User talk:Captain Disdain

Please note: As a rule of thumb, messages left for me here will also get a response here, not on the talk page of the person who left the message. I realize that it's a little inconvenient in that anyone who leaves a message doesn't really know when I respond without watching this page and I'm sorry about that, but I find following conversations that happen on two (or more, as it may be) talk pages an absolute pain in the ass -- it just gets way too confusing and disjointed. Similarly, if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond to me there -- I'll keep an eye on it, so I'll see your reply.

Hakkapeliitta

Thanks for the compliment and the link. I never knew that Hakkapeliitta actually meant anything. Dismas|^(talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. That's Wikipedia for you -- learn something new, yet pretty much useless every day! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn spelling

The occasional spelling anarchist that I am, still there's a limit. Thanks for making me laugh on the lang desk, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! I try to resist sniping at spelling mistakes, but clearly, I also have my limits... and I think they were exceeded by several orders of magnitude there. =) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What we have here is a failure to communicate

Your response to this question gave me a laugh today. I received my Batchelor of Arts degree in Communication Arts and I totally agree with you. Thanks for making my day! --Thomprod (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, it took me a couple of minutes just to stop laughing before I could type the response to the poor guy. I mean, geez. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advent (band)

Thank you for pointing that out Captain. Cheers.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 09:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for taking the time to do the research in the first place -- it certainly wasn't your fault that they made a mistake at Allmusic. I only barely noticed it by accident myself. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

archiving?

Have you considered archiving your talk page? I came here to say something... but forgot what it was because of the wait. This post marks the 75th topic on this page; IMO, it's a bit long. flaminglawyer 02:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I really haven't. It doesn't seem that long to me, but then again, I'm used to it (and frankly, the page doesn't get enough traffic for me to look at it all that often). I guess if you're on dial-up, it can take a while... Fair enough, I'll do something about it. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here we go. Thanks for pointing that out, it just never occurred to me at all. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

'xcuse me for butting in but, I don't think that your talk page was so long as to invite criticism as the archive was only 57 kilobytes long and the page prior this section being started was only 61 kilobytes.

Flaming prefers to archive at 40 to 45 kilobytes but that's Flaming. In the interest of full disclosure, my own talk page stands at 54 kilobytes and I'm not ready to archive, it's a personal choice with many users having well over your un-archived page size without criticism. Also, I definitely wouldn't archive my barnstars! BTW, I'm only aware of this section because of your participation as a regular on the RDs. Thanks for your many and thoughtful contributions. Oh, and you may want to work on your summaries  ;-) hydnjo (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it did seem to me like the page wasn't all that big, but anyway, carrying old crap from 2005 around there probably wasn't doing anybody any good. As for the barnstars, I thought about putting them on my user page, but, eh, it just feels like awkward to me. I mean, I appreciate that people have been nice enough to give them to me, but I don't think I can call attention to them without feeling stupid about it. And I summarize just fine on actual articles. I really don't see the point on talk pages or in discussions in general; it's not like anyone's going to be able to follow a discussion based on those. The point is to make it clear who did what, and on an article it's very important, because everyone is constantly editing the same mass of text. That's not how it works in discussions, though. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean about the show-offy nature of barnstar displays. On the other hand wanting to retain acknowledgment to the giver, I've settled on a sub-page (see the top of my talk) to deal with the dilemma. Your edit summary philosophy is fine with me, I just didn't want to see it become an issue when you run for admin ;-) -hydnjo (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A sub-page's not a bad idea -- like I said, it's not like I don't appreciate the compliments. Guess I'll think about that. I'm running for admin now? Nobody ever tells me these things! ;) More seriously, the entire process seems a little... frustrating, like much of Wikipedia's internal workings. And I'm not saying I don't understand why it is the way it is, mind you, but, y'know. The headbutting required to get it done may be more than I want to get into... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then you can be Captain Refrain! -hydnjo (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But I do disdain so well. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, leave it as is. -hydnjo (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I award you a barn star...

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this [1] answer on the Science Reference Desk. I found it quite funny! Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks! I try. =) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

An article you previously nominated, Colby's Clubhouse, is being considered for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colby's Clubhouse (2nd nomination) for more infomation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Suicide

I'd be happy to start a blog or something like that.68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

captain, my captain

wotcha, thanks for your advice, turns out all i needed to do was move the laptop, mustav been picking up sub-space interference or sum'ting. Didn't want you to think i hadn't read your post, thanks again. Beware the flying monkeys! Perry-mankster (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you got it sorted out. I gotta admit, I haven't heard that one before -- a laptop picking up a radio channel and playing it like that. First time for everything, I guess... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Suicide question

