User talk:Codeine

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome, Codeine!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Learn about some of the Wikipedia landmarks by trying our Wikipedia scavenger hunt!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Wikipedia has a vibrant community of editors. The village pump is a great place to see the goings on.
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 08:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different[edit]

Ah, yes, Codeine. My good friend Flammable has mentioned you. Welcome to our fair encyclopedia. – ClockworkSoul 08:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. And I see my reputation precedes me. Not sure whether that's a good or bad thing :-). Actually, I've been hovering around WP for a while, but I figured it was time I did something worthwhile other than creating blatant lies over at Uncyc. for a change :-) Codeine 23:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Sucks[edit]

RRRR. PM doesn't work for me half the time. Just checking here to say thanks. I've done some anon edits on Uncyclopedia, but I should get more active over there, the people are alot cooler than on most wikis save for this one. karmafist 02:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal[edit]

Vandal blocked. Cheers -- Szvest 13:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Codeine certainly has an odd idea of a non-neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.118.177.9 (talk • contribs)

"Unless one is fully immersed in the Wikipedia mentality, this site is unlikely to amuse you in any real way". Can you please explain to me how this isn't contrary to WP:NPOV? Codeine 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo hoo, the wikipedia administrators, I'm shaking in my boots. You still have an odd idea of neutrality of point of view, you could leave the factual bit without just reverting everything. You seem to be a remarkably pompous little child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.43.35.97 (talk • contribs)

I'm still waiting for you to explain how any of the content you have added is relevant to an encyclopedia entry about the site. I refer you again to WP:NPOV, Mindspillage's last revert and edit summary, and in light of your last message, also to WP:NPA. -- Codeine 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologise for not giving you the courtesy of a reply earlier than this. I assumed that you were simply deleting the comments, for reasons which should be obvious. I though the uncyc. looked promising when I first stumbled across it, but was pretty disappointed when most of the pages I found in about half an hour of viewing seemed to be wikipedia-related vanity pages of some kind or other. Suppose I found the thing too late. The question of ownership is incontrovertibly relevant, and having wasted some time checking, I realise the mistake. You seem to like the thing a lot, surely the takeover means something to you? I note that all attempts to mention this seem to be quashed.

'Can someone please ban this guy' certainly says a lot about your obsession with humour and parody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.43.35.97 (talk • contribs)

You're vandalising the article, by repeatedly inserting anti-Uncyclopedia bias, in violation of WP:NPOV (whoa, dejá vu). If you dislike Uncyclopedia, don't visit it. If you dislike the fact that an online encyclopedia has no place for your subjective opinion regarding another site's content, start your own wiki. You could call it uncyclopediaistheworst.com, for example. -- Codeine 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'If you dislike ... don't visit it' is a nonsensical argument in general, as I said I thought uncyc. looked promising but etc. Woo hoo, to the above WP:NPA.

The former contribution was not vandalism, you are the vandal, arrogantly removing contributions without a thought. Don't think all the admins would think kindly of your practices, guess that's why you sent a message to another newbie (or your own sock puppet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.43.35.97 (talk • contribs)

"arrogantly removing contributions without a thought". Actually, the thought process goes like so:

Is this relevant to the article in question?
Is it factually verifiable?
Is it encyclopedic in tone, and neutrally biased?

Ownership is sure as hell relevant and factually verifiable; the contribution should have been fixed and not just deleted. As far as the meanings of the 'standard of comprehensibility' and 'must appeal to more than just a small group of people', both are obvious by simple inspection of the site in question. One also finds a lot of opinion throughout wikipedia, particularly on controversial topics. Looking at one page on a commentator today, and then at a major policing contributor's page, I found a cabal operating to prevent the readily verifiable bad side of said commentator being presented. No point bothering to contribute, since there is obviously an organised group with too much time on their hands to stop the truth on the person in question. Why not stop playing free-speech suppressing cop on behalf of people you have never met? Make a few constructive contributions if you love the project so much.

Are you one of those people who believes that because Wikipedia is freely editable, you are justified in adding any content you like to it? That is what your above statement implies, and if that is the case, reading Wikipedia:Tutorial may help you understand that better. Also, Mindspillage is hardly a noob, she's been here about two years and has been an admin for some considerable part of that time as well. -- Codeine 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I wasn't talking about 'Mindspillage', although her 'Spill yours?' by-line is distasteful in the extreme. I meant the Gray Porpiss. Regards, Anon.

"Why not stop playing free-speech suppressing cop on behalf of people you have never met? Make a few constructive contributions if you love the project so much."

Well, I have made one or two contributions to Uncyclopedia as it turns out. Unsurprising really, since I've been an administrator there for over a year. And you really aren't in any position whatsoever to encourage people to make "constructive contibutions", given your edit histories here: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Real clever stuff. Were you not funny enough for Uncyclopedia, is that why you hate us so much? -- Codeine 12:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoanonymous[edit]

Hi, Pseudoanonymous. I've noticed you've left a few messages for IP's that have made stupid edits, using the phrase "If you like vandalising go here: Uncyclopedia Main Page". Could you consider rephrasing that line in future? Whilst Uncyclopedia thrives on nonsense and lies, we also suffer from the same kinds of destructive vandalism as Wikipedia, and your current statement doesn't appear to clarify the difference between the two. Thanks a lot. --Codeine 01:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Hmm... I am sorry if I didn't make the difference between destructive vandaling and fun edits on Uncyclopedia clear. I just thought by directing them to Uncyclopedia I could stop them from re-offending. I did make it clear that vandalizing is immoral and destructive. I thought that once they got to Uncyclopedia the main page would explain everything to them, they would let off their jokes and mischief steam there and come back to wiki when they have useful edits. I hope(and is almost sure) that these vandals didn't misunderstand me or Uncyclopedia and started destructive vandalism there. Pseudoanonymous 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for making you wait 17 days for a response to your message, my internet was down well over a month; limiting my ability to receive or reply to your message. Pseudoanonymous 20:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?[edit]

i am blocked from editing, by you, on uncyclopedia, because of someone called "maxasus", i am A: NOT HIM, and B: Innocent.

fix it now.

--Suicidal tendancies 17:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly this is not, strictly speaking, the place to request such things. You should use the "email this user" function on Uncyc, or via IRC to raise an active admin. Secondly, if the most civil way of asking you can manage is "fix it now", then the answer is "no". Learn some manners, and ask again. It's not my fault you share an IP with a vandal. Also, please note that this constitutes both vandalism and a personal attack. Please refrain from such behaviour, or you may also be blocked from editing Wikipedia.-- Codeine 18:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also[edit]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page, too. See you around. Accurizer 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!![edit]

Seriously, who'd expect a comment like this to pop up randomly? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 10:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who's ever seen Monty Python? Codeine 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Visit User:Duy Huu Nguyen I'm from uncyclopedia.

Userpage edit by Nakon[edit]

Spot on with the revert! Lugnuts (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magibon[edit]

I've re-nominated her for deletion. 06:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning - Fake user talk notification banners[edit]

Do not restore the fake user talk notification banner on your user page again, or you shall be reported.--Ololort (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to say 'please'. Codeine (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Codeine. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]