User talk:AmericanDad86: Difference between revisions

Well, today I very bitterly say goodbye to Wikipedia and announce my final day editing for this project. Finding out that the many complaints I've heard about this website were all true was a real bummer because I gave it the benefit of the doubt and contributed many, many, many thousands of edits. I won't be contributing my services to the project anymore. I am a 26 year old graduate student into the final semester of my Master's degree program. I should be busy spending my time contributing to a task that I receive money and respect from in return for all my hard work and efforts. As it seems hard work and efforts are only rewarded with cliquishness, belligerence, ill reasoning and grief by this project I do not have the energy or time to further waste with this website.

I just like to call attention to the following links before I leave and encourage you all to take a look at not only the news sections but the posted complaints by many people [1], [2], and [3]. This link is an article titled "Wikipedia in danger as contributor numbers drop." According to the websites in question, since 2007, the number of Wikipedia editors have been dropping rapidly like flies and it usually has to do with mindless reversions of edits and abuse of power and Wikipedia tools.

This is the very reason I am retiring from the site. On the Judge Judy wikipedia article, I reported on 3 heavily media-covered lawsuits in which Randy Douthit and Judge Judy were sued. User:Canoe1967 later came along and reverted the edits with the reason that Judge Judy and Randy Douthit "were never sued but just the production companies." (as shown here [4] and here [5]) I argued that they indeed were sued and making it seem that only the production company was sued was not only false, but misleading and potentially harmful to the production companies in question as they really had nothing to do with why the lawsuits had been made. While Canoe provided no sources to his claims that these two had been sued and repeatedly reverted the edits, I repeatedly presented him with credible sources. Just two among the slews of sources I tried to provide this editor. (Redacted)

These were only of the few of the numerous sources I presented in attempt to reason with the editors that Judge Judy and Douthit had been sued as opposed to their production company. But in the end I was deemed in the wrong when an editor with page protection tool--who admitted to having past relations with Canoe in editing Wikipedia--not only protected the page on Canoe's edit as shown here [6] and here [7], but then flat out reported me on the admin noticeboards for reversion (as shown here [8] ) while neglecting the many reversions of the editor he has worked with on Wikipedia in the past, Canoe (Canoe's many reversions as shown here: [9] Here [10] [11] Here [12] Here [13] and Here [14]

After arguing my case with blatant evidence in the form of numerous websites at the admin noticeboards (as shown here [15]), the below is what resulted. The blocking admin takes care to note on the noticeboards that he's going to let Canoe continue editing in despite his many reversions but makes sure to give him a gentle shame on you (as shown here [16]) I will not even bother with an unblock request because I've tired of the cliquishness, politics, and abuse of tools that goes on with the website. I always heard complaints about it in off-site forums but chose to give it the benefit of the doubt. Having experienced just how bad it is firsthand, I can wholeheartedly vouch for all the complaints against Wikipedia and it's manner of handling reversions with little logic, cliquishness, abuse of tools, etc. I encourage new users to very seriously consider what they're getting into before editing this project. The site isn't rapidly lowering in users for no reason. As you can see by the above, logic and reason clearly do not win out on this website.

I have copy and pasted the above complaint to my word processor and will be sharing my experience here on Wikipedia with others and will also be sending this complaint to news websites so to spread the word on what editing here is like after loads of hard work and contribution. Goodbye and have a happy life! AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A belated welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Bill Maher, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because the personal opinions, analyses or commentary of editors cannot be added to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I provided a source.AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We both know you don't actually care about the sourcing, you're just making a point because you worked hard and feel like it got crapped on. Understandable. And I'm not about to put an inline citation on every single fact in the RAW article. A lot of those are verifiable enough by clicking the Wikilinks, and it would waste a lot of my time to follow the rules that strictly. I never said we should. I ignore them all the time, if it helps the article and nobody objects (rationally). In your case, giving the most recent episode of 1,000+ about 1,000 times more weight (through length, prominence and juxtaposition) than any other clearly is a foul, as several people made clear.

