User talk:Lotusduck

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hey there. When you see references that you don't think have anything to do with the page, would you mind either removing them, or throwing something about 'em on the discussion page? You've got the right idea there, but adding comments like "although I don't see how" to the end of references is really the wrong way to go about it. --Ricket 07:17, 30 March 2006 (CST)

I completely understand the comedy thing. What I don't understand is why the comments you add have to be on the item's page, rather than the talk page. Your comments just seems out of place on this wiki, as it is currently written. --Ricket 05:30, 31 March 2006 (CST)

Problems with References

Lotus, if you have a problem with a reference, please keep it on the discussion pages until a resolution/consensus is reached. Adding "Sheesh" or "Not likely" or other such comments that you have been adding lately, is beginning to tick me off. If you keep it up, I'll disable you from making changes at all. SEVERAL of the admins and other editors have reverted your changes with comments to this effect. Please take note. --jin 01:22, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

  • Please: If you have a problem with a reference, stick it in the talk page first. Don't write such things as "I don't see how" right after a reference. Ask in the Talk Page and we'll help you see how. As Jinya said, you can be banned from making changes if you keep this up. --CG1:t,c,e 06:55, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Response to your comment on my talk page.

  • No, leaving a snide comment is not going to fix anything. I don't see why you feel a tag of some form would not work on this wiki, as now that you mention it, it seems like an entirely possible method. Your approach, however, has done nothing more than tick me off. I'm not objecting to a page directly saying something is probably NOT a reference to X because of X. What I -am- objecting to is saying "This is a reference to X. Pshaw! As if monkey would fly out of my butt!" (exaggeration included for effect). It's in the wording you've chosen to use wherein the problem lies. We can look into using tags or some other method of flagging possibly inaccurate references, but we can not continue to harbor snide comments in said section, no matter how snide you feel you are. --jin 23:29, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

There shall be no more snide remarks, or there shall be no more lotusduck

  • Here, I've made you a nifty little template you can use instead of your snide remarks. {{NeedsReview}} will put it right in for you, without your needing any additional comment. It will appear as follows: "(This may not be entirely accurate and needs to be double checked.)" --jin 03:06, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

Correct Use of Needs Content

WAIT! Are you following Established Standards?
  • Instead of putting meaningless Needs Work categories in pages, please use the templates provided for this purpose. The category is meaningless without the template comments. Instructions for using the templates are located in the Established Standards page. Have you noticed the message above? It is displayed whenever used edit a page and is intended to remind editors that edits should conform to Established Standards. I'll give you a 24 hour break from editing so that you'll have a chance to read through the standards. Thanks. --Gymnosophist 03:29, 26 April 2006 (CDT)


  • Unbunch your panties, Lotus. Look at the last entries in that history. Someone Else and SomeStranger were well on their way to gutting that sentence. If they're going to object to "Trust me." and insist on adding "or anyone with a knowledge of Jewish culture" then we might as well put the sentence in boring journalist speak.--RyokoYahagi 08:50, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
    • Tell you what, I'll look up weasel words right after you look up generalization and hyperbole. To imply that all Jewish people and all people who have a knowledge of Jewish culture will find them either hilarious or mildly amusing is a generalization. Some may find humor in the references, others may see them as an offensive stereotype. Remember, when you generalize, you make a general out of you and me. Or something like that. And the jokes are hardly "hilarious". In my opinion, "mildly amusing" is more accurate. Your milage may vary. If you don't like the editing, revert it as far back as you like. Personally, I don't care one way or the other as long as you stop spamming my user talk page.--RyokoYahagi 09:11, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
      • Just to clarify, I wasn't offended, but I do know people who probably would be. I liked your edit, by the way. I thought it was both funny and to the point. Of course, that means people probably won't be able to leave it alone. ;) --RyokoYahagi 09:26, 4 May 2006 (CDT)


On Whitesnake, you wrote:

It makes up it's mind that it ain't wastin' no more time,
and quickly sinks its fangs into your thigh.

Does it really have that spelling error in it or did you type it out instead of copying and pasting? --LucySpace 12:17, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Stop adding hit messages. They go here. --UglyPanda 11:42, 15 September 2006 (CDT)