User talk:RickTommy

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 11:41, 30 September 2011 by Heimstern Läufer (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search



Wits' end

We have asked you repeatedly not to police the wiki. This means telling other users what to do or how to do it. You simply do not seem to have the knack for when it is appropriate. We've asked you to play fair on the featured article selection page, not to edit others' comments, and not to swear in edit summaries. Yet, things aren't getting better. We don't seem to be getting through to you at all, even after you were blocked for two weeks for disruption. So, I'm going to block you three weeks. Furthermore, I think it would be best if you stayed away from the featured article selection for at least a month. — It's dot com 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Block warning

RickTommy, if you're warned about being blocked, don't try to fight it by making up a bogus excuse as to why it was necessary to do what you did. Just say sorry and don't do it again. We all know you did it so there is no point fighting it. Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 01:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't denying anything. RickTommy (edits) 06:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Loafing told you that he might block you, but then you got defensive and said that the edit doesn't matter. Well it does matter. Look, if you ever get a block warning, don't try to fight it, just take the advice you're given. Thanks, Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 01:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You know, Wasd, your behaviour isn't exactly that great either. For one thing, you posted that comment in the first place, despite the fact that it does not belong on that page. For another, you have posted messages in talk page archives, as you have done with my talk page as well as Heimstern's. For another, you warn users about things that they did months ago. For another, you do that to users who haven't edited for months. For another, you post signature length messages on other users' talk pages, despite the fact that 1) you shouldn't expect a response from those users, since they haven't edited for months, and 2) the signature length may only apply to your computer. And for another, you're enforcing policy by doing some of those things. I have been blocked before for trying to enforce policy, so don't be surprised if you end up being blocked as well if you continue doing that sort of stuff. RickTommy (edits) 06:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Please, people, let's break this up. And I'm mainly speaking to Wasd here. Whatever disputes RickTommy has with the sysops and whatever warnings we give him are none of your business. Please attend only to your own behaviour. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 06:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


RickTommy, you're a cool guy. Keep it real bro. High fives, — Strong Bad

Thanks, man. RickTommy (edits) 06:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

French subs

Hey, RickTommy. Please don't forget about adding {{fixtranslation}} when you do subs so Meuhcoin or someone knows to look them over. Thanks, and have a good time translating! Heimstern Läufer 09:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty please? — Defender1031*Talk 03:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, you always need to put the tag on new French subtitles that you create. Loafing 19:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason for your aversion to {{fixtranslation}}? It's really not a bad thing to have it on your subtitles. It doesn't diminish your work and effort in any way. Loafing 07:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Complaints about the new FAS format

RickTommy, has it ever occurred to you that others might genuinely prefer the new format? People aren't praising it to annoy you; they're just expressing their honest opinions, which is entirely within their rights to do. Of course, it's also in your rights to disagree with it, but your constantly complaining about people who like the new system is annoying and is quickly becoming unacceptably hostile, especially with edit summaries like this one. Please stop. Heimstern Läufer 13:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous edit summary

What previous edit summary? Edit summaries are for the page history first, recent changes a distant second. I realize those HRWiki committee pages are a special case, but in general you need to stop fixing doctorwho295's name on talk pages. If he wants to sign with a lowercase letter, autopipe takes care of the link, and there's nothing in our signature guidelines that says he has to sign with a capital letter. — It's dot com 05:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Further response

there are some things on your list that I agree with you on. However, while i'm not saying that anything here specifically annoys me or doesn't, I'm gonna give you a few pointers.
I noticed that you added that it annoyed you "When a user creates a new article and links to that article on every page that mentions it" shortly after I linked everything I could find to a new page that I didn't make. I was thinking, "but isn't this good practice?" It's okay; there have been times that good practice has annoyed me too. (See Talk:Compé)
The thing about Strong Mad being older than Strong Bad: yes, that is a known fact. and i have a little brother who is taller and heavier than I am, so i know where you're coming from there.
And the new Featured Article selection format: I've noticed that you've been pointing out that you're suggesting an article for the second time. The way the new format works, they won't ever need to be suggested again (or that's the way i understand it). Honest question: do you like that aspect of the format?
In short, I guess I would be more comfortable with that section of your user page if it was less inclusive. but don't let me tell you how to shape your user page; you don't have to change a thing based on what I said if you don't want to. The Knights Who Say Ni 08:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminder about policing

RickTommy, given your recent message to that anonny, it seems I need to remind you that you are not allowed to police the wiki. In this case, yet again, it was not an appropriate message: it was vague (it didn't explain clearly what, if anything, was wrong with the anonny's edits) and was not really that accurate a representation of policy (saying "there's probably a reason we don't have those facts" would more or less imply "don't add facts to articles", which is not proper representation of policy at all). So I'm reminding you to not do this again. Heimstern Läufer 12:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Block explanation

You have been blocked for one month for threatening to have another user blocked (specifically this edit) when we have told you over and over not to police other users. (The block time is so lengthy because it's your third block.) Furthermore, the things you were saying to this kid were not just rude but overtly hostile. This is why we have told you not to tell other users what to do, because when you do you are especially mean in the way you go about it. Effective once your block is up, you are restricted from editing any user's talk page other than your own. (If you try to get around this restriction, you may be blocked again.)
By the way, as annoying and frustrating as it may be for a new user to flood the recent changes, there is no rule against it. It is out custom to discourage it, but that's not the same thing as a rule. Since floods bother you so much, I have enabled enhanced recent changes in your preferences, which consolidates all changes to one page into a collapsible (and ignorable) section. Obviously if it's not to your liking you can turn it back off, but I encourage you to give it a try. In your preferences you can also increase the default number of changes you see. When viewing the recent changes page, you can hide all changes in a specific namespace (like the user namespace). — It's dot com 18:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Userpage content

Hi, RickTommy. It's not appropriate to use your userpage to disparage other users, here or at the forum. So you're going to need to remove the content about the forum users "TwiceStyle" and "HSR3Ever85" from your list of HRWiki-related things that annoy you.

While I'm here: Is there a reason you need to have such a long list of things that annoy you on your page? It seems really unnecessarily negative, in fact, people might wonder why you even edit here if you have around a third of your userpage devoted to things that annoy you. Maybe you might think about trimming it down a bit or removing it? Just a thought (though the removal of the content disparaging other users is required). Heimstern Läufer 06:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools