User talk:Sparky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Dysprosia
Hi Sparky :) I hope you like the place and choose to stay.
Some links that may be of use:
- Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers
- Wikipedia:How to edit a page
- Wikipedia:Village pump - ask questions you may have here, or leave a message on my talk page
No problems on Reichenbach Falls :) Common practice is to '''bold''' the title using that method to get bold, and to give the article some context.
In any case, keep contributing! :) Dysprosia 03:08, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi - per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style we start headers at == and we work down from there. I know it can look a bit big but that's how it's done :) Thanks Dysprosia 04:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Bettie Page
I guess I know more about Bettie Page than I thought. - Sparky 06:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Hey -- I was just about to write that! I hope you feel welcome making edits to that article. I do keep an eye on it, but only to (hopefully) prevent or repair any vandalism; beyond what I wrote in the original draft, I know very little about the Bettie Page revival, & the article could stand much work. So please, be bold. -- llywrch 23:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Well Sparky, if you know these folks personally, please feel free to add any information or correct any mistakes. We'll respect any confidences. -- llywrch 03:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I know only when her imagery resurfaced. She was often drawn in EC comics in the 1950s, because her face was on many magazine covers then and easy to reference, I suspect. Two Kamen stories sport her at least. One Frazetta story has her in a beach crowd. And Wally Wood seems to have made her both Cannon and Len Brown's separate love interest in his Cannon and T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents stories.
[edit] Let's Watch Reagan Youth Squirm at Gipper the Ripper And Fail To Squelch The Truth ...
Sparky, why do you continue to post pornographic trollage in the Ronald Reagan talk page? Wikipedia is not the place for your "all Republicans are whores" tirades. Please focus on the project. Gazpacho
- Who wants to insult whores? Whereas, all Republicans aren't mere lying sex maniacs. Some are a whole lot worse and a select few are good people. If you think I'm dumping on Republicans you're really missing the point. I'm providing balance to the Reagan article where it belongs - in the Talk area. You want to cover up the truth and forget that as SAG president he took advantage of young starlets. It's known he was screwing his mistress Christine Larson when Patti was born. He raped Selene Walters and counted on her keeping mum. He was a strutting bully and a coward. I'm neither. What pornographic about listing what the leading Clinton bashers did? I didn't use any foul language, did I? Sheesh ...
- And we didn't even get into how mean-spirited Reagan's politics were. - Sparky 06:02, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The talk page is for discussing changes to the article. If you want to "provide balance," then stop being a pussy hiding behind talk page rules and put your claims in the article. Gazpacho
- Need some polish first. Nice to see name calling.
Don't even pretend to take the high ground, I'm not fooled. Use the talk pages for their intended purpose. If you're so sure what you have to say is accurate and relevant, then why don't you put it in the article?
- I didn't resort to name calling or editing out other's entries and links. I'm deciding where to put the info and will add it to the main article by the end of the week. Learn to be patient. For fun - you can research Jennifer Fitzgerald and Bush Senior for other presidents who have had intense sex with interns. (Here's a taste: Bush's campaign manager, James Baker, forces the dismissal of Bush aide Jennifer Fitzgerald, described in a 1982 Time story as having "much to say about where Bush goes, what he does and whom he sees." Bush continues to pay Fitzgerald out of his own pocket. — Bush's affair with Fitzgerald was well-known in Washington for years. He even took her to China with him (possibly to work on the Kama Sutra?)). - Sparky 00:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
To complain about crude language after posting a quote on the Reagan:Talk that "Nancy gave the best head in Hollywood" is rather disingenious. I can certainly tone down the language on my end, but I'd appreciate if you would use history articles and talk pages for history rather than political revenge, as you are obviously doing (why even mention Reagan's "mean-spirited politics" otherwise? I certainly didn't bring it up). By the way, I'm not User:Dominick. Gazpacho
- I didn't originate the quote. I reported it and gave sources. I'd say that Peter Lawford had knowledge about who was best. It's one he offered often among the halls of the Friar's Club. I heard it often at Warners' and Columbia/Sony as well. I'm still working the information. And political revenge? Letting people have more information is not revenge.
