User talk:LOLthulu

Sweet. LOL^thulu 06:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, LOLthulu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! LOL^thulu 16:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored deletd section from East West schism

I restored your wholesale deletion of the Noetic section to the article. Please discuss on talkpage. And reframe from using deragatory comments like calling an entire segment gibberish. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it, post on the talkpage your objections and collaborate, please in good faith do not censor or delete content.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theres an admin working on the article right -Richard look at the talkpage.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

{{adminhelp}} I've been blocked because of someone I share a NAT with. What now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LOLthulu (talk • contribs)

I cannot find any record of a block issued, nor one issued automatically because of the IP address. Are you sure you cannot edit pages and if so, what message do you receive? Regards SoWhy 09:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's gone. That was strange; it was telling me that my IP address was blocked when I was logged in. LOL^thulu 14:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Talk Page comments on LoveMonkey's Talk Page

Hi,

You're new around here or, at least, that's what your Contribution Summary suggests. All of your comments about LoveMonkey's use of edit summaries, etc. are dead-on. And they are also ill-advised.

I've been working with LoveMonkey since March/April of 2007. OMG, has it been almost two years now? I find him annoying, frustrating, etc. However, my advice to you is that you save the kind of comments that you left on his TalkPage for newbies who might not know any better. You wouldn't know this but my long history of interaction with him is that he knows better but does what he does anyways. There are a lot of Wikipedians like that, some worse than him. They are the cause of a lot of drama at Wikipedia. LoveMonkey isn't one of those. He gets close to creating real drama and then backs off.

Anyway, the point is that making comments like the ones you left on his Talk Page are more likely to antagonize him than reform him. It's not right and it's not fair but it's true.

Save those kinds of comments for newbies who don't know any better but might actually try to improve because you left the comment.

Just a word to the wise...

--Richard (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but I'm intending to put his actions up for an RfC soon if he persists in this obnoxious behaviour. I've got to warn him about the actions I believe to be violative of Wikipedia policy before I do so. I'm not as new as my edit history would have you believe. LOL^thulu 22:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported User:LOLthulu's behaviour as harrassment to the Arb. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't. [1]. LOL^thulu 14:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation required

Please explain your behaviour with the account GrendelLover (talk · contribs) --Deskana (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share a NAT. I've already spoken to my roomate about it. Please see above. LOL^thulu 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't intend to pursue this, but I see a conflict in your CheckUsering me. It feels political and sort of like a fishing expedition. It would have been more appropriate to request another CheckUser-user check. LOL^thulu 01:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is political because I spoke to you about your behaviour? This is pretty much the entirety of my contact with you, so I fail to see what is political about it. I also suggest you read WP:Checkuser#"Fishing" as you have a misconception about what "fishing" is (though you're hardly the only one with such a misconception). In addition, the grounds for my check were endorsed by another CheckUser prior to checking you anyway. Your explanation about NAT is also inconsistent with the CheckUser data. I will be speaking to other CheckUsers about this. --Deskana (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had a conflict on User talk: LoveMonkey. It would have been more appropriate for someone else to have conducted the CheckUser. I briefly checked your contribution history and could find no record of your having consulted with anyone prior to checking me, so I had thought you were acting unilaterally. I apologise for alleging malfeasence if this isn't the case.

I'm suspicious about your claim regarding the firewall, though. If you have doubts, you should probably present reasons for them, rather than casing aspersions and FUD. LOL^thulu 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to Deskana. You better behave from now on. You better edit like a really good editor because I am not saying anything more about you. If you are bad, just admit it and don't do it anymore. Ipromise (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

You completely reverted me at Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, saying "rm inappropriate tagging", but without explanation for why you would disagree with any of may 'dubious' or 'cn' tags. I was quite serious about placing these specifically on things that are not verifiable in the cited sources. There's already a dubious section started on the article talk page, and if you think some of these points are substantiated by the cited sources, you could say so there. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tagging was prima facie inappropriate. See WP:POINT. LOL^thulu 19:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]