User talk:SockPuppetForTheGreaterGood
Hi there, I've been watching this website for a while now, so I've noticed your edits as well as a pattern, let's say, of yours. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you're the same user as AnnoyingSockPuppetTwo and Smallpenis69. That being said, I see that you're trying to change some things around the site (specifically on the Alcove and the Talk:Alcove pages), and I have a few things I'd like to discuss with you.
1. I've read your edits and the conversations between you and User:Memoriesonfilm. I understand that you're trying to, in your own words, "start a productive conversation" about certain things going on at CTY, specifically about the long-standing issue of the Alcove. I'll start by saying this: the Alcove page, overall, is objective enough. It presents both sides of the issue and includes very pro-Alcove and anti-Alcove statements, leaving the reader to form their own opinion of the Alcove. The only sections that reference unfavorable opinions of the Alcove are the Alcove Metempsychosis and the Anti-Alcove sections for reasons that are self-explanatory. As someone who never went to LAN, all I know of the Alcove is what I've read on RealCTY. After reading the page, my understanding is that it's simply a highly controversial (but also influential) group that was probably fun for the people in it and nothing more. The page doesn't need to include every single detail of the debate - I think it's pretty obvious what the merits and drawbacks of the Alcove are, and people will form whatever opinion they will of the Alcove. The page isn't really meant to be used as propaganda for either side, and the way it is now, it isn't. tl;dr- it's fine the way it is.
2. Your (Smallpenis69's) edits on the Hall of Fame:LAN page were removed because they didn't adhere to the editing guidelines for RealCTY. Keep in mind that RealCTY is mostly meant to commemorate CTY experiences in an objective, Wikipedia-like way so edits like "The dopest motherfucker to ever be part of a lizard song" and "No, Jeff is awesome and notable enough, and anyone who says otherwise eats raccoons" don't really constructively contribute to the site's content and are likely to be removed.
3. (To Smallpenis69): Edits in the first person on encyclopedic pages and calling the admins lazy in edits on such pages are frowned upon. People still do read these pages and this isn't really a forum-type website unless you're on the Sandbox page.
4. (To Smallpenis69): If you want Max to take you seriously when you say your only purpose is to contribute to this site's content, following editing guidelines and not inserting irrelevant information (e.g. "Also I'm gay") into your edits would help you out. And not making subjective, "unserious edits" around the site when you're campaigning for more objective articles would help a good deal, too.
5. A suggestion for your edit on the Talk:Alcove page: just be direct and simple with what you're saying. It's very long and convoluted right now.
At the end of the day, I'm curious about your objective and how exactly you plan to achieve it through this site. If you'd like to contact me or discuss any of the points above, feel free to edit my talk page here. Thanks! --Cathynie (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2016 (EDT)
By the way—what era of Lancastrian are you? I take it you're a recent nomore—but if you're from, say, my era (05.2 - 08.2), feel free to reach out to me by email or FB message. (Feel free to do that either way; I won't "out" you, so to speak.) --Max W. (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2016 (EDT)
