If I left a comment on your talk page, you can respond to me here or there, but I'll get the big banner if you respond here. I will respond to comments left here with a talkback tag in most cases.

Archives

Archive 1

Here's my reasoning for why I removed those three categories from said article (which I've also posted on that article's discussion page here. I'm not exactly aware of how inclusive these categories are allowed to be, so if they must go back, I understand. Thanks.

1) Is he really a murderer? Yes, he once killed Kenny (by accident, with a frying pan) while under the influence of Ritalin. And we all know about what used to happen to Kenny each week. He killed the "messenger boy" in a hallucinatory flashback...so does that really count? And then there's the whole Scott Tenorman deal. Technically, he didn't commit the murder. Yes, in reality he would consequentially be held liable somehow...but it's South Park, not reality. And yes, he always suggests to the other boys about murdering Kyle, and murdering his mom, but has he ever done it? Nope. The article even mentions a quote from Trey Parker about how Cartman is capable of anything "short of murder".

2) Criminal? Well, I don't see it that way. Common mischief, maybe. And the more serious acts he commits are, like I mentioned, handled in such a way within the South Park universe that they never have any serious legal consequence. The times they do (such as going to juvenile hall for the "hate crime" on Token) are, to me, spoofs of the overreactions we sometimes have to certain crimes.

3) The whole frozen in ice thing is technically true, but it happened in one episode. The instance doesn't play an integral part to knowing about anything else that occurs in other episodes, unlike, say, it being an important thing to know about Frey in Futurama. If you include this, you might as well create categories such as "Fictional characters who have been in a coma", "...fell off a roof", "...been to outer space", "...Christian band members", "...little league baseball players", etc.

- SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the frozen thing can be taken out with no problem. The criminal thing is easily applied, as Cartman is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder (scott tenorman), and about the murder, I guess it's admissable that conspiracy doesn't technically count. Oh, and more about the criminal thing, the false police reports he would have fiiled when he was "psychic." I suppose you can remove the murder thingif you really want to, but if other users call for its restoration, I suggest we leave it. Tealwisp (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor has not responded to my arguments. I however cannot assume that she agrees to what I have written. On the contrary the last message that she sent on the subject was a confirmation of her stand. Perhaps life's other issues are more pressing for her. I am not going ahead on my own and making any changes to the article unless she agrees to the draft. Please do not consider this issue closed. For the moment it is simmering on the back-burner, waiting for the other editor to examin my arguments.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no new arguments... what did you want me to comment on? I'm not being deliberately difficult here, I just don't understand. I also don't understand how you can credit those sources as reliable. Ogress _smash! 11:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just a fan of the show, and lots of the articles for the characters are in bad shape. And it's not just Cartman, I'm hoping to improve all of them (on my user page I've shown which ones I've already done significant work to), but, I'm busy (aren't we all?) and it's going to take some time. Once I finish with the character pages I hope to move on to other articles related to the show. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling; most of the excess and poorly constructed info I reverted or edited or trimmed, etc. is already gradually being added back, and I do my best to keep the articles respectable. As I received your first message, I was on my user page in the process of clarifying what kind of edits I was making to SP character pages, and since then I have finished. Take a look if you like. Thanks for the support! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Aspartame controversy

I'm reading over Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/suggestions, and while there are definitely issues amongst the others commenting, I doesn't appear that you're following the letter, much less the spirit, of what is suggested in terms of mediator behaviour/interaction.

Also, both "sides" have to agree to mediation before a case may be "opened" from what I understand. Do you believe that has happened?

Clarification on all points would be welcome. - jc37 10:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying, first, to find out exactly what the conflict is. If you wish to join as a mediator, you are welcome, unless you are involved with the discussion. Also, I was about to take a straw poll on whether we should close mediation or not. There is more than one user who has expressed desire to discuss the issue, and a number more are participating. Only one editor has refused mediation, though one more does not wish for discussion to continue at all, and no "sides" have been declared. Tealwisp (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tealwisp, I appreciate your efforts to mediate, but I fear they could be hampered by your own reactions. I don't mean to be hostile or to attack you, but labeling several parties pejoratively as "you lot" is not particularly constructive in my view, and tarnishes your reputation as a mediator.

