User talk:TheTruth2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

) Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! --3bulletproof16 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 RE: Thanks 2 Solar system 3 Your recent edits on San Diego Chargers 4 Creating new pages with spelling variations 5 Leave my page alone 6 OhnoitsJamie 7 Re: Why did you revert my edits? 8 Incivility towards users 9 User:71.135.100.80 10 You want my help? 11 Zoe 12 Unjustified block 13 unblock 14 "Unjustified block" 15 Further disruption 16 Your edits to Shawne Merriman 17 Constant revisions to LaDainian Tomlinson and Shawne Merriman 18 Neutral Attitude

[edit] RE: Thanks

No problem. Always glad to help. --3bulletproof16 23:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solar system

Hello... recently, you changed the number of official planets from 9 to 12, adding "(Leave it. It is 12 planets)" as a summary. The number of official planets is currently nine, and will remain that way until the IAU states otherwise. While the change is proposed, it is in no way a done deal. Personally, I'm kind of excited about the idea of expanding the planetary "family", but we have to keep from jumping the gun... --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not change the number of planets to 12 unless you give a trustworthy citation with it. Thank you. --WillMak050389 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits on San Diego Chargers

It appears that you and User:Ixnay are starting to become involved in an edit war over a specific paragraph on the San Diego Chargers article regarding the upcoming 2006 season.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.)

Instead, please discuss this issue on the article's discussion page. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Enforcement:

If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.

I currently only see three by Ixnay on the edit history of the page regarding the disputed paragraph within the past 24 hours. One more will require a block. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to San Diego Chargers. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ixnay 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please join the ongoing discussion with us at Talk:San_Diego_Chargers so that hopefully something can be worked out so that these continuous reversions don't need to happen. Ixnay 23:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creating new pages with spelling variations

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove legitimate warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered to be disruption. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leave my page alone

What you are doing is clearly vandalizing and abuse of power.TheTruth2 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly within Wikipedia policy, and will continue. Stop behaving improperly and you won't have this problem. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Leave my page alone. It is my page I can do anything I want with it. Behaving improperly> Right!TheTruth2 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN which is an established policy. It is in fact not your page. Anyone may edit it, within the accepted rules of Wikipedia. Also, removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism and is not allowed. Thanks, Gwernol 21:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It mentions nothing of talk pages. If that is the case then it should be updatedTheTruth2 21:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The WP:OWN policy in a nutshell is: "Anything submitted to Wikipedia may be modified by others. No one has to clear any changes with any previous editors" (emphasis added). That includes material on talk pages. Every time you submit anything to Wikipedia it says in bold letters "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it" including when you add to your own talk page. When you submit material to your talk page you are agreeing to license your contributions under the GFDL which allows anyone to change that content. It's pretty clear to most editors. Gwernol 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I updated it.TheTruth2 05:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OhnoitsJamie

Because I did not conclude that OhnoitsJamie did anything to warrant a block, and because the "vandalism" in question was reverting your removal of warnings on your talk page. Since you have already posted this on the administrators' noticeboard, posting your complaint at AIV as well is not helpful. NawlinWiki 21:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is abuse of power. Vandalism and 3RRTheTruth2 05:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Why did you revert my edits?

Thanks for contacting me, I strive to be approachable, and I'm generally open to productive discussion. So. I reverted your edits at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles because I don't feel they improved the policy. To be a little more specific, you did sign the first edit [1], and while you didn't sign the second [2], it doesn't seem to me to improve the policy (especially bearing in mind that signing posts on talk pages, as mentioned at WP:SIGN, is an important part of how talk pages work). Hope that makes sense, let me know if you need any further clarification. Luna Santin 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way you could incoperate user talk pages on the page? It might solve alot of grief for some people.TheTruth2 05:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm? Are you sure you have the right page? The section you were editing states that users should not sign their edits to articles. Users should always sign their messages on talk pages -- the edit you were making would suggest that people should not sign their messages, as I read it. If you've been having trouble with people who don't sign their posts, you can use the {{unsigned}} template, and they should pick up on the habit -- as an example, {{unsigned|Luna Santin}} would generate something like this: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luna Santin (talk •

contribs) .

