User talk:Machchunk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archive. But beware. The amount of stupidity there is staggering.

Contents

[edit] Grammar problems? Me? Just read on.

Machchunk, for someone that is such a grammar nazi you sure do have a problem writing English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.210.100.69 (talk • contribs).

First off, I really don't think that was needed or even fit for that page. Second, show me ANY major grammar mistakes I've made aside from accidentally not typing "find" right here (which IS, in fact, not on purpose, I don't know where you'd get that) and I'll coincide, but so far I don't see anything that would make anybody think I have bad grammar. Third, um, does my supposed bad grammar have ANYthing to do with me getting reported for saying I'm someone on a different website?
Someone here needs to think before they start mudsliging. Machchunk 03:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You've been blocked twice for incivility. This really isn't the way to "learn your lesson". -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Jeez, pretty tight on everything around here. Tsssssss...would "start mudslinging" be an okay substitute? Machchunk 04:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
And just to add, I don't want to go through another round of this stuff, if you know what I mean. Just try to understand, I've used curse words a lot on the Internet, and no one cares about that. It's really hard to get used to this kind of super-strict community. Machchunk 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It's got nothing at all to do with swearing. It's the angry tone of your comments. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
All of that I wrote in my first response is entirely true, though. Would YOU like someone baselessly accusing YOU, and that person just leaving and giving you no explanation as to what he did? Talking about the unregistered guy, not you. Machchunk 04:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
No, but if you're in the right and state your case effectively, you have nothing to worry about. Indulging in personal attacks just weakens your claims. I don't always keep a cool head either, but I know when to stop before things escalate. Besides, it's just some guy on the Internet -- if you know you're right, why bother dignifying his accusations with an argument? (Just to clarify, I have no idea at this point what the argument between you two is about, just that incivility was involved.) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I have no idea at this point what the argument between you two is about
It's not really an argument, just some statement he/she/it made out of the blue saying I have bad grammar and I'm a grammar Nazi. Neither of which are true, and he provided no evidence to back his first claim. Machchunk 04:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


I don't have a problem with you defending yourself against that, but the approach and verbiage was just too confrontational. Not that I'm trying to tell you what to do (seriously), but if the guy can't respond back in the same know-it-all fashion that he first accused you with, ignore him. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it might've been, but it's changed now.
And right now I am ignoring him, I'm just working this little thing out with you. Machchunk 04:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It's cool, we don't have a thing as far as I'm concerned. I've got no problems with you, and I hope it's mutual. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snakes on a Plane

You said: "It may be original research, but it's still there in the movie. So what would you suggest I do with it?"

Find a reliable source which provides a citation for this information. --Yamla 00:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your warning to User talk:74.65.247.237

Under the circumstances, the {{blatantvandal}} was a bit extreme. In most cases, warnings should be used in sequence: test1, test2, test3, test4. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked on the vandalism page, and it looks like {{blatantvandal}} is the next in the sequence.
And the vandalism to EBaum's World looks exactly the same as when you warned him. So I don't see how it's any less blatant.
I see you changed it. In any case, don't make it seem like you were the one that reverted the vandalism. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 00:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point about the Wikipedia:Vandalism page; I just changed it. The difference is that he hasn't vandalized enough times, or seriously enough, to reach the threshold of being blocked. With the blatantvandal warning on the page, the next person to warn him (if he does vandalize again) is likely to report him to WP:AIV, and that's not appropriate right now. I downgraded it to correct that, and I signed it because I was the one who placed the corrected warning. Anyway, no big deal, and it's all sorted out now. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite

I am concerned how that particular animation on the site is notable enough to be mentioned. How is it more notable than other features of the site? Might just be better off replacing it with Bubb Rubb.--Andeh 17:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your statements aren't totally true

see also here, please. --Egr 09:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yep

Thanks for competing in my game. You have gotten the word correct and may now post your name on the list of the legendary!!! --¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 05:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/c/User_talk%7EMachchunk_42b3.html"