- You pro-mob? Pro-whoring? Pro-desertion? I guess you go along with rape?
- I use the Talk:Pages the correct way.
- I had three screen names get upset. Of which I think add up to two people. You and Dom parse the same. Though the Gazpacho persona handles spelling much better.
- Please let everyone know why you don't want them to see the information.
[edit] Reagan Youth
(Also, I'm perplexed as to how the "Reagan Youth" meme doesn't constitute name-calling. How about dropping that.) Gazpacho
- How do you intrepret Regan Youth? And do you associate a bad or good mind picture with the nomenclature? Are you saying it is incorrect in regards to you? - Sparky 01:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Dont care [sic] - from the gift of information on his talk page
Keep the smut off my talk page, bucko... Dominick 16:51, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Smut? Where? Want me to fix your typos again? You're too uncool to be an engineer dude REALLY. Sorry life isn't PG-13. I keep my promises. And you want me to believe you're not the cold soup sock puppet? heh.
[edit] 172
What are you talking about? I did not protect the Reagan page; I did not block you. 172 17:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- hope I explained it better?
[edit] Mediation Request
I simply don't understand why you are pandering to two Reagan supporters and dissing women. I invite you to explain on the Reagan Talk pages. The Selene Walters claim was an orphan paragraph for about 3 years. I don't want to whine sysop abuse but it appears to be the case. - I've called for mediation as you are now being abusive. Thanks for erasing my question and ignoring me. That Reagan likely raped at least once and got away with it won't be ignored. Neither will I. Abuse of authority is a very bad thing.
- No other encyclopedia deals with these charges in their entries on Reagan; encyclopedias have higher standards than supermarket tabloids and Kitty Kelley. On that note, why not post the content you want in the Kitty Kelley article instead? 172 18:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's not good enough. You're not asking why others are ignoring Reagan's bad behavior. There's no reason for Wikipedia to aspire to be the same as other encyclopedias; It has to be better by providing more information than others. Furthermore, the rape charge was part of the Reagan page for years as I demonstrated. I really feel you're abusing your power here. I don't feel the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles equate to supermarket tabloids. And you can't escape the fact that People Magazine followed up on the allegations with interviews of Park and Walters who both verified the basic gist of the events. Nor can you ignore IMDB.com's confirmation of the allegation by calling it gossip. The MSN article is talking about how the media dropped the ball concerning the allegation. I want you to stop editing out valid information. I invited you to explain why but you keep deleting my entries on your talk page. Which is why I went to a trusted mod and then requested for Mediation. You've abused my trust. I don't trust you. I don't think you have properly served Wikipedia by being callous to a charge of rape and desertion. - Sparky 02:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Dysprosia suggests a plan of action
I don't know about the Reagan thing very much to make an informed opinion, but I can tell you that if you are having problems in trying to resolve issues with other editors, you can try Wikipedia:Mediation, where a third party tries to resolve disputes between you and other editors. You can request mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Hope this helps Dysprosia 06:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks
[edit] re: User:Sparky and User:172, User:Dominick, and User:Gazpacho
I believe that I ought to remove your request from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation but I wanted to check with you first and not come across as heavy-handed. I have listed the issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, since according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, this should be done before mediation is attempted, and I do think that involving more people in the discussion will help move the issue forward.
Please let me know if this sounds reasonable to you.
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен Co-chair of the Mediation Committee 20:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks I appreciate the quick response. We'll see how it goes from there. - 02:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I will no longer be editing the Reagan article (hence I will not be reverting your changes to that article any longer). There is now no need for you to seek "mediation." 172 17:11, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, but there's still the other two people involved. I want to make the article better not play alpha male over you. So as I'll admit the tone of my edit could be edited - I'll hope for input from outside the three of us who are passionate about the article. Be well, I apologise for getting upset with your style - Sparky (on the road)
[edit] "Minor" edits
Hi Sparky,
Looking at your edit history,it seems to me that you mark a lot of edits as minor that are actually pretty major revisions to articles. What initially drew my attention was the edit historyfor Kitty Kelley.
