User talk:Justforasecond

Welcome!

Hi Justforasecond! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Private Butcher 18:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Do not move pages without requesting a move at requests for page moves. "Flatulence" is the correct term, while "fart" is colloquial. In any case, moves should be done with the move function and not by copying and pasting the text of the article. JFW | T@lk 05:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move pages manually. I will comment on Talk:Flatulence. JFW | T@lk 05:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warnings

What edits has User:PHenry performed that you consider vandalism? A diff would be helpful. Thanks! I left this message at User talk:155.91.28.231 but I thought I'd drop a note here too in case you miss it there. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afrocentrism

Please don't visit my talk page w/inane messages. Afrocentrism has been flagged for a very long time -- mostly because people object to the subject matter itself. My contributions to this piece have been NPOV and factual. I haven't had anything to do with the piece for a very long time. And don't bother to respond. I won't read it. *x* deeceevoice 14:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume good faith when the blatant ignorance and racism stop. Further, the edit record shows I did NOT edit yesterday. The last edits I made on this article were done 11/27 -- and it was clean-up stuff at that, aimed at toning down some of the POV and general fix-up. Get your story straight -- and don't post to my talk page in the future.*x* deeceevoice 23:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. DO NOT tamper with my talk page. What I choose to keep or delete is strictly my prerogative. Per my earlier warning, I've deleted your changes -- your last contribution without reading it. (Poof!) Don't waste your time. deeceevoice 06:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flatulence

You already get to flatulence by entering "fart" in a search box. Please read the other comments on the talk page. The consensus is to keep the name of the article the same. --malber 19:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also propose that we change the article titled "Sexual intercourse" to "Fucking"?--malber 04:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice rfc

Would you take part in an rfc about deeceevoice's conduct? I found your comment below on his talk page (which has now been removed). As far as I can tell deeceevoice has attacked many users, but to file an rfc there need to be at least 2 users that have tried to resolve the same issue.

[1]

-Justforasecond 15:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think an RfC is probably warranted (sigh). Would you mind if I authored it? I posted a note to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but nobody has commented. Wikipedia needs more users like Deeceevoice (i.e., competent editors that reduce systematic bias), but she needs to tone down the aggression a notch. — Matt Crypto 17:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matt. How do you post things on two talk pages at once?

Go ahead and author the RFC. I'm not sure how to phrase those things -- I can add diffs later if you need help digging through the archives.

I'm not sure we need more like deeceevoice. She can write well enough, contributes voluminously, and definitely makes the place a more diverse, but the aggression and also the disregard of other policies (NOR and cite sources) are pretty over the top. She also appears not to care about NPOV, but that's more subtle. Unfortunately she turns off a lot of editors and, it looks like, draws the few others that are African-American into conflicts they wouldn't otherwise care to be in. -Justforasecond 20:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just copy conversations so that the context is kept, but I have to do it manually ;-). I've posted an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice. — Matt Crypto 08:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

Please do not spam talk pages with information not related to the article. There was no reason to post links to the deeceevoice RfC on any pages but user talk pages. I thought about removing the comments from Talk:Blackface, but then I checked your contributions and saw how many pages you'd posted that message to, and frankly, I don't feel like cleaning up the mess you've made. Article talk pages are not for settling personal disputes. —BrianSmithson 16:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice has been very active on the blackface article. anyone there would know her by name and could provide valuable comments.

in case you're not familiar, the rfc is a way for all editors to provide comments, not a personal dispute. i'd welcome your opinion!

thanks,

-Justforasecond 16:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Moving discussion back here to avoid fragmenting] I know what an RfC is. My point is that this dispute is about deeceevoice's behavior toward other editors, not her contributions on articles. Your multi-post to articles she has worked on could easily be interpreted as campaigning on your part or even as a personal attack. Campaigning, whether for adminship, featured article status, or requests for comment, is generally frowned upon here. In summation: Please keep this dispute relegated to the appropriate Request for Comment. If you want to inform others about the RfC, do so on their talk pages, not on the talk pages of individual articles. Posting to article talk pages would of course be acceptable if this were an RfC about her contributions to those articles. However, for a behavioral RfC, it is not.

I've considered reverting all of your recent posts to article talk pages regarding the RfC, but it's borderline whether this is a personal attack. Perhaps you can do the cleanup for me before deeceevoice or someone else decides to interpret your postings as such.—BrianSmithson 16:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]