Hi. I am really angered by the actions of the two users who reverted my comment and the way they addressed me (and continue to address my concerns - on my talk page and theirs). Their comments strike me as far too aggressive and dismissive (accussing me of trolling, telling me to get a clue, telling me to "just stop. now" etc), and I have come away from this feeling like I have been spoken to and treated like an idiot, when I just tried to help. Am I being too sensitive, or was I dealt with a little unfairly? Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally, I think the removal of the question on the Ref Desk smacks of hypocrisy and stupidity, and Jehochman's post on the Ref Desk talk page, with its threat of blocking users, pretty much eroded what sympathy I had for him. That kind of heavy-handed approach really rubs me the wrong way. The "suck it up and shut up!" treatment you seem to be getting falls in the same category. I don't think it's particularly fair, and it certainly isn't polite. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved your comment and the subsequent discussion on my talk page to User talk:Frank Bruno's Laugh to keep the conversation together. Thanks for assuming bad faith of me. I can only type so fast and the two of you were jumping all over me. without even waiting for a response. Very nice indeed. Next time, ask a question and wait for an answer before you start posting all over the place and hitting the undo button. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how the hell am I jumping all over you? I noticed that you removed the question, I asked you about that on your talk page -- in what I believe to be perfectly polite manner -- and then I continued the discussion on the Ref Desk talk page after you'd posted there. I did ask a question and I did wait for an answer, and I haven't undone anything. And as for assuming bad faith, well, I believe you were the one who removed the original question from Ref Desk and cited WP:DENY in your edit summary. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just above you called me stupid, and a hypocrite. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I did not. But I admit that I wasn't being very nice, and I apologize for that. However: I do think it's stupid to threaten people on the Ref Desk talk page with blocks (without even explaining your position, no less!). I don't mean to offend, but it's... well... not smart. I don't know how else to put that. And I do think there's an element of hypocrisy at work here (though I realize that it's not an intentional one). I discuss the latter in more detail on the Ref Desk talk page, so I won't repeat myself (but I will point out here that if you assume bad faith from the original poster without any evidence -- and you did, as citing WP:DENY indicates -- and then accuse us of doing that that to you, that is kind of hypocritical). For what it's worth, I'm guilty of both stupidity and hypocrisy myself more often than I care to admit, and yet I don't consider myself stupid or a hypocrite. I try hard not to be either.

The point is: I don't like the way you're dealing with this, and it's making me angry. I think you're pretty quick on the trigger and your frustration is probably making you blunter than you would be if you didn't feel like we were ganging up on you (even though we're not), and that I can sympathize with. But it doesn't help that we feel like you're ignoring the context and arguments to the contrary here, and your willingness to throw your weight around (the block threat, "stop now", all that) doesn't exactly help things any.

To go beyond this a little, another reason I don't like the way you're dealing with this is that what you're doing goes contrary to the whole purpose of Wikipedia and, as its subset, the Ref Desk. (And this part, I should stress, doesn't really have much to do with my reaction to this whole thing -- I'm explaining this in the interests of clarifying my position to you.) We are here to dispense information. We are not here to judge which information is suitable for people and what isn't. That way lies censorship and elitism -- the idea that some people can handle facts, and some people can't. Now, obviously, there are some limits imposed by common sense. We don't include detailed information on how to build bombs, for example, nor do we tell people covered in blood how to leave the country without detection, for example. There's no need to be stupid about it. But we do explain principles of the former and -- under less alarming circumstances -- the latter, if asked. Why? Because honestly: these are not secrets. Generally, it's not the understanding of the principles involved that keeps people from doing this stuff, but the knowledge that it's wrong, or at least the knowledge that you can get in trouble for it. You can find most of this stuff from any decent library, or from Wikipedia itself. It's true that most information can be used for malicious purposes, but it's important to realize that that's got very little to do with the nature of Wikipedia (or libraries, encyclopedias and reference desks in general) and everything to do with the nature of information. I mean, we can make Wikipedia something other than that, but at that point we're building a Disneyland, not an actual "snapshot of human knowledge" or anything else in that vein. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my Nazism vs. Fascism question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I deleted the offensive comments by the IP on WP:RD/Misc#WW2 crime responsibility, along with yours as they were obviously unnecessary without the IP's comments. Hope you won't mind, see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Deleted highly offensive comments for further discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection. It was a better response to it than mine was. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey I was a war hero porn star too!

haha, great user page :D -- œ^™ 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Leave it to chance shaman's rain.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Leave it to chance shaman's rain.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ocean tpb cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ocean tpb cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Bread sandwich listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bread sandwich. Since you had some involvement with the Bread sandwich redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Captain Disdain/drafty bit

User:Captain Disdain/drafty bit, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Captain Disdain/drafty bit and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Captain Disdain/drafty bit during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Question From a Journalist

Hi!

I'm doing a story for Gizmodo on how editors monitor pronoun changes on Wikipedia. I've noticed you've contributed to a few pages by contributing the correct pronouns for folks who transitioned later in life/were known by their dead names during their professional lives. I'd love to set up a chat if you're interested in speaking. My email is henry.giardina@gmail.com. Please feel free to reach out, and keep up the great work!

-H — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgiardina (talk • contribs) 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Question From a Journalist

Hi again!

Just checking in again: I'm doing a story for Gizmodo on how editors monitor pronoun changes on Wikipedia. I've noticed you've contributed to a few pages by contributing the correct pronouns for folks who transitioned later in life/were known by their dead names during their professional lives. I'd love to set up a chat if you're interested in speaking. My email is henry.giardina@gmail.com. Please feel free to reach out, and keep up the great work!