User talk:Coldmachine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coldmachine.

Welcome to the user talk page for User:Coldmachine Please feel free to leave me a message (don't forget to sign and date your posts by typing four tildes: ~~~~) I will remove comments which I consider: impolite constitute a personal attack unwelcoming do not assume good faith

Coldmachine's Wikistress Level "Just fine"

Archives July, 2007 - January, 2007

Contents 1 Recent attacks by other editors 2 Oxford round table AfD 3 Invite 4 WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VI (February 2008) 5 I really apologize for not understanding the protocol 6 A new Oxbridge user box 7 jza84 8 WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VII (March 2008) 9 Wuggins 10 "Ave Satan!" 11 Different standards 12 Latin 13 Award 14 Hilbre High School 15 WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VIII (April 2008) 16 RE: Thanks 17 prod pass 18 You RAOK! 19 OMFS! 20 Theistic Satanism 21 Literapedia Links 22 Theistic Satanism

[edit] Recent attacks by other editors

Coldmachine, I wonder if you had a look at the talk page of one of the editors who recently made an accusation against you that amounted to "failing to assume good faith". I'm referring to Pete St.John - and if you have a look here you will see that he appears to have a long history of this sort of thing and is currently blocked from editing. I think most people will see his words as more a reflection on him than on you.

I hope this message doesn't go against your wishes about being contacted - my sincere apologies if it does. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no, don't worry about it. I did take a look at that editor's contribution history and it's less than polite to say the least. Still, the AfD process has drawn the situation back into partisan lines and that has essentially ruined the progress which I, Tony, and other editors, had managed to accomplish in terms of drawing people back from an edit war and into dialogue over changes to article content. It's a shame, but when one entry on Wikipedia is taking up so much time and energy it isn't worth the long-term trouble which will eventually boil up. I've seen this before with other articles; first it start with edit wars, then an AfD, then it'll go to review, then there'll be accusations about sockpuppetry and RfC's against one another, and then there'll be blocks handed out by admins - whether they affect the innocent or not. Better to, as they say, duck and dive. Coldmachine^Talk 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As it works out, your prediction was slightly inaccurate - someone called "Guy" jumped straight to indefinite blocks! Obviously I have now been unblocked, and there is a huge brouhaha on AN/I about this. It seems this place can be quite a snake-pit (present company excepted) - but I'm not giving up on it just yet. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Def. or indef blocks, either way, it was going to end badly. I'm glad I bowed out when I did. This situation occurred once before and I learned the lesson the hard way. The minute there's a wikidrama like this it's better to find something else to edit on the 'pedia. You can guarantee that the admin mop, wielded by fallible human beings, will be dirty by the end of it all. Coldmachine^Talk 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford round table AfD

I made another comment. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~

Jccort (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VI (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

[edit] I really apologize for not understanding the protocol

Thanks for your message Coldmachine. I did not mean to violate your protocols or that of Wikipedia in general; I was just ignorant of those protocaIs at the time. I am not affiliated with the entries I was trying insert – just thought they would be helpful. Though interesting, the info is not critical so no harm done by removing it; hope you feel the same way. I apologize for the inconvenience; I know you're just trying to keep your page and Wikidepdia honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifdf (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, not to worry: there's just so many new accounts or IPs trying to insert advertising/cruft/spam that sometimes its an ongoing struggle where we lose track of the fact some are inserting content in good faith. No harm done! Welcome to Wikipedia too, I should add! Coldmachine^Talk 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A new Oxbridge user box

Coldmachine...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] jza84

Hi I noticed your effort in removing vandalism in Liverpool. I am trying to deal with someone above who is effectively vandalising my edits. Can you help? I have never been given a polite invite to discuss. The user has ignored my knowledge. This is in respect of suburbs of Liverpool, eg Seaforth, Huyton etc. If you want to give advice I would welcome it. Dmcm2008 (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but this looks like a Wikidrama to me so I've no interest in getting involved in that. You received some useful advice from User:Snowy 1973 and I think if I were in your place I would be making my edits based around that. Your best bet is to concentrate on the talk pages first, to try to obtain a consensus for the changes you are proposing. Reinserting content which has been reverted by another user constitutes edit warring and you're likely to receive a temp or indef. block for that or for a violation of WP:3RR. I hope you can work it out. This isn't something I'm prepared to get myself involved with, thanks. All the best. Coldmachine^Talk 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, it looks to me like User:Kitchen Knife is the latest incarnation of the infamous, permanently-banned, Liverpool-based User:Irate (which is another reason to not touch this drama with a bargepole!)..... I'll keep an eye on his behaviour. --RFBailey (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VII (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

[edit] Wuggins

Thx for the latest revert. It's getting really tedious, and I'm about to call out the 3RR police. Whois says that the IP address is Emirates Telecommunications Corporation, Dubai. Best. Andrew Cooper (1964), aka GuillaumeTell 20:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I was thinking about doing the same myself. If you do post on the 3RR noticeboard let me know and I will pop along there and add my $0.02. This has been going on for weeks, I notice. WP:ABUSE may also be a good idea: if I had a moment free I'll post there. Coldmachine^Talk 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Ave Satan!"

Yay thanks, I should've thought to ask you.:) Merkin's mum 10:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Different standards

I don't get it, when I added a phrase about Warwick's reputation to the University of Warwick's page it's removed for being boosterism but removing phrase on _exactly_ the same context on the University of Oxford's page is considered vandalism?

Is there a consistent policy here or are people just making things up to suit their whims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.181.235 (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all please comment on content, not contributor. Second; you were directed to the talk page. You'll see a lengthy discussion on there about the lead in and that sentence, and a consensus to keep that sentence provided it links to a section of the article which justifies the statement. Which it does. By all means feel free to try to raise consensus for the same approach at the University of Warwick article; nobody is preventing you from doing so. However, removing content at the University of Oxford article, in the face of established consensus, is tantamount to edit warring particularly when you have been reverted on several occasions for having done so. Since this article is also recognised as a good article then removing content is likely to prove more controversial because you inadvertently damage the article's standing as a result. I'd suggest you always raise discussion on a talk page before making a potentially controversial edit. I hope this helps explain why you are being reverted. Coldmachine^Talk 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's odd. It's the first time i've actually edited the University of Oxford's page, so i'm not sure how that amounts to 'several occasions' but i'm not trying to kick off anything. It just seems odd that standards seem to be applied so differently depending on people's relative affiliations. I'll continue this on the University of Warwick's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.181.235 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case my apologies: this same lead in content has been removed by a number of anon IPs (of which you're one) and so I mistakenly assumed you were the same; hence my decision to finally issue a warning on a talk page. Feel free to remove that. Also, why not sign up for an account? That way you'll be able to get more out of contributing on Wikipedia and also you won't have people assuming the worst. Best of luck on the Warwick page. If you have difficulties, cite the Oxford and Cambridge articles as examples since a 'precendent' has been set. You could also ask over at WP:UNI. Coldmachine^Talk 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry, if I came over a bit argumentative, I was just a little confused. Thanks for the heads up on creating an account. I'm a bit new to all this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.104.198 (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin

Could you possibly leave a quick word on Talk:Black_Mass#Latin? They won't be too much trouble, I think they're just kids, but they think they know the truth and reverted me.:) I don't think it will be drama, we just need to explain to them a mo. It's not likely anyone without their POV will back them up.:)Merkin's mum 02:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I replied. It's obvious that there's a misunderstanding over the use of Satanas in terms of the word meaning 'a deceiver' as opposed to the name of the Satan; as a Hebrew name it's not declined. Coldmachine^Talk 17:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaah, thanks. That Latin bloke said "Yes, both forms exist in the Vulgate. The reported text from Matthew may be a misprint, or simply a translator's error; the Greek is ὕπαγε σατανᾶ (hypage Satana), in the expected vocative case. Bear in mind that the Greek declension was somewhat alien in Latin, like classical plurals are in English, so they may have simply gotten it wrong. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)." Lol in this case, the ancients are wrong. So it's a bit harder to defend our argument from authority. :):) I may have to use as a reference a Latin textbook online or something. First I need to check the current state of play on the article... Merkin's mum 10:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense! I knew that the Vulgate did use this bizarre declension, along with the more standard form of Satan. There are tons of examples of this website. I'm not disputing whether the Vulgate uses Satanas et al. or not, but am disputing both the validity of the Ave Satanas article and the content of Black Mass in which typographical/grammatical errors are mentioned but any attempt to give examples (e.g. with use of the Vulgate declensions for Ave Satanas) are reverted. I think I'll stick to Greek from now on ;-) Coldmachine^Talk 17:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, I just hate that they are lying and saying LaVey is so intellectuelle and his grammar etc. perfect. Not that I am hugely anti-LaVey but articles shouldn't push a POV. And I still think the most likely explanation is he got it wrong unintentionally by the equivalent of not even bothering to google.:) I mean, who wouldn't choose to use the by far most common forms, and for why? And why not include info? It was a big case of WP:OWN.Merkin's mum 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Surely that's not the only award you have babs? You must have more somewhere in archives etc. you could put there to show off:) Merkin's mum 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's on its lonesome! Don't worry, I don't feel neglected or anything! I'm not even sure my edit count is sufficient for some of the 'default' awards... :( Coldmachine^Talk 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought you'd have more "bling" than that:) User:Merzul and I were having a good discussion about the barnstars, we decided not only barnstars, but also most of our wikifriends/allies we had won through being on the same side of a war. You and I of course are lovely editors- we just don't get the bling because we don't enjoy rows enough to get the barnstars. Of course the answer to life, the universe and everything is WP:DGAF. But it's nice to get trinkets sometimes too:) Oh and I'm sure you'll be eligible for one of the default ones. But a lot of them look shite lol:)Merkin's mum 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hilbre High School

That's OK: I happened across it by accident, and thought it looked uncontroversial enough to just merge them straight away! --RFBailey (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VIII (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

[edit] RE: Thanks

No problem. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] prod pass

OMS! (lol) That's a surprise. Maybe that Jim bloke didn't know how to remove it- or didn't he voice any opposition on talk? Did you see on Black Mass that I actually had a look at LaVey's mass (yawn) just to look at the word, and he doesn't actually decline 'Satanas' but uses the same ending all the way through? It's just his word for Satan in it. So we were all a bit wrong lol as no-one had read it. I'm actually learning new info from that article. That Jim bloke does actually know a bit- so it can'tve been him who wrote the "LaVey never made a mistake evar" version of that section it was at when I came across it. I honestly thought a teenage boy must've written that bit. Merkin's mum 16:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

plus- well done- come to remember the article and look at your prod reason, you were probably right that it was a lot of WP:OR. It's the luck of the draw with occult fan-type articles sometimes, as to whether they get deleted. Depending on how many other fans they can recruit in an AfD to claim that it's notable. Merkin's mum 16:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think he removed the prod tag because doing so implies an acceptance of having to improve the article substantially and I think it was evident that this would be extremely difficult in this instance: the article was clearly WP:OR. No citations, no WP:V, etc. You know, I looked at my contribution history the other day and realised a scary thing: I think I may be turning into some kind of deletionist...I guess it comes from seeing so much material lacking scholarly rigour, so much POV pushing, and a whole heap of WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. Argghhhh! Coldmachine^Talk 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not deletionism, or at least not in a bad way. I call it "deleting bollox from the wiki". I join in AfDs quite often, and also I must admit hit "random article" to flick through looking for hopeless articles. My doubt as to whether the Ave Satanas article would be deleted, was due to its notability in the occult world and its no doubt being mentioned in lots of books. But I should've thought that sometimes that doesn't count for much on wiki as it's not notable in WP:RS, or people think it's spam or something. I should've learn this from the death of my first article, Joy of Satan lol (I have an excuse for writing that article, as the JoS led to scandal in a Nazi organisation, when it led to several resignations when a leader was found to be involved with it. [1] As to reliable sources, it was in the Roanoke Times, no less!:) Merkin's mum 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You RAOK!

{...}I'm not getting involved; seems a perfect example of Wikidrama to me."

-I undertand your feelings about wikidrama completely.

