User talk:Hoo man: Difference between revisions

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC) löscht meie Beiträge aber IHR SEID NIE ALLEIN!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.61.63 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since User:DoctorOm is the only editor of this page, he is allowed to blank it. It is considered a request for deletion. In fact he has now redirected it to SoNoLita. Cheers, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and all that. And thanks for catching the vandalism on my talk page. Grafen (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please you explane me why is page I make a vandalism? I am not vandal, I want write about church from the vilage Katsikas, because is have interesting history. How to write about history of church if you change all the time whau I am writing? your friend from Katsikas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.152.135 (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your text addition didn't seem to be useful and I was unable to fully understand it. You may should try to rewrite it so that everyone can understand what you really wanted to say. - Hoo man (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for explain, but you say I vandal. Is good you explain, because I not vandal. 85.75.152.135 (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hoo man, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted User talk:MER-C/sulekha.com, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently edited the article on John Edward to include the words that he is a "self-described" psychic medium, and you reverted it saying it was vandalism. I made this edit because there have been no validated scientific studies or research to back Edwards claim that he is supposedly psychic, nor have there been any scientific studies or research to date that have verified or supported that psychic abilities exist. To not include the words "self-described" is to suggest that the fact that he is psychic is undoubtedly true, where in fact it is very disputed. Including these words is important because if not, the page suggests that something that is very widely disputed, and even scientifically disproven in many cases, is true, where in reality the fact that they are "psychic" comes only by their self proclamation and not by any supported scientific study or research— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.143.98 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC (UTC)

First, I want to excuse me, of course that was no vandalism. But I'm still not sure whether this should be written into the article or not. Isn't it already enough to have a link to Psychic which already has a critics section? Another possibility would be to create a critics section withing his article - Hoo man (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo man is correct, the link to Psychic medium is sufficient per the ArbCom findings Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Adequate_framing, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Cultural_artifacts, etc. Mediumship makes it clear that mediums claim to be able to speak to the dead, so therefore members of that group do not need an incorrect, illogical qualifier added in their articles. I have this page watchlisted and will respond here as needed. Dreadstar ☥ 16:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I would disagree on a personal level and say that it is necessary in order to not be misleading, I see that it is clearly outlined in the link that you posted and thus stand corrected. I will look into creating a critics section as you suggested, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.143.98 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at the citations before you consider them valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.133.115 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've checked the citations and they are really useless. Please excuse me for my reverts. I've removed the useless "++++++++" at the bottom of the article, btw - Hoo man (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For your hard work on the strategy wiki. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get any say in what pages do and don't get protected? I don't think it's fair they blocked the movie The Fox and the Hound because of one user's vandalism (that guy Bambifan101). Could someone look into this please? Animationismylife (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's difficult, on the one hand I think that pages should kept open as often as possible (to let everyone improve them), but on the other hand I know Bambifan and he is really persisting. But with Pending Changes activated I would say it's good to have it unprotected, so feel free to request it (here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). - Hoo man (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For all your help when I come up with a crazy idea for a script. :) Béria Lima msg 00:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Technical_support_for_the_ka.wiki Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit on Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Cabin Fever for being unconstructive? I only edited it because the rest of it was speculation and unverified, not to mention written poorly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrry (talk • contribs) 22:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice, that the old text was just speculation, so I thought your edit was an nonconstructive edit replacing it with a much shorter text (one sentence) - Hoo man (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE A DUMBHEAD, YOU SILLY FREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DumbHead456 (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]