As for "exactly what the conflict is", I'm as in the dark as you. The initial point of contention at the article was whether synthesis from primary sources should be permitted. Per Wikipedia guidelines, it should not. There's little or nothing to mediate on this point. The editor who after several days on Wikipedia knows Wikipedia well enough to take the issue to multiple noticeboards, from OR to RS to AN/I to 3RR, should also understand the difference between the various types of reliable sources. If s/he does not, or does not wish to learn, perhaps mentoring would be more appropriate than mediation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for my concerns above, I made a small mistake, I had mistaken you for a mediator as in Wikipedia:Mediation Committee (a part of WP:DR), rather than just a rep of the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. (An informal "mediatory" group.) And based upon what I've witnessed so far, I suppose I should presume that you don't feel that you need to follow Wikipedia:Mediation. Things like not taking sides, and not having an opinion on the "sides" of a dispute, nor trying to decide for them, nor acting as "den mother" or "dictative teacher", but rather to help facillitate communication between them.

Being neutral, diplomatic, and civil.

My apologies for my mistake. - jc37 00:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar, and for being so willing to reach a conclusion in the dispute. Computerjoe's talk 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See if the name change request is still up at WP:CHU. If not, ask a bureaucrat if they can help you. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Pkrdoctor's contributions, you'll see that they have not put in a CHU request. If they have exercised their right to vanish and are editing using a new account, there's no way of telling, unless their edits are disruptive (for example, if they contribute biased information to PKR.com again), in which case you can request a checkuser. Contacting the user is straightforward, using Special:EmailUser/Pkrdoctor, but given that they have been blocked, they may well choose not to reply. Warofdreams talk 09:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided 2 references, both from the IAGS, which removes the possibility of this genocide being "alleged". --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I understand what you mean by difficult to read and too long. When I reread my own comments, even I sometimes have difficulty following the sentences and sometimes skip a line every now and then. My academic skills professor also warned me about my style and directionality errors when I wrote an essay. I have no problem with gathering information and making arguments/points based on that information but I just have difficulties ordering them into an essay/comment without repeating parts or make it too long. I am working on it and hopefully will get better at it. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tealwisp I noticed a message indicator on my talk page but can't see a message on your page, whats up?

and does it have anything to do with the steadily degrading space marines page? Jarrik32 (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still planning on mediating the dispute here? The mediation process is required before we can move to arbitration (if needed). I see no posts by you, however. If you are not going to help out, please remove your name so we can get another mediator. This remains a hot dispute.--2008Olympian^chitchat 10:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tealwisp, I see you've redirected the disambiguation for The Hangover. The reason why that disambiguation is necessary is because there are several other articles that could legitimately use the name "The Hangover" (such as the two musical albums listed on the disambiguation page), not because of possible confusion with the physiological effect of being "hung over". All the various topics are included on that single disambiguation page to have a single consise disambiguation instead of having multiple disambiguations for all the different variations of capitalization and plurality. Therefore, I'm going to switch back the redirect to what it was. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I didn't go through the entire move, then. Tealwisp (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fig (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources. Does not meet WP:BAND.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Xenon54 / talk / 11:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a subpage for you with the most recent, relevant content. It's at User:Tealwisp/Scroogle. Hoping this helps and good luck with the article. Let me know if I can help you out in any way. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You bet.  :) Glad to help and please don't hesitate to look me up if you need a hand. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Do you have need of rollback or reviewer rights? Let me know and I'll hook you up. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capitalist state is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalist state until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Scott Illini (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tealwisp/Scroogle, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tealwisp/Scroogle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Tealwisp/Scroogle during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tealwisp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tealwisp. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tealwisp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Combi-weapons. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Combi-weapons until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]