User talk:Batman2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Things you should know about Wikipedia

  • There's always people who are going to take an overactive interest in your talk page and change it to fit what they want it to say...these people have no life.
  • Some administrators will lecture you as if you're their own kid...ignore them...that's what I do.
  • Saying somebody has a "hard on" for your talk page can get you blocked. But when other people come to your defense in the situation...you really only end up being blocked for 15 minutes.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (December 17, 2005 to March 5, 2006)
  2. Archive 2 (March 6, 2006 to June 30, 2006)

 


Contents

[edit] Arena

I understand that. The way it's worded now is much better. Lasallefan 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The crap on your user page

I'm asking for thoughts and advice. I don't see the point of my informing everyone who breaches wikipedia guidelines / policies that it's being looked into. If it upset you, I am truly sorry. Didn't even occur to me that I'd need to inform you. Proto///type 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's much better. Thank you for listening to reason ... there's plenty of people who would have thrown a hissy fit over someone daring to question content on "their" page. And to respond to one point you made - yes, Wikipedia is uncensored. But it's an uncensored encyclopedia. Not MySpace, not a forum, not a Big Pulpit O' Hate. Removing unencyclopedic junk isn't censorship. Best, Proto///type 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey

hey that's nice sorry for your money... I liked your userpage, the french thing kinda bothered me but I have to agree, I agreed with most of what you said... and i thought it was pretty funny! take careAbdelkweli 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) hope you'll accept the barnstar. Btw i was roting for the US, this last pk was freakin bullshit!!

[edit] user page

hey i was editing the usa national team page and clicked your name and read your userpage, i think its kind of funny, I don't agree with a lot of what you say (i love john kerry!), but i do think its funny. FordTuffinIt 18:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

Please note: Everything written below, aside from my well thought out comment, is utter bullsh*t. Apparently, when you're reverting vandalism from pages, regardless of what the 3RR clearly says about it, you get blocked. Not only was the stuff I was deleting from the pages bullsh*t, but so was the block. Thus, i'm waging my personal battle now to let everyone know that it's apparently ok to add bullsh*t to wikipedia articles, because when well meaning editors remove it, they'll just get blocked.


The three revert policy requires that all parties in a mutual 3RR violation be treated equally. Accordingly I have blocked you for 12 hours in reference to your part in the Lukas Podolski edit war. --CBD 10:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Welp, then I think that's bullshit and from now on when I see clear vandalism on pages i'll just leave it. You people are the reason well meaning editors leave this website. Batman2005 17:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}} - CBDunkerson, at the time, to the best of my knowledge, I was following the vandalism policy for reverting what I saw as simple vandalism under the "inserting misinformation" into articles. Several others before me edited the Lukas Podolski page to remove the information, and provided proof that it was false (i.e. he never sings the national anthem before games), that I kept removing that ultimately got me blocked. After several requests for sources the other two users kept inserting the dubious information without sources, blatantly disregarding the requests. That in my opinion is blatant vandalism and after looking at the simple vandalism page, I deemed that it was misinformation. If you actually feel that blocking me for 12 hours is the correct course of action that's fine, obviously theres nothing I can do but strongly disagree with it. I do think, however, that William M. Connoelly was correct in only issuing a warning with my promise that I don't intend to get sucked into this type of nonsense again. I'll await your response and ask that you assume I was acting in good faith an reverting only what I saw as vandalism under WP:VAND. Batman2005 14:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been denied for the following reason(s):

clear 3RR violation, wait out the block

Request handled by: Pilotguy (roger that) 17:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove this template from your page.
Because opinions as to what is 'nonsense' differ widely only changes which any reader can see were clearly intended to damage the encyclopedia are considered 'vandalism'. Anything short of that should be dealt with without resorting to edit warring. See the dispute resolution procedures for info on how to proceed in such cases. --CBD 00:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what you say, repeatedly inserting dubious information is vandalism. I think your blocking of me was unfair. You call it edit warring, but I call it removing bullshit from pages, had an admin done something about my report in a timely fasion, then none of this would have happened, as it is though, I do the right thing and end up getting blocked. see bullshit. Batman2005 02:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I saw your edits on the Lukas Podolski page and totally agree with you. All you did was removing vandalism. --Splette Image:Happyjoe.jpg Talk 03:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For your words of support on WP:ANI. On seeing your talk page, it is apparent you have had a few scuffles and bumps adjusting to the Wikipedia way of doing things, so it is especially nice to know that I have not added to your diffculties. - KillerChihuahua?!? 01:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronaldo

Just a heads-up on the Ronaldo article. You're close to violating the WP:3RR rule in regards to the Birgit Prinz additions to the article. Make sure you work to build a consensus on the talk page as is being done (currently it's too early to say there's a consensus either way). Metros232 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To make you aware, I have reported you [1] for violating the 3RR on Ronaldo. You were warned and your 5 reverts in 24 hours (and 6 in 28 hours) warrants reporting. Metros232 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pirates name

Just saw that, thanks. I'd only looked at the PotC3 page a couple of days ago and it wasn't there; it will help other editors if you include in the edit summary something like "link to source on that page" or words to that effect. Thanks again! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pirate Name 3

OK Look i'm not saying that USA Today is not a reputable source. The reason I changed it is because until Disney releases an official name for the movie, it is not "At World's End" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.230.150 (talk • contribs).

