Talk:Human skull symbolism

message: So, there is an argument (verging on a revert war) as to which version to use. One version with a lot of text, but not much citation and one version with very little text. 
I'd like to make a few points clear: 
*as a sysop he can presumably check for himself whether any of the IPs involved belong to me. - Only users with access to CheckUser can do this. These number around 5 I think. Normal admins do not have this power. 
**My mistake. Soo 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, which is why I have not resorted to any of those. Unless you can show some evidence to the contrary? Soo 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: While I do not necessarily support Wetman's version as is, I object strongly to simply blanking the whole thing and simply complaining that it "sucks". I also object to the obvious use of sockpuppets and anon IP accounts to try to get his way. The proper way to deal with an article with info you believe needs sources is to either detail the SPECIFICS here on the talk page or to label the individual sections on the article with facts tags... When this was attempted in the article by Wetman as a concilatory gapstop measure, the vandals simply blanked the article again. They (or, probably more accurately, he, as it's likely it's only one person playing sockpuppet games) have not done that, and so their edits must be undone as the vandalism and wholly unsupportable actions that they are. If Soo would like to take the time to be a real editor instead of a vandal and look for the sources himself, as I can guarantee that most of the article is common knowledge and not really lacking in support, then we'd have a better article. Instead he seems to have a problem with Wetman... which, OK, granted, I've had my problems with him in the past, but there's a right way and a wrong way to try to solve a dispute, and vandalism, name-calling, sockpuppeting, and refusing to follow policy are not the way to do it. DreamGuy 03:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, which is why I have not resorted to any of those. Unless you can show some evidence to the contrary? Soo 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wetman's version

message: *Its style befits an encyclopaedia.
*Its content is sourced, and so is a good basis on which to build. It's not the finished article (ha!) but it's in a fit state to grow organically into the good article that this heading deserves.
*It's easily read and understood by everyone, even those with no background in the subject.
Soo 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agentsoo's version

message: It's clear from his edit comment here while reverting to Soo's version and his contribution history that User:JonONeill is a sockpuppet of User:Agentsoo. IT's quite likely that one or more of the anons on this discussion page and who were doing the exact same edits as Soo are also sockpuppets. That behavior is simply not acceptable here, so knock it off. Also, blanking is vandalism, if someone had a real dispute over content allegedly not being sourced, then they'd accepted the -fact- source tags, but those were balnked out too. Disputes need to be discussed and go through proper procedures, simply erasing tha majorit of the article and claiming it "sucks" is not at all following the policies here. DreamGuy 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the edits made by Agentsoo constitute vandalism as he also altered the text of the article. This is being bold and not vandalism. - FrancisTyers 02:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the fact tags will be very useful in resolving this dispute. - FrancisTyers 02:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact tags were there, but the vandals removed them. It's not "being bold" to undo what it was you supposedly were asking for and replacing it with blanked sections. Being bold is going out and finding the sources yourself, or rewriting the article, or something that actually improves the article. DreamGuy 03:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was re-written to a certain extent. I refer you to this diff showing that the lead was rewritten, among other parts. This is not vandalism. I have restored the version with the  tags and added the  and  tags. Agentsoo argues that his version is improving the article. - FrancisTyers 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, it's also clear from the earlier vote for deletion that erasing the article was not an acceptable solution, and gutting the entire thing but a few stray sentences has the same effect. The deletion vote failed, we can't have a guy using sockpuppets trying to ignore the earlier votes and force his way. DreamGuy 03:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting the article and changing the article are not the same thing. Agentsoo never said that he didn't want the information including, his complaints were specifically about tone and sources. Please do not accuse a user of using sockpuppets without evidence to back it up. - FrancisTyers 03:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I invite anyone with suitable powers to check IPs and prove once and for all that I have no sockpuppets. Soo 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not necessary. This arguing about sockpuppets is not getting us anywhere towards resolving the dispute. If you were to take this to RfC then perhaps this could be looked into further. See: Wikipedia:Mediation. I really don't think this will be necessary though. As a note, CheckUser is not infalliable as you could be using a proxy. - FrancisTyers 03:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought proxies were banned? Anyway I agree that's it not going anywhere. If someone wants to check IPs then they can feel free. Soo 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppets and vandalism

message: Here is a preliminary list of issues with Wetman's version. Agentsoo and others, please add to it if you see fit. According to DreamGuy, the main author of that article has already said he is open to that once real discussion about perceived problems are raised. So lets get them raised! :) - FrancisTyers 03:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with Wetman's version

message: I just looked over the article...clearly there is a great deal of work that needs to be done to make it encyclopedic, and a quick glance at the talk page shows that these issues are being hashed out. But this article has the potential to be utterly rad. What a great topic! Babajobu 01:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Radness

message: I received a request to look at your article again.  It's good to see some organization and citations.  The largest part of the article, "Examples," is still diffuse.  I suggest using subheadings and organizing this section by culture and chronology.  Things may be contentious but you're on the right path.  Best wishes, Durova 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisiting

message: I made a few, somewhat unrelated, changes in a single edit a few moments ago, and just wanted to explain them. I replaced the  tag with the  tag. I felt there are ample sources on this page now, but some effort needs to be put into merging some choppy sentences, etc. I thought about doing this myself, but felt that if I added the copyedit tag that we could get some experienced copyeditors here. Also, I saw that there were multiple References sections, so I merged those. I also moved the "See Also" links to above the External and Reference links, so we're preferring internal links. This page has the potential to be great, and I wish its regular contributors the best of luck! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging/Link changes

message: The article states that the Windows XP's Bliss wallpaper "contains hidden images of faces and skulls embedded in the clouds and grass." I looked and didn't really find any evidence of this myself. Does anyone else see "hidden images of faces and skulls" in the wallpaper? 
Here is the original quote, I temporarily removed it from the article until it is verified:
"*Windows XP's Bliss wallpaper contains hidden images of faces and skulls embedded in the clouds and grass."
Blackviper91 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows XP Bliss Wallpaper 

message: Shouldn't we add at least a picture (with a caption explaining the symbolism) of Damian Hirst's diamond skull? 145.88.209.33 (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damian Hirst's diamond skull 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Human skull symbolism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060321230147/http://www.head-hunter.com/account.html to http://www.head-hunter.com/account.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070710170530/http://www.cappucciniviaveneto.it:80/cappuccini_ing.html to http://www.cappucciniviaveneto.it/cappuccini_ing.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Human skull symbolism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041206061817/http://www.bangor.ac.uk:80/news/BrainArea.htm to http://www.bangor.ac.uk/news/BrainArea.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051018182314/http://altreligion.about.com/od/imagesofdeath/ to http://altreligion.about.com/od/imagesofdeath/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040402181108/http://www.motorcyclecity.com:80/skulls/ to http://motorcyclecity.com/skulls/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Human skull symbolism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080603233403/http://www.archimedes-lab.org:80/skull_illusions.html to http://www.archimedes-lab.org/skull_illusions.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080526090930/http://www.crystalskulls.com:80/pictures.html to http://www.crystalskulls.com/pictures.html#gallery
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090907110327/http://www.freetattoodesigns.org:80/skull-tattoos.html to http://www.freetattoodesigns.org/skull-tattoos.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100821074158/http://www.life.com:80/image/first/in-gallery/41722/skulls-everywhere to http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/41722/skulls-everywhere
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion