User talk:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad

This page is not a forum for general discussion about your mom. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about your mom at the Reference desk.

Ha ha, it's funny cos the Reference Desk knows your mom.

... in the ladies? What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the most erotic part of a woman is the boobies. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                ,'``.._   ,'``.               :,--._:)\,:,._,.:       All Glory to               :`--,''   :`...';\      the HYPNO TOAD!                `,'       `---'  `.                /                 :               /                   \             ,'                     :\.___,-.            `...,---'``````-..._    |:       \              (                 )   ;:    )   \  _,-.               `.              (   //          `'    \                :               `.//  )      )     , ;              ,-|`.            _,'/       )    ) ,' ,'             (  :`.`-..____..=:.-':     .     _,' ,'              `,'\ ``--....-)='    `._,  \  ,') _ '``._           _.-/ _ `.       (_)      /     )' ; / \ \`-.'          `--(   `-:`.     `' ___..'  _,-'   |/   `.)              `-. `.`.``-----``--,  .'                |/`.\`'        ,','); SSt                    `         (/  (/ 

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The wub (talk • contribs) 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

click here     Hypnotoad 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coolest. User name. Eh-vuh! :D Wysdom 19:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is awesome. That is all. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, one of the best. Pairadox (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped by to say you have an amazing name. :) Zidel333 16:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am rhythmically, unconsciously clapping for your username. -- Kicking222 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like a complementary Brain Slug with that? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha... yes. Seriously, best username ever. It actually beats out User:Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo, and I didn't think that was possible. -- Kicking222 13:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool name, cool interests. Hypnosadist 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!! Lugnuts 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you got permabanned for doing your job, Lugnuts. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I just saw your name again... and it made me extremely happy. -- Kicking222 00:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But your username is brilliant! Movementarian (Talk) 15:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for responding to my prod, I was concerned that no one was looking at the article as it hadn't been edited in over a month. Prior to posting the prod I did check the original discussion, but still had concerns as most of the people who had defended the article seemed to be coming from single purpose accounts. Thanks for removing the word "practicing" I probably wouldn't have even gave the article a second glance had that term not set off alarm bells.

There does need to be a lot of cleanup though. Although I appreciate the references, it's difficult to verify the claims. I tried, but couldn't find anything. Perhaps then, you could be more diligent in terms of citation and give actual page numbers (using the proper Wikipedia template) so I can more easily track the information down. That way, the article will be less likely to be deleted.

I really don't care one way or another about the group, as long as the information is accurate. As such I'll remove the prod but keep the page watched. If you can clean up the article and get some proper citation in there I'll check it out and back you up. If not, in about a month or two I'll put up the prod again. I have the page watched so I'll keep an eye out and tried to lend whatever feedback I can.

Cheers! --Wolfrider 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, god bless the Wiki eh? Your edits are actually much better and the citations are easier to understand. I'll check them later, but I dumped the hoax tag. Thanks for this, now I'm actually interested in reading more. --Wolfrider 03:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I rather enjoyed reading your opinions on your User Page! I didn't think it was a waste of space :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. --Amir E. Aharoni 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for trying to push for a truly accurate decision on some of the deletions I raised earlier today. Too often I feel that people just look for the quickest way to make a decision, and I greatly appreciate you trying to help generate a truly thorough decision, no matter how it turns out. Cheers! --fuzzy510 05:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the time, people make a snap decision based on rules, as if they were some sort of magical device. I just want to see rules applied, but with common sense in a way that help make a better Wikipedia. I also have become maybe a bit too harsh, as I also like people arguing for "keep" on a poor article to get involved and make the article better during the AfD - it seems the old hands here have that attitude, but many newer people don't see the point. Anyway, a lot of the time AfDs end up coming out "the right way", no matter how many bad arguments are made - I guess we still have many good admins here. So I follow DGAF - I put forward an opinion for what it's worth, but then I let Wikipedia sort itself out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you miss it: Containment theory records. Knocking WP up a notch. BAM!! Lugnuts 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Good idea. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Hypnotoad.gif
  Lugnuts 11:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, that. Most of the people to come under attack from 4chan have been the ones who solve fiction AfDs with constant deletionist hardliner pile-ups. You're considerably more restrained. In any case, your user page got trashed and is now semi-protected. Drop me a note if you want the length changed. --Kizor (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask - and count yourself lucky for not knowing it earlier - 4chan isn't a person but a gargantuan imageboard. There are some smaller parts of it that, I'm told, have some intelligent content, but the place is pretty much synonymous with the board /b/, one of the more vile places on the entire Internet. Its members would probably be proud of this description, quoted from Everything2:

They have been increasingly often provoked to make such small-scale raids in the last few weeks, probably due to a single provocateur. :I'm torn between hoping that they'll go away quietly and hoping that they'll invade in force so that I can get to do some proper anti-vandalism work. --Kizor 17:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'm reluctant to infinitely (semi-) protect your userpage, at least without hitting the help pages first: though it is a bit odd that personal userpages are unprotected by default, openness is considered to be a basic principle of the site. Exceptions are made out of need and very seldom pre-emptively.
If you really want one, I can see what I can do; if not, can I interest you in a vandalism counter? They come in handy userbox size nowadays, too. --Kizor 17:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. It certainly doesn't hold me blameless, but I think it is quite fair. Erechtheus (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older - shorter of breath, and one day closer to death. Pink Floyd tells us to put our effort where we have the best payoff, because it's always almost too late. Well, not really - I think they're actually just trying to bum us out. But I'll misinterpret Pink Floyd in my own way. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a Happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DEATH TO AMERICA! DEATH TO GEORGE BUSH! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Love your overlord syllabus. If I may suggest another name? Thorstein Veblen fits in quite well against that backdrop of thinkers and topics. Also, I hate you for picking that name before me. :) Protonk (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I haven't gotten around to reading him yet. Closest I've come to, right now, is Heath & Potter's "The Rebel Sell", which uses him as a basis for their main thesis. So far, Veblen looks okay, but not yet in the same class as those I have on my list. Definitely no John Titor or Netochka Nezvanova. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. although, everytime I hear someone talk about the inherent propriety and piety of the wealthy and hard working I think of The Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen's impact overall is probably less than those on your list, but I would credit the passage of the Sherman Anti-trust act in part to his writings. but the comment was mostly a compliment on your list. I should use it to homeschool my kids. :) Protonk (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: the rebel sell. Thanks for mentioning that, I'm snagging it from the library ASAP. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm not so into class analysis - Rebel Sell just uses Veblen to explain the idea of (dunno how they describe it...) luxury consumption. It thus provides an explanation for why "countercultures" always sell out: the counterculture provides distinction, which adds to status, and therefore counterculture is a valuable commodity. Which, I've got my own problems with Heath & Potter's definition of "counterculture", but it's still a really convincing argument. Good book generally: but if you find yourself rolling your eyes and cursing the authors after the first 20 pages, please try to struggle through it to part II. If nothing else, they do a good job of dissing Naomi Klein. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hypnotoad,

I'd like to revert the last edit you made to Diana Napolis [1] - "harassment" is the wording used by Sauer and Bocij, and her connection to the SRA panic was found in the harassment of people. Is it a BLP concern if it's accurate and sourced to a reliable publication? I don't know, I don't edit BLP pages much. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that since I'm not sure, and I usually learn stuff when I post on noticeboards, I've asked the BLP question here. I'm not sure what the OR issue would be though, is it "harassment" again? I still think it's OK visa-vis Bocij, which is published by the highly reliable Greenwood Publishing Group. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this set of edits, do you think it's OK with BLP now? If you're not sure, I may re-post on BLPN and ask for a review. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reply on my talk page, and note that I've removed mentally ill from Loftus' page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hypnotoad,

Were you one of those who had interactions with User:ResearchEditor? If so, you're almost certainly aware of his/her permablock for sockpuppeting. Anyway, the socking has increased in recent weeks, using a series of throwaway accounts to shove POV-pushing bullshit into a variety of articles. The recent edits to moral panic by Nocob5 being in my mind, certainly by RE. Just as an FYI, to expect it to happen again. Also, Diana Napolis has been editing her own page, which I'm watching out for [2]. Also edits to talk:Steven Spielberg and the already-known talk:satanic ritual abuse. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got the SRA and Napolis articles in my watchlists. Otherwise, though, I haven't had enough interactions with RE to take any notice of anything. I did revert an edit by Nocob5 recently I think. As fair warning, though - if Napolis is editing her own page, any dispute will likely end up being seen by several editors, in which case you might want to go over the article with a fine-tooth comb to ensure it passes WP:BLP. I'm nagging, but it's still worth mentioning. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I prefer reading her newsgroup posts. Thanks for reminding me to check up on things - she disappeared for a while. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, have a look at the RFCU page. Once you know what they look like, they're easy to spot - redlinked talk and user page, three edits with one-word summaries, and generally a paste of the same information. Almost not worth tracking down or tagging the accounts, but eventually I may do another RFCU in order to ask for a hardblock of the IP address. Re:Napolis, it was pretty banal (just an addition of her Ritual Abuse case list) as an EL, but I'm expecting escalation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola,