[edit] 2006 FIFA World Cup crime concerns

I think this article needs the "conclusion" or maybe we don't even need the entire article - I think it could be deleted because nothing of this information is relevant for the future or worth remembering, because nothing happend which is special. I think it is very sad that there is no article about the culture events of the World Cup but about sinister things "over-emphasised by the media" that could have happend - but never happened. I as a German feel even a little bit offended or at least sad that you will find in the English Wikipedia always such unimportant (things never happened are unimportend) "facts" about Germany in the context of rasism. The only reason why this is in the media all the time is the remembrance of World War II, am I right? In the current years for example you will find even more problems wiht rasism in Italy but you can be sure that there is no article about it in the article about the Olympic Winter Games in Turin 2006. If you make article which tells extensivly about speculations which crimes could have happend than you have at least also to tell (and not only in one sentense) how it was in reality - all in all (for sure there are always special bad cases) the total opposite. If the article stays like it is today I will put in the BBC- quote again. --Knarf-bz 06:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC) - By the way - all English and American people I meet in Germany in the time of the World Cup have been filled wiht enthusiasm about the open, multicultural and peaceful World Cup, but if the informations the English Wikipedia have about it will stay like they are future readers will definitly have a wrong idea albout how the World Cup was. If you have articles like this you should at least also make a article ablout the culture events of the World Cup (there is plenty of stuff in the German Wikipedia) to paint a more objektiv picture of the World Cup. I would like to do it but my English skills are not so good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knarf-bz (talk • contribs).

Maybe you are right, but nevertheless the article like it is now is also only based on some media news articles and has no practical relevance (at least not for the World Cup). It is all about speculations. And in the end about speculations which never came true. Why do you think that this [2] article (which is quoted- Maybe it is interesting but in the end it has nothing to do with the reality of the World Cup 2006) is more verifiable than claimes of the German interior minister. () There are much sorces in the internet, you will find hundreds, if you want statistics about crimes compared to other events, informations about how tourists experienced the World Cup. I myself are not able to chance it because I have problems with my English skills, but my English is good enough to recognize that this is more a selction of negativ sources and no one in the English Wikipedia cares for the positiv about the World Cup (I have recognized this in many articles related to Germany or German people). In my opinion this is a very useless article and sould be deleted. If such articles stay in the Englsih Wikipedia I not wonder why it has so much articles. 4 or 5 sentences in the main article is more than enough in an Enzyclopedia - Wikipedia is still a Enzyclopedia? A selction of one kind of sources (even if these ar verifiable) is not a neutral POV. --Knarf-bz 15:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking pages..

I wont warn you with a boiler plate; However please dont blank content from pages in the future, if you have any grivences with the content use the talk page. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to propose removals from The O.C. page please propose it on that talk page, thanks/But as the info is cited it is unlikely it will be removed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I did assume good faith, thus why you were not given a boiler plate, i also could of used me revert (vandal) button. I did not however as i did assume good faith. You however are failing to assume good faith in my messages. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not obey orders, Good bye. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

^^ That Guy. He says that "blanking pages" is moving information from one place in the article to another, in a move discussed before he ever edited the page in the first place. Wow. Some people. Batman2005 21:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meanie!

You just despies ZAc Efroon and Freddy Adu and Raven-Symone because they arrre actually up to date, unlike you. What is hell? Isn't that the place where .... God damn lives? i AM FROM cROATIA! I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW TO SPEAK GOOD INGLISH AND HOVV VVIKIPEDIA VVORKS!--User:Lindsay1980

[edit] Fan sites

Nonetheless, at one point, there were multiple fan sites listing there. Notability of the site should be remarked upon at its side so people don't think its just another random fan site from the Internet; it should be noted that that is the primary one. In my experience, I've been told that its best looked upon if fan sites are only included if they are directly endorsed by the person the article is about (Katharine McPhee has one such listing for example), else they are just viewed as excessive vanity. Just saying "(fan site)" next to the link isn't enough. I could go out and find fifty right now if I wanted to; just be sure to note that site's particular relevance. Unless it's noted, the site just looks like another random fan site. Do you understand? Michael 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: this comment

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Wayne Troll

I contacted Levid37 about the troll a month ago, but I just thought you might want to know (since you have been doing battle with him most recently) that the John Wayne troll was vandalizing the Tom Atkins (actor) page in much the same way that he is now vandalizing the Wayne page.