However, your work may have a place it belongs. And that's in an Aftermath section of WrestleMania 29. The post-WrestleMania RAW is often seen as a special one, in terms of storylines concluding/beginning and media coverage. While this episode doesn't stand out in the context of 20 years of RAW, it's certainly a lot more relevant to this event. And "on a grander stage" to boot. So if you like that option, let me know. What you put together could be the basis of a useful, informative section we're currently lacking. Or it could make you angry, disliked and/or blocked. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't abide by Wikipedia policy, InedibleHulk, doesn't mean that that's appropriate behavior. You are supposed to abide by the rules especially considering you're hounding me to. And it really is quite hypocritical and obnoxious of you to be following up after everybody else to follow rules when you yourself have basically just admitted to breaking rules all the time as your defense to my pointing out the articles many areas that aren't sourced. Besides that, what you're following up after me about isn't even a Wikipedia policy; it is something based upon your own personal opinion. Despite all this, I chose to swallow my pride and forget about removing of all the unsourced material and just leaving it alone, while also trying to customize my edit to your wishes (as shown in this long discussion on your talkpage Here). After a long discussion in which I agreed upon something to suit your wishes, not mine, you came back days later when nobody had even been editing warring anymore this morning still carping and bellyaching. And not only that but you were addressing me like I was some kind of child of yours, talking about how you "scold" me (as shown here: [17], [18], [19],[20]). I don't know where that came from and don't care, but understand this and understand it good: you WILL NOT talk to me like I am your child. Learn how to talk to me. I don't like double standard editors, I don't like funky behavior editors, and I don't like instigating editors, and you have proven to fall into the category of all three. As trying to be nice and reasonable to you has proven unsuccessful, I am now fully pushing for revisions to this sloppy article as well as my edit. And I'm fully prepared to tell an administrator that you have told me how you flout, neglect, and disregard Wikipedia policies while in the same breath pestering me to follow your personal opinion of what is and is not appropriate length.AmericanDad86 (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said I ignore them, if it helps the article and nobody rationally objects. And I've showed you the policy you're clearly violating. WP:UNDUE. Push for improving the article, if you'd like, but if you continue pushing for your "acclaimed episode" section, despite it being non-neutral, undue and unsourced, you may likely be blocked. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I won't be acknowledging the points you made above or anywhere else as you've referred to me with profanity on your talkpage shortly before or after writing the above. Until you rewrite all of that over again on your talkpage and give me an apology and learn how to talk appropriately to me, I won't be acknowledging any of the points you're making. Again, I don't know who or what you take me for but I don't take your cheek. Btw, you've now engaged in a slew of behaviors worthy of administrator attention: You've referred to me with profanity above (as shown here with [21]); you've rekindled a previously resolved edit war several days later with this childish incivility about how to not use "as per" but "per" and how you're "scolding" me and how I'm "misleading" (as shown here [22]); you've been nonstop carping about my "not following Wikipedia policy" (on basis of what you think is appropriate length) while you've admittedly been flouting Wikipedia policies (as shown here [23])and instating inappropriate Youtube sources with copyright issues into the article thinking I won't catch this. Your behavior is entirely out of line, you know it, and you don't know how to talk to me so communications between you and I on this matter are over. And the next form of disrespect I receive from you, see that I don't start removing the huge chunks of this article that are unsourced which I should be doing any way. You're lucky I haven't gone ahead and removed half of this article as very little of it is sourced, considering you yourself are trying to remove material on basis that "it is not properly sourced." The hypocrite antics I'm no longer putting up with. Following your next form of disrespect, I'm trimming.AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting my talkpage (as you did [24]), InedibleHulk. Doing so is against Wikipedia policy. Yet again, you're flouting more Wikipedia rules.AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to scream. I reverted it because the formatting was messed up. Thought you might have deleted it for that, not for whatever reason you're hiding warnings. You're free to remove them, but it doesn't mean I didn't warn you. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

I've reported you here and am required to inform you. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed the report at WP:ANEW. Both you and the other editor are edit warring at WWE Raw, as well as personally sniping at each other. Consider this a warning. If you edit the article at all (that doesn't include the talk page) in the next 7 days, you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your the summary that accompanied your recent edit to Bill Maher, you mentioned that someone caught my error. What error was this? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you've been adding shock humor as a format of South Park. I agree that South Park can be shocking, my point of view is that the shock is usually secondary. The show is intended to be a satire of programs that show kids as sweet and innocent and that satire was the reason for the often shocking language and content. I think shock humor is defined as excessively coarse, for example, comedians like Lisa Lampanelli or Andrew Dice Clay. Shows like Modern Family have shocking moments as well, but you wouldn't classify that show as shock humor. I love South Park and have no problem with shock humor, I just wanted to clarify my belief that it's primarily a pretty black satire. You'll notice the source says that South Park is not shocking for the sake of being shocking, it serves a different purpose.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 16:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you chack, you will see that I have just finished including a quote from your citation in the Usage part of sarcasm. I don't think I understand quite what it means, but it is another view. The way Wikipedia works is that editors work out disagreements on the Talk page. I'm sorry you do not have the time for that. However, you do seem very active for someone who has "Retired". Myrvin (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your complaint about the edit summary left by CTF83! Alt on Don't ask, don't tell. I think you are misreading the edit summary. The way I read that summary is that CTF83! Alt believes that all 3 of those words are offensive and none of them should be used. It might not have been the best way to explain that the thought the word "homosexual" is offensive, but I do believe they meant the two racial terms are as offensive to them as the sexual term. GB fan 11:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You've stumbled onto a bit of a fault line at WT: MoS. The rule about using British punctuation on all articles, even articles that are otherwise supposed to be written in American English, is extremely popular with most of the contributors to that page.

