blocked based on DUCK. There are a number of identifying factors but we're not discussing them "out loud" as we don't wish to help this person improve their block evasion techniques. Starting a new SPI would just take too much time and they'd get too far ahead of us. A number of editors and admins are following this matter and it's wasting too much of our time. Since you're not interested in joining our efforts, I think you're wise to stay out of the matter. Otherwise keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard claims that may arise that I am blocked in this effort to seek consensus with the proposed edit as I am not blocked.64.120.47.10 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just this IP of yours that isn't blocked yet. Many others of your sock usernames and IPs have already been blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.