User talk:Theplanetsaturn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey there, thanks for helping to build Wikipedia, just to let you know, you don't have to create an article for every possible spelling of your article's title. We use things called redirects: just type #redirect [[the correct title of your article]], and wikipedia will automatically redirect anyone typing the wrong title to your proper article. Feel free to ask any user if you have any other problems, and good luck editing! Jdcooper 00:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was having a bit of difficulty getting it right. This will make things easier.

[edit] Al Sobrante

The part about him leaving Green Day without telling anyone might not be true (although I suspect it is), the part about leaving the Ne'er do Wells is correct, as I was standing there when the rest of the band found out. He had been missing shows or interrupting them with long monologues and bad jokes, sometimes in mid-song and rarely showed for practice. googuse 06:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

--The last time I saw John was shortly after he left Green Day, and neither him or any other members ever gave me any indication that the split was unexpected. The move to school had been planned for a long time, as I recall. In regards to the Ne'er do Wells, I really couldn't say as that was all long after the last time I saw him. So I should have left that bit in. Apologies.

[edit] Green Day

I understand that you are a fanboy of the band, but please stop the POV edits to the article, you do not need to put your own bias opinion on John Lydon or Steve Diggle, let their quotes stand alone, you personally attacked Diggle by branding him as "an ignorant"[1] is unacceptable... you have a poor grasp on PiL and your Iggy Pop comment is irrelevant. - Deathrocker 06:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Khoikhoi 06:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The edits I made were discussed at length on the talk page. I'm the one restoring the page to it's accurate state, while obvious and relevant information is ignored. The originator of the alteration I reverted (Tenebrae) has already conceded the validity of my revert. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.Theplanetsaturn 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but WP:3RR is an official policy, and edit warring in general is discouraged. You might try following the one-revert rule in the future. Khoikhoi 06:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting blatantly false information, AFTER giving undeniable evidence to my position. How this can be construed as anything other than the reversion of vandalism is beyond me. And reverting vandalism (even more than 3 times) is an acceptable practice. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.Theplanetsaturn 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply labeling your opponents' edits as "vandalism" isn't going to make you immune to the 3RR. Only reverts of simple, obvious vandalism (e.g. graffiti, link spam) are not considered to be contentious. What you and InShaneee were in is called a dispute over content, and you should resolve it properly. Khoikhoi 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanking information that is clearly accurate and relevant while justifying it with a knowingly false argument IS vandalism. In this instance, the claim that a published book is unavailable for purchase through a Google search, and therefore likely does not exist. Incorrect. A simple Google search of the title shows multiple websites where the book can be purchased. These same websites show copies of the book through photos. Photos taken from multiple perspectives. The book exists. This is both literal fact and already agreed upon through consensus, a consensus that InShaneee ignored with repeated reversions. I attempted to resolve this issue properly. You cite the rules, lets look at the rules: "significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary."

The reason in this case is not readily apparent, as the content has already been shown to be accurate, and due to this, the continued reasoning behind the edit was shown to be entirely frivolous. Vandalism. And reverting vandalism (even more than 3 times) is an acceptable practice. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.Theplanetsaturn 10:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between good faith and bad faith edits. If InShaneee's edits really fit into WP:VAND, there would have been no need for him to make comments on the talk page. If you feel the block is still unjustified, please try the {{unblock}} template. Khoikhoi 10:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The determination between edits of good or bad faith must take into consideration more than a presence of a single sentence argument on a talk page. The argument made should actually addresses the FACTS as presented rather than purposefully ignore them. If InShaneee had been making an argument based on good faith, there would have been something of substance in his posts to justify his position. Someone editing in good faith will actually read and consider the argument justifying the reversion, InShaneee clearly did not. He repeatedly blanked relevant and sourced information while ignoring every valid argument presented. He ignored an existing consensus on this matter and reverted an agreed upon version of the page without discussion. Those are NOT the actions of someone editing in good faith. Vandalism. And reverting vandalism (even more than 3 times) is an acceptable practice. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.Theplanetsaturn 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

<<unblock|see discussion above>>

<<unblock-auto|1=24.7.84.21|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Theplanetsaturn". The reason given for Theplanetsaturn's block is: "3RR violation at Jhonen Vasquez".|3=Khoikhoi>>

The block in question expired before the review team was able to respond to your request. Apologies. Luna Santin 09:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack on Tenebrae

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 may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Argumentative accusations of "hypocrite" and "liar", etc. Occurs at Talk:Jhonen Vasquez --Tenebrae 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a close look at yourself first, Mr Journalist. Personal attacks take more forms than just name calling. You indulged in a personal attack when you made blatantly hypocritical accusations and warped my words out of context for no other reason that to assuage your damaged ego. Comment on content, not on contributors. is that not what you just said? Yet you describe me as "huffy" on multiple occasions, while ignoring my assurance that I was not. Calling you a hypocrite is accurate. You argued in a blatantly and measurably hypocritical manner. Your glass