I'm a trained writer and I work in both U.S. and British English. I find it personally offensive that I'm required to use punctuation that is incorrect given its context, so I think that WP:LQ should have been tossed out years ago and I'm glad that yet another person has come to point out how dumb this rule is. However, you deserve fair warning: If you try to get this rule changed, prepare for a big fat fight. In my experience, fans of WP: LQ are not civil, logical or polite when someone suggests that their personal preferences shouldn't trump the sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How right you are and thanks so much for the note. I've gotten complete wind of this actually. Complete wind of it. It's clear you are well-informed as of relates to the contributors pushing WP:LQ. Honestly though, I kind of sensed everything you were saying even before your note. The difficult behavior, the incivility, the unreason, I totally sensed that the moment the Doniago user and Fantr started squawking about the policy needing to be followed. It seems to spark a domino effect of incivility and obnoxiousness to the point I just feel better off staying off the website altogether. Anyways, I'll only challenge it if I have the help of you though. You just know how certain users like WP:LQ pushers will take every opportunity from which to recruit their numbers and gang attack. If you go through with challenging it, I'll be there to back up. Just send me a note. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards: As a newcomer, you have more credibility. I already challenged it some time ago, and I'm a known element over there. If you challenge it, I'll support you, but remember, there's no formal challenge process that's likely to succeed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your edits to Lost in Space (American Dad!). I would like to mention a couple of things.

1. Plot synopses are written in present-tense.
2. The airdate of the episodes mentioned in the introductory paragraph are not needed.
3. The recap paragraph and mention of Jeff not being in Da Flippity Flop are also unneeded, since the former can easily be merged into a different section and the latter is irrelevant.

Anyway, thanks for your edits. Beerest355 Talk 21:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the Da Flippity Flop page. I felt you would like to know. Beerest355 Talk 00:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. So my guess is that either MacFarlane or Barker is mistaken. 2003 doesn't seem like it would be "right after the 2000 election" and it likely wasn't earlier than 2003 because the source mentions how it was created after 9/11 and how they had been spending a lot of time whining about the Bush administration (and bc it was a replacement for the original family guy that ended in 2002]. I guess I'll have to look deeper to get to the bottom of this. Capscap (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's the use of "right after" that confused me. I saw somewhere that the pilot was written in Oct. 2003 which makes sense given what you said (but it wasn't a RS). Capscap (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Notes" section on this site, it mentions October 2003. But it looks like any registered user there can edit it, so it's not reliable. However, this Variety (magazine) article from 2003 mentions that the show was recently greenlit - [25] Capscap (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sure. I'd be honored :) It's nice to run into people who are focused on getting the content right and don't take edits personally. and thanks! Spending this much time in school has certainly provided plenty of time for idle wikipedia browsing. Capscap (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:American Dad!". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 13:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your re-edit of the article All in the Family (2013 May 23).

You challenged me with "What kind of edit summary reason is that for a reversion?", as I summarized my objection with "not an improvement".

I use that phrase when I can't quite put my finger on what I don't like about an edit, or when my reasons are too detailed or complex for me to summarize concisely and precisely.

But now that I've been called to task: I thought the addition was too detailed for an article on "All in the Family", and perhaps presented an "American Dad"-centric viewpoint. I may have been swayed by your handle.

But I accept your re-edit of the article. Most of my "not an improvement" reversals go unchallenged. Since you took the time to reassert your edit, I see that you have a genuine interest in the article, and that presumably you've reflected on whether or not the edit is indeed an improvement. And that's good enough for me.

Willondon (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see that your account is retired. It's a shame to lose an editor that makes worthwhile contributions. I hope you'll reconsider your decision not to participate. Cheers.

FWIW, AD86 has been quite active. Happy editing. Doniago (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]