About two months ago, he was completely obsessed with stating that Tom Atkins is gay and had a male lover who died fairly recently, despite the fact that there is no evidence supporting either assertion. He uses the same MO every time. He never cites anything credible and hysterically accuses anyone who reverts his edits of racism/fascism/homophobia/whatever. He has just shifted his focus to Wayne.

Sullenspice 12:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. Even by troll standards, he stands out as an enormous asshole. I had it out with him on the Atkins article talk page, and afterwards more people joined in to revert him. Eventually, he gave up when Will BeBack and another admin locked it down to prevent him from vandalizing. Thus far it seems to have worked for the Atkins page. Unfortunately, he just goes somewhere else.

Also, his choice of targets suggests he has unresolved daddy issues.

Sullenspice 16:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again with this fuckwit.

Sullenspice 20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musicians Article guidelines

Because of you interest in th past, you input is welcome here.--Esprit15d 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Phi

Dude, the comment about Sigma Phi necessitating a change is speculative and conjecture and should not be included. This may or may not have been the case. There are two Kappa Alphas currently in existence, and obviously one was founded before the other. Just because another one already existed doesn't mean a change would have had to occur. The reason for the change was the stealing of the ritual, and that's all that should be listed.


Exactly! One has become known as Kappa Alpha Order and the other Kappa Alpha Fraternity. But they both use the letters KA. Sigma Phi is officially known as Sigma Phi Society. Sigma Phi founded by the seven who eventully changed the name to Sigma Chi could have continued on as the Sigma Phi Order or Sigma Phi Fraternity. The assumption that the name would have changed if the theft of the ritual had not occurred is erroneous and unfounded. It could be up for philosophical debate, but has no place in an encyclopedia.

[edit] Thanks for taking care of Sigma Chi

I'm really glad to see that things are cooking along on that page. I'm glad that we can have a very Wiki-friendly article that maintains the integrity of the fraternity while closely adhering to the policies here. Cheers man, good luck Firedancer414 20:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, I posted a lot of the stuff you cleaned up for me. Thanks and IHSV. ASigIAm213

In Hoc; I made a Sigma Chi userbox; feel free to use it: {{User Sigma Chi}} Scoutersig 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Editing reader

An admin you trust ;-)? I've permablocked the user as vandalism-only account. Next time, please use WP:PAIN; also, a warning template like {{NPA}} should have been given. Happy editing. Btw, would you like to have the protection of your user-page lifted? Lectonar 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

"it wasn't courageous, he didn't do it while charging into a burning hosue to save orphaned prematurely delivered babies"

That was the funniest thing on Wikipedia I ever seen. LOL License2Kill 04:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry if my edit comment sounded a little harsh on article Crips

Sorry I didnt mean to sound so harsh on my edit comment for the Crips, I just thought that was your opinion on the matter, when I read what wrote I thought it might have come off unfriendly. Anyways Stanley Williams is considered co-founder to the Crips. I added a citation: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/13/williams.execution/. Person can still be considered a co-founder even if he was not there at the very beginning. For example if a person joins early on and contributes a great deal to the structure and foundation of an organization, as is the case with Stanley Williams. Cheers. Valoem talk 07:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Stanley Tookie Williams was viewed as a co-founder because of his leadership skills. He was the primary force that spread the Crips across the state which in turn spread across the nation. Also my article does back the fact that he is a co-founder. Right under the title it says "Crips gang co-founder put to death for 4 murders". Valoem talk 01:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh ok, I understand, however I did write he is "generally acknowledged" which is true, even though he may not actually be a co-founder. I think that fits both purposes. Cheers :) Valoem talk 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregg Berhalter

At last, the real user comes out from behind his IP address. I think that your rant in what is supposed to be a Neutral summary of your position is indicative of your failure to follow Wikipedia policy. Again, your stubborn refusal to offer any concrete alternative is a demonstration of your bad faith. Alansohn 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Page

Like your user page found you by reading the discussion page of John Wayne. Glad you dished it out to that troll. After reading your page and hearing from others off site. Ive come to find this eutopia of wiki has a very dark side I didn't know was there. Doing what they ask can get you in trouble (that 3rr thing). As they say no good deed goes unpunished. Apparently that really holds true here. I'd like to ask you some wiki questions Ive used it for a couple years but just recently got a username and participated. Is the only way to do that on this page? Keep up the good work --Xiahou 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Your user page is tight! 74.132.172.179 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbus divisive because of genocide?

Hi, Batman2005. You have again taken the "divisiveness because of genocide" sentence out of Christopher Columbus due to a supposed lack of evidence. But I've already noted nine different references on the talk page. Have you seen them? It is really easy to find evidence that Columbus is divisive. Joshua Davis 20:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted that just as you were reverting your edit. No problem. Cheers. Joshua Davis 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 23:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/User_talk%7EBatman2005_1f9d.html"