Long story. But Some admin stats about owenrship to user talk pages and states on that page. Read my talk page and you will understand

[edit] Incivility towards users

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on Talk:San Diego Chargers. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. Daniel.Bryant 09:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What? Do you even know what personal attack is>TheTruth2 14:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

TheTruth2 20:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.135.100.80

While it is sometimes nice if anonymous users register, and there are benefits to having a username on Wikipedia, there is no obligation for IP users to register and use a username. In fact, one of the core principles of Wikipedia is its the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please stop badgering this user and demanding that they register, its not appropriate. Your accusations on Talk:San_Diego_Chargers paint you in a much worse light than those you are accusing. Thanks, Gwernol 17:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If he wants to discuss with me then he needs to registerTheTruth2 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not true, per Wikipedia policy, nor is it in any way a reasonable thing for you to request of another user. Its particularly inappropriate for you to demand this in an uncivil manner. Gwernol 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing uncival about it.TheTruth2 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you just made this demand yet again here. Please stop this, you are disrupting Wikipedia. You cannot demand that an IP user registers. This is highly inappropriate and if you do it again I will block you for disruption. Gwernol 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This user is Ixnay in disquise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheTruth2 (talk • contribs) .

Do you have any evidence to support this allegation? So far you haven't provided any Gwernol 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You want my help?

What with? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't help you. You have a history of vandalism [3]. Plus you are clearly being abusibe to an IP editor. When your disruption calms down then I'll be happy to remove the warning templates for you. But until then, admins need to know that you have already been warned. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Answeed on my talk page. (let's keep the conversation in one place) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoe

Am I blocked? I had no warning.TheTruth2 06:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah no I had no warning. So unblock me pleaseTheTruth2 06:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unjustified block

No warning at all. Was blocked after 5 hours of my last comment. TheTruth2 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You were given multiple warnings by multiple editors and admins about your uncivil comments and your blatant disruption. Take Glen's excellent advice and take the time off to calm down. If you continue in the manner you have been you are heading rapidly towards an indefinite block. Gwernol 14:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No I did nothing after you told me to stop. I was unfairly blocked. I was not uncivil I was not disrupting. This is nonsense.TheTruth2 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the warning at 20:04 Okay, you just made this demand yet again here. Please stop this, you are disrupting Wikipedia. You cannot demand that an IP user registers. This is highly inappropriate and if you do it again I will block you for disruption. Gwernol 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My next two comments

20:09, 31 August 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ohnoitsjamie (→Questionable Behavior) 20:06, 31 August 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:TheTruth2

This user is Ixnay in disquise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheTruth2 (talk • contribs) .

Do you have any evidence to support this allegation? So far you haven't provided any Gwernol 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to talk to him on his user page but Gwernol removed it. This is one reason why I told him to register.TheTruth2 20:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Gwernol moved the comment from his user page to his user talk page, which is appropriate. I'm not sure if 71.135.100.80 (talk • contribs) and 71.135.113.159 (talk • contribs) are the same users; both IPs are part of SBC's DSL pool; it may be that DSL addresses are shared more than cable addresses. In any case, there's no reason why the discussion can't take place on the talk page for the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bold textAs you can see you warned me at 20:04 I had 2 more comments No threats no persoanl attacks. I had no other comments at all.

This is the time I was Blocked 01:50, 1 September 2006 Zoe (Talk | contribs) blocked "TheTruth2

YOu warned me I did not continue and I was blcoked. Unjustified.TheTruth2 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

AS you can see I was unfairly blocked. So unblock me please.TheTruth2 15:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Still unblocked. Please unblock me. I was unfairly blocked.TheTruth2 18:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is truly unjustified. I did not do anything. I have pointed that out. I was warned I had no other comments and then I was blocked?TheTruth2 19:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unblock

"

I was warned by Gwenral at 20"04 I had 2 more comments which were not a threat or personal attack or disrputive. I was blocked almost 4 hours later. without doing anything. The block is unjustfied.TheTruth2 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Unjustified block"

Well I didn't block you, so I don't know what you are complaining to me for. However I do agree with the block, your behavior here has been poor and you don't seem to understand that you need to follow the rules. You have been making false accusations, personal attacks, pushing a point of view and vandalising pages. If you don't stop you will be subject to further blocks. Please try to remain civil. Thanks, Gwernol 16:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a false accusation as is this. For vandalism see here. This is a personal attack; I won't list the many times you accused OhNoItsJamie of abuse of power all of which were unjustified personal attacks. This is point of view pushing. You were justifiably blocked for multiple violations of Wikipedia policy. Stop spamming people with your ill-founded accusations of ill-treatment and get on with making positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Thanks, Gwernol 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please move on from your bad feelings about your block, which was entirely justified, and stop harassing Gwernol. Thanks. --Guinnog 16:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the user you accused is Ixnay, you have presented none despite being asked. It at best is you making an unjustified accusation. You seem to delight in accusing people without evidence when it suits your ends. This is not appropriate and if you continue to do it you will be blocked again. Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is vandalism. Read the policy instead of making it up. OhNoItsJamie did not abuse his power, he was absolutely correct to block you for continued violation of policy, so this is a personal attack which you are persisting in making. Blanking a section of material that you disagree with is imposing your POV on an article as much as adding material you agree with. As Guinnog says, stop this nonsense and get on with making positive contributions. Thanks, Gwernol 16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You got blocked, as far as I can see fairly and after warnings. You are now unblocked. Why not just get on with whatever you came here to do? I don't see that anybody has anything to apologise for here apart from you. If you use this opportunity to learn from your mistake, you can maybe profit from what has happened and become a better wikipedian. If you continue to agitate for an apology, you are only disrupting the work of others, to no end that I can see. Please think about it, and how you can best learn from it. --Guinnog 17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further disruption

Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You have already been told my multiple admins that your block was justified, that OhNoItsJamie did not abuse his power and that you need to move on. If you continue to post about this I will block you for disruption. This is your final warning. Thanks, Gwernol 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave you a final warning. A different admin, looking at your history and behavior decided that your continued unfounded personal attacks warranted a block instead of just a warning. Honestly you were lucky I hadn't already made that determination since your continued disruption and attacks clearly merited it. I would suggest it is you who doesn't know what a personal attack is: please read Wikipedia's policy for clarity. The block on you was fully justified and you should let this drop before you find yourself blocked yet again. Gwernol 20:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Shawne Merriman

We appreciate your contributions to the Shawne Merriman article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. For this reason your edits have been reverted or removed. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thanks, -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constant revisions to LaDainian Tomlinson and Shawne Merriman

Rather than engaging in a rev war on these articles, you should cite sources that support your edits. Particularly with regards to the information you repeatedly re-add to the Tomlinson entry, it appears to be original research, and speculative. ---Jackel 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm I did and it got taken off. Also why do facts have to be cited? The others aren't. So back off.TheTruth2 17:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, I've pasted the comments you added to my USER page. Second, please don't edit my USER page, that's what the TALK pages are for. Third, as already noted here in your talk page, articles should maintain a neutral point of view, which means no original research. The information must be verifyable, by citing sources. My point is that you keep re-adding the same unsourced content again and again, after each time it gets removed. I see this is not the first time you've participated in an edit war, so you should be aware of all these policies already. ---Jackel 17:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

FActs do not need to be cited. Also I have a cited article and it was backed up by other users.TheTruth2 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Since we are discussing your edits, not mine, let's keep the conversation here, ok? The comment you keep adding to the Merriman article is "Many analysts are saying his career is now tarnished because of this" This is an opinion, and is very much like weasel wording. Just because it is an opinion, doesn't mean it can't be in the article, it means that it can't be YOUR opinion. If this opinion were supported by a cited expert or published opinion poll, or something quantifiable, it would belong, but instead, you just keep adding this non-fact into the article, and it gets reved out. The info you keep trying to add to the LT article is "Despite catching a lot of passes he posseses a low 7 yards a catch avg. While most RBs avg higher around 9 yards a catch." Way too vague, what is "a lot of passes"? Or "most RBs"? There should be published, verifyable stats to back this statement up, otherwise its your POV, and original research, and will keep getting removed. ---Jackel 17:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You said "I cited my sources and they were backed up by others." I just checked both the Merriman and LT entries, neither have citations for your edits, please explain where they are.---Jackel 18:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your said "It was right after the first couple of editsTheTruth2 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)" Well, any citations buried in a prior revision aren't going to do the current revision a whole lot of good, but this should be obvious to you. I've attempted in good faith to help you resolve your rev war on these pages, but after reviewing your edit history and numerous blocks and altercations that you aren't making these repeated reverts out of naivety, but out of spite, and possibly some anti-Charger bias you hold. Good luck with that. ---Jackel 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

TheTruth2, you are incorrect when you say that "FActs do not need to be cited." One of the three core policies of Wikipedia is verifiability which states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article". If another editor asks you to cite reliable sources you must do so before adding information back into the article. You should also be aware that WP:weasel words are not acceptable in articles, so adding "any analysts feel this will tarnish his career " as you did to the article Shawne Merriman [4] is not acceptable. You need cite sources saying who said this and when if you want to add it to the article. Edit warring is not the right way to proceed here. Please read what Jackel is saying carefully and follow his good advice. Thanks, Gwernol 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Attitude

TheTruth2, your edits have exhibited a clear bias toward certain sports franchises and athletes. Please try to remain neutral while editing and attempt to limit frivolous or unnecessary edits. This is not a forum to editorialize or promote personal opinion. I respectfully ask that you take your personal opinions to public discussion forums instead. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tahirjon (talk • contribs).

I agree, it's against WP:POINT.++aviper2k7++ 17:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)