User talk:Billywhack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Billywhack! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --Icarus (Hi!) 08:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Contents

[edit] playstation 3 us prices

you need to come to a consensus. The result of the latest discussion was to delete the prices. I don't mean to be "deletionist" and discouraging of your work converting it, but please read the comments. If you would like to start a new discussion, and temporarily add them in, then that is fine. You also need to add a note about the inaccuracy of the price (I did it this time). --gatoatigrado 13:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're happy. Yes, it does make a difference, just look. --gatoatigrado 09:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

What are you doing moving an article without any discussion? I see you moved Red Deer to Elk (animal) without any discussion whatsoever. I've been working hard on that article and now you have created a massive problem with many other articles and pages. Don't do this again.--MONGO 15:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BJ Shea

Billywhack, I'm going to revert your edit to BJ Shea. Please refer to WP:BLP for the relevant guidelines. [1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to House (TV series)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I left you a notice because you were the only individual who reverted three times in a 24-hour period. I'm glad that you are discussing the matter on that talk page; however, if someone else reverts the page to say "also known as", please do not revert it again, at least until 24 hours have passed. Rather than reverting, engage your fellow editors and ask them why they disagree with your wording. Leave polite notes on their talk page, if they do not choose to join you at Talk:House (TV series). But please do not continue to violate the three-revert rule. If you do, you may be blocked from editing. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House

Since when were DVDs not official? The very fact that there is anything significant or related to the program that is current and refers to the show as House, M.D proves that it is also known as House M.D. If it were originally known as House M.D, then it wouldn't still be called that by anyone. I also fail to see how you can just 'change' and article after ignoring the discussion that had already shown you to be wrong. You're also very uptight of such a minor technicality. Perhaps you could take a few breaths, relax, and try to come up with an argument as to why it's still originally? (On the article talk page would be best.) And no, 'refer to wikipedia guidelines' isn't an argument. Which guidelines? Iorek85 12:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, my sincere apologies. I didn't realise I posted that on your userpage instead of your talk. Sorry. Iorek85 00:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it changed names from House M.D to House, necessitating an entirely accurate name change. However, it is currently referred to as House M.D by both IMDB and the official DVDs. You've been shown evidence by myself and others and yet you still insist we're wrong, your only argument being that IMDB and the DVDs 'don't count'. Why don't they count? It is an established fact that the number one movie site in the world, and the official DVDs both refer to it as House M.D., and thus it is also called by that name. You can't dispute this. Forgive me if I'm repeating myself, but I'm really having difficulty understanding where you're coming from here. Iorek85 12:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
NO! It doesn't mean it's the name of the show! It means it's what some people call the show. Hence the also! It is officially called House. It is also called House, M.D, by IMDB and the DVDs, among others. See the cover
and [2] for proof. Iorek85 12:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if one or two people called it House, MD., then you'd be right. But IMDB, a major website, and the DVDs, both refer to it as House, M.D. If you are in any more doubt, here's a title screen that shows it;
- and no, that's not from season one, but the last episode, aired on the 12th of December. Iorek85 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use misleading edit summaries such as this one or incorrectly mark edits as minor. I agree with several of your reasons, but actions such as those do not help your argument. SuperMachine 14:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to tell me what to consider minor or a typo? --Billywhack 12:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
A typo is "a mistake made during the typing process. The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger...". This definition certainly doesn't cover different wording, which is what your edit was.
From the first paragraph minor it should be clear that your edit was not minor:
"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." SuperMachine 15:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

Billywhack, you can't keep inserting that south-park reference. You need to have reliable sources (WP:RS) and it can't be just something you think you see (WP:NOR). Please stop. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. It explains what sources are usable and what sources are not. Your opinion is not admissible... but a famous reviewer who writes something in a newspaper is. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House

Hiya Billy,

Realizing it's frustrating trying to get everyone to see your point of view and reach consensus, civility is always appreciated.