Are you sure your vote is in the right place? 'Cause right now you're on the "SRA was a moral panic" position. Sure we could expand the individual cases, but not to portray them as proof of the existence of SRA as reality rather than moral panic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm okay with anything. When I was 14 reading about an SRA case in my home town I knew it was retarded bullshit, even though it was presented as reality. I'd like to see more of the "SRA was reality" position in the article, the way the nutters like it... because then it looks even crazier to anyone with an ounce of sense. Is that !vote section even to be taken seriously? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So for you it's a WP:NPOV thing - we don't need to call it crazy since it's so obviously crazy. I'm OK with that - judicious use of the then-extant sources to justify the facts of claims (but I would still oppose their use to justify the reality of them). Of course, there's a lot of secondary sources that also go through the claims while being newer, with the benefit of history and after the fact analysis. Do you have a preference for which to use, the original articles versus newer secondary sources? Might also be an idea more for the list of satanic ritual abuse allegations than the main article, which is already very long and can't really include more details on a lot of individual cases.

It's a straw poll, so basically to establish where the consensus is regarding whether it's a moral panic or not. It's a vote, not a !vote, but it's not really binding so much as it is to establish where the consensus is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more of a "journalistic neutrality" person - that is, I'm up for the journalistic neutrality style seen in the 60s and 70s, long before journalists became flaks for political positions and threw out their code of ethics. So, it'd be nice to include more claims in the article from kids of being kidnapped and taken in a spaceship to an underwater city where they were raped with a lobster by an LA Dodgers baseball star. (You can see I've read the literature.)

Obviously SRA was a moral panic - what other interpretation can we find? But at the same time, it'd be nice to give some more weight to the idea that SRA was an actual conspiracy to rape babies for Satan. Because, y'know, it's so very stupid, and also will lead people into the late-90s idea that even the "Satanic cults" memories were planted to cover up CIA mind control experiments or alien abductions, and so on. In seriousness, journalistic tone allows one to put forward "he said/she said" info, and let the reader make their own decision. And I am happy with stupid decisions.

Sorry dude, but it's a deep pile of goo you're wading into, and I prefer to see more chaos and confusion in society - so I'd like to see the goo go even deeper. Hell, we should give Napolis admin rights at Wikipedia. But as these are the opinions of a drunk Satanist chaos-mage, you might want to discount them in your final tally. I'm not much of a contributor to the article anyway, not nearly as much as you. I just want the damn Schnoebelen/Todd/Napolis pages to get undeleted, dammit! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - what's undue weight, really? Millions of people believed that SRA was true: or at least went along with it, similar to Germans in the reign of the Nazis. Should one give more weight to millions of bozos, or to 20 or 30 "ivory-tower intellectuals"? Part of my interest in SRA is how prima-facie stoopid the idea is, and how people tend to go along with stupidity in the moment, but then years later disavow any involvement. This is one of the beautiful lessons to take from SRA - that people thought there was a grand conspiracy, but now those same people all purport that it was a silly joke and they personally weren't involved. Anyway, Satanic drunk chaos-mage, don't care, back to drinking now, talk soon. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just started, but were you thinking of something like this?

Sure, but more lobsters please. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I HATE journalistic neutrality (finished Flat Earth News a while ago, and a big loather of the "balance" presented in the news coverage of vaccination - I'm sorry, but Paul Offitt is insulted when his "opponent" in a debate is Jenny McCarthy. On one hand we have a man who devoted years of his life to meticulous scientific research to develop a vaccine for a deadly disease; on the other hand we have a woman who ate puke for money. Why are they both being interviewed by Larry King? Journalistic "neutrality"). But that's a whole different discussion. Let me know what you think of the changes I'm making to the allegations section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, y'know, a neutral presentation of craziness won't make it look less crazy. Just as long as the craziness doesn't take over the entire article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon man, don't make me type in "raped by lobster" :*(

I did see a source refer to that particular allegation, but it didn't link it to a specific case. If you've got references on hand, be my guest! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most common google result for "raped by a lobster" is a John Waters movie. That's...oddly appropriate on a lot of levels.

I would have expected an Einar Orn reference. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this edit really satisfying. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...you want to remove "fucktard" from your last post. Totally, totally makes you feel better, but over the long term it can be bad for your reputation. I understand and agree with everything you said, spirit and words, right up until that last one. Doesn't matter, but ad hominem attacks just makes us look unreasonable over the long term.

I've been talked down and away from similar sentiments in the past by other editors and appreciated it. Just payin' it forward.