According to Wikipedia:Minor edit:
- "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any 'real' change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit. This feature is important, because users can choose to hide minor edits in their view of the Recent Changes page, to keep the volume of edits down to a manageable level."
Thanks, Chris N. 02:03, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Glad to hear you didn't know about the policy. Thanks for the quick response! Chris N. 05:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Don't think the Bettie Page image can be public domain; might be fair use
Please click on the link and look at the description. I put a {{fairuse}} tag on the page.
[edit] Kikuchisan
Are you Sparky Kikuchi-san? I had a friend in the Philippines by that name.--Jondel 23:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WP:JCOTW
こんにちは。Aphaiaです。 お時間がありましたらWP:JCOTWの投票にご参加くださいませ（化けて編集画面で読みにくいので英語でも書いときます） If you have an interest, pleaee visit WP:JCOTW and vote, thanks. --Aphaea* 04:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hermes Trismegistus
You may be interested in this edit on Hermes Trismegistus, as I believe you were the original contributor: [1]. —Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page deletion
Hi, Sparky. Some time ago, a website was set up which contained personal attacks against some Wikipedian editors, and, even worse, violated their privacy by posting their real names, photos, a link to one user's personal website from which readers could find out location, names of spouse, family, etc. Creepy messages were sent to this user, and his superior was sent an anonymous message, either by the people who set up that website, or people who discovered his personal information through that website. The user in question had never posted his photo on Wikipedia, had never linked to his website, and had never used his surname.
All the users who have been adding links to that Website have been blocked. I notice that an administrator recently rolled back an edit to your talk page which gave the address of that website, and that you reverted the administrator. I want to warn you that, regardless of your personal feelings on this issue, you must not post the name or address of that website on Wikipedia, as doing so will be seen as taking part in the stalking that led to the departure of a user, and as you risk being blocked if you do so. I have deleted those edits from the history of your talk page. I realize, of course, that reverting an admin who rolled back the edit is not at all the same as joining Wikipedia for the purpose of advertising that link (which is what most of the blocked users did).
Please respect the right of your fellow editors not to have their privacy violated. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't know about the stalking. But am concerned about a POV pro-Christian bias I see. Especially in Jewish topics. - Sparky 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've been looking at the updates to that website and I noticed that it no longer contains any person info about editors. So, it should be ok to post the website. Perhaps it can be reviewed by an admin to verify that so no one will get in trouble if they post it now. I find the subject and updates it gives intersting, and I agree about the pro-Christian bias, ofcourse---as I've seen it myself (but I've seen other groups with other bias). Still systematic bias of groups with the same POV dominating an article to push a POV is something that should be talked about provided its done in a civil and without any personal attack, nor against any rules or guildlines. Otherwise, it seems the real purpose is simply to silence debate of the problem, and bury the issue. Can you review the site and see if it is ok, now?Giovanni33 06:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry for ignoring you
Hi, Sparky, I didn't answer your first message because I didn't think you expected an answer — it wasn't a question. Regarding your second message, there's been a lot of distressing wiki-drama, unrelated to article content, in the last few days, and it has left me a bit drained. I might get back to you again at the weekend. Just a VERY brief answer in the meantime — there's a lot of stalking going on at Wikipedia, with people tracking down the identity of editors, then posting their personal details on Wikipedia and other websites, phoning their employers, sending threatening messages, trying to blackmail them, etc. And there are many different victims, from different articles, different POVs, etc. I'm trying to do what I can to ensure that the privacy of all editors is respected, whether those editors originally used their real names, whether the indiscretions are deliberate posting of links, or more innocent referring to sites that give editors' work addresses, etc., in a way that would enable others to find them. On the other issue, I always think the standard usage is more neutral. Although I'm a committed Christian, I have no objection to talking about January, Wednesday, Thursday, etc., even though they are named after pagan gods. Because they have been part of the standard language for so long, they have lost their original meanings. However, if we started renaming them Firstmonth, Thirdday, Fourthday, etc., in order to be neutral, it would draw attention to itself too much, and would therefore introduce a POV. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