Thanks,

WLU 15:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you start reverting this again? It was my impression by your final comment [3] that you were okay with "also referred to as" Gdo01 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm on my second revert. You don't get reported until you are on your 4th. Gdo01 03:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You get warned on the third since that is your limit (the 3rr limit). You get reported on the 4th since you broke the limit. Check out. See WP:AN/3RR: "Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period (not calendar day)". Gdo01 03:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What doesn't make sense? Gdo01 03:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Now I will warn you that you are on your third revert. Oops thats second. Oh well never hurts to warn you anyway. Gdo01 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't only Gdo01 who has a problem with you keeping reverting. You all should be working this out on the talk page, providing evidence to convince each other of your arguments (or trying to find somewhere in the middle that's agreeable to everyone). What good do you think it does to keep reverting? And please try to be a little more civil.

With regard to your adding a source for the title "House", if there are multiple official sources stating different things (which there seem to be... why wouldn't the DVDs be official?), then citing only one of them is misleading. We haven't reached consensus so we shouldn't be editing the article (same as when a page is protected--it's not an endorsement of the current version, things just need to be worked out before any more pointless edit warring goes on). Hey, has anyone tried e-mailing FOX? --Galaxiaad 03:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

But the point of the [citation needed] tag is to stay there until someone adds a citation. You yourself called it a good move, why delete the tag if no one has a cite yet. There is no citation for originally being called House, M.D. I'm sorry that it seems that I'm trying to annoy you but I am just trying to go by Wikipedia rules and procedures here. Gdo01 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So what if you are cynical about Wikipedia? That doesn't mean I have to violate rules and protocols to satisfy other people. The cn tag belongs there whether you think it will work or not. Gdo01 04:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said earlier, I have not violated 3rr. Here are my reverts [4][5] and then I proceeded to add the cn tag twice[6][7]. Those are two separate issues. Gdo01 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you've already started discussing this, billywhack, I thought I'd drop in to point out that you are in danger of violating the 3RR that you are keen to accuse others of. Iorek85 04:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR at House (TV Series) and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please use the time to review the 3RR policy. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting an unblock because I did not revert to the same thing. I used different edits but people kept jumping on me instead of discussing the change reasonably. Iorek85 is guilty of this as was another person. They were actually reverting. I was trying to make my edit and then arguing that the citation needed tag was actually unneeded. I also warned the others who were actually reverting to the same thing instead of discussing. Billywhack 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "see above"

Decline reason: "I'm sorry, that seems to be a very clear case of 3rr - you made roughly the same change four times in a very short period. Please read though WP:3RR when you have an opportunity, and please talk to other editors about changes when there is conflict. A quick remark on a reversion to your preferred edit does not seem to be sufficient. Good luck. Kuru talk 23:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

I thought the mods here were reasonable. You can all eat my dick. I'm fuckin done trying to make this site better and getting crapped on. This is the reason people become disenfranchised with democracy. The edit/rule nazis and bass-ackwards rules. Fuck you all very much. Billywhack 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

Please stop assuming ownership of articlessuch as House (TV series). Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. WLU 12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Eat a dick. You know that you are the one trying to dictate what can be added and what is useful without any evidence to back up your claims. Billywhack 20:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on User talk:Billywhack: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. WLU 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that beyond being hypocritical, you have no idea what a personal attack is. "Eat a dick" is a command. Billywhack 23:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I'm persisting in adding warning templates to your page is that admins will not block users the first time, but each instance of you posting a personal attack, owning a page, or other violations of policy ratches you closer to a block. They won't block you the first time, but they will on the fourth (or so). Something to keep in mind. WLU 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason you're harassing me is I'm right and you can't stand it. I have proof to back up my claims and you're blowing smoke. Keep harassing me. That'll get you banned. I couldn't care less. There's plenty of IP adresses I can access to keep the truth out there. You also need to quit being hypocritical with the "page owning" comments. Have fun living in la la land! Billywhack 03:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/l/User_talk%7EBillywhack_04e4.html"