"The only thing I don't get is that there appears to be several 'get out of jail free' passes when it comes to WP:CIV with this individual...how utterly bizarre."

Not bizarre at all inasmuch as it happens frequently if people have a lot of contribs etc, those edits count for them to be given a bit more leeway- rightly or wrongly.

"for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or severe profanity directed against another contributor"

I don't mind the swearing so much as other comments on the talk page of the person concerned.

" So, I guess if you contribute a plethora of valuable material to Wikipedia it gives you a free pass to act like a WP:DICK later on. Must bear that in mind in the lead up to me throwing a tantrum if I ever feel the need, like some apparently do."

-Remember you would have to amass enough what they view as more valuable edits before you were "allowed." :) Merkin's mum 12:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OMFS!

A barnstar, thanks! Now I'll have to tinker again with my jazzy userpage.:) Sticky Parkin 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theistic Satanism

There are not many rows over this at the mo except spam links, people occasionally wanting to include their fave groups etc. I've worked hard on it so would appreciate your opinion, as I value it.:) If you don't want to join in any fray there may be, you're welcome to just leave a msg on my talk page. Sticky Parkin 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it looks as if you got this one pretty much covered! It's not really my area; I wouldn't know where to find reliable sources for improving the content. I could go through and tag it, but I think you already went ahead and made a heap of improvements! If you still need my input let me know, even if it's for some mundane gnome-esque treatment. Coldmachine^Talk 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It has pics now.:) I have to go through and add another dozen refs of something and remove any WP:OR. When I've done that I will nag you to tag it like a sl*g and do whatever else you see fit to it, you might let us see any weaknesses in it after that (they're quite glaring to me at the mo lol) and I can spend a while fixing them. User:The Haunted Angel thinks it can be brought to WP:GA status, and it will be the first article I've helped on its way there.:) :) :) Sticky Parkin 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Literapedia Links

First of all, I would like to thank you for the post on my talk page. I appreciate the time you took to provide me with links to different policies, but more importantly, I am grateful for the civil and helpful tone with which you posted. You could have made a rude, self-righteous comment, but you instead chose to be informative and even friendly. That has not gone unnoticed -- thank you very much.

Second of all, you're right. I admit it -- I participated in a campaign to promote Literapedia, a fellow wiki project that I hoped would be welcomed into the Wikipedia family. This campaign does in fact violate the policies of which you informed me. In my own defense, this was done in good faith. While Literapedia may not meet the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia, any casual observer will notice that it does include important, helpful, and relevant information. My English teacher, my classmates, and I only hoped that we could make that information more widespread, providing an alternative to SparkNotes.

We will consider this not a failure, but merely a detour. We will attain our goal through other means -- promotion on other sites, and a gradual takeover of the Internet as pervasive as the growth of Wikipedia itself! Once that has occurred, no one will question us on "Notability." :) Until that time, I will continue to edit with only a neutral POV, and will avoid such COIs in the future.

Again, thank you for your guidance and vigilance in maintaining the standards of Wikipedia. --Docmcconl (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, really, I'm just sorry that your first ventures into contributing to the project have proven a little frustrating perhaps, but please stick around and try your hand at editing some of the articles here to introduce improvements. While external links to Literapedia may not be appropriate there's still plenty of contributions you could make! Coldmachine^Talk 08:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theistic Satanism

This article which we contributors want to get to WP:GA status is now ready for you to make us all cry.:) So feel free to tag etc, and share your opinion of how the article could be improved, on the talk page. Sticky Parkin 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you convinced me: I'll take a look. I'm up to here so far and will continue working through the article later, or tomorrow, with some additional tidy up. I think it's reasonably well sourced and written: there are a few things which need to be ironed out though before GA nomination in my opinion and then a reviewer would also have some feedback to give for improving things further still. Coldmachine^Talk 20:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. All suggestions etc are much appreciated.:) Sticky Parkin 11:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've gone upto as far as you've got.:) I wasn't sure about sources in a lead but since then have seen that some other articles considered controversial have them, such as Chiropractic, although that has the longest lead section I've seen lol:) Sticky Parkin 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)