As ever, your userid is epic awesome,

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree too if you could remove that word. It only makes him angrier, as you can see with his latest sockpuppet's user name. Cheers, --Cesar Tort 16:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, no. #1, it's true, #2 it was required, and #3, the entire talk page seems to be deleted anyway. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, truth is unreasonable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was required was the outing of ResearchEditor, which is why the latest posts were removed (permanently deleted; no diffs). A risky but perhaps necessary move, don't you agree? :) Cesar Tort 23:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest sockpuppets vandalizing my talk page are almost certainly not RE. He has an almost pathological aversion to profanity, and I've pissed off a couple other sockpuppeting vandals lately. I don't give a shit about making RE angry; it's not like he can get any less rational. It's more that it makes us, the proponents of the moral panic hypothesis, look as irrational as he is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes us irrational to believe there isn't a world-spanning conspiracy of Satanists who rape babies with lobsters on hot-air balloons under the ocean aided by players from the Los Angeles Dodgers, and it makes him rational to believe there is a world-spanning conspiracy of Satanists who rape babies with lobsters on hot-air balloons under the ocean aided by players from the Los Angeles Dodgers, then... well... seriously, where is Douglas Adams when you really need him? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 06:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

∆ → ??? 8-/ Skarebo (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gave you something to do, no? :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was created and uploaded by User:Earl Andrew. I later made a minor modification to it because he had incorrectly labelled Espanola rather than McKerrow as the northern terminus, but hadn't noticed at the time that he had also made that error, and I've never really gone back to scrutinize the image again since then. So I apologize for my own corollary oversight, but it was Earl's error first.

I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop to see if we can get it updated for both the lake error and conformity with contemporary visual standards for mapping on Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a kitten for you, as I'm no vandal, but an English-speaking English person, not overly familiar with US spellings etc. If I wanted to vandalise your Wiki (and why would I. as a Socio-Anarchist, researching the inner workings of 'bent as a ten-bob note'; Governments and Elitist slimebuckets, finding this Wiki interesting, education, yada), I'd have taken 10 gallons of red paint, 4 teaspoons of purple glitter and a nip of toad piss, and scrawled 'REVOLUTION' at a 43.2 degree angle over it. Peace, and no hard feelings.

Bananaskinz (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WUT AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter outside of the English language as used in the beginning of the last century and before. Czech and Bohemian are basically the same thing when it comes to the state described. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every English-language Wikipedia article about this state during the high middle ages refers to it as the "Kingdom of Bohemia". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are entirely right about that. But the Bohemians called it "Czechy" even back then. It's not really important but it is seldom realized that there is no real dichotomy between those two words. Except of course in historiography, which I respect, so I wont revert you. I'm just being a "clever d*****" at this point. Sorry about that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was trying to cut off the discussion or anything. I saw that it had wound down for the last couple of days and thought it was ripe for achieving some resolution, and then I saw that you were still adding to it. Thanks for your comments and participation, I think it was definitely valuable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're ok, I was repeating myself. Once the good points have all been made, any discussion at WP will devolve into restatement of cogent arguments vs constant naysaying until the discussion gets closed (or progressed, or whatever you've just done). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly not sure myself what I've done. I just didn't want it to trail off without some guidance on what to do next. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no, you did good. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read that the Koro article was the best thing ever In fact, I think your comment on the talk page was the best thing ever. I am still laughing over that, as well as the citation to MEMRI's "Panic in Khartoum" article :o) Keep up the good work!

ALL GLORY to the Hypnotoad.--FeralOink (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They can't cover it up forever. The only question is how deeply Hillary Clinton is involved. WE'RE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS PEOPLE AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of sleuthing 5 years later and I find out that the Penis-melting Zionist robot combs article was **deleted** by a user named "A Man in Black", who was permabanned from Wikipedia in 2009 for canvassing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your comment on the talk page for Isn't Anything and agreed with the lack of contemporary reviews. I managed to find a 1988 year-end round-up from Melody Maker and added it to the page.--Larrybob (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	No idea where I am, but wish to express my appreciation for your (if it is yours) contribution to the Gabriel Marcel article. Never heard of him before reading Edwin Muir: Man and Poet by Peter Butter. Khrystyna2 (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment! I don't necessarily agree (I think it's a rather arbitrary narrowing of scope and sourcing that isn't prescribed by WP:OR/WP:V, and my impression of secondary sources is that describing the sentiment using them may sound less neutral than presenting factual statements - which do suffer from major style problems, no doubt), but it's a fair argument and we can expect to get good-quality feedback from other editors and form a consensus in the current discussion or use it as a question in an RfC if it'll be necessary to get wider participation. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a narrowing of scope, though - it's really a big part of WP:OR, all the best articles conform with it, and all the dumpster-fire-level articles ignore it.

Anyway, hopefully I clarified my opinion. I don't want to say any more in the RfC, since the point of an RfC is to hear from other editors who weren't participating in the talk page discussion. Whatever comes of it is fine by me, but ultimately the article will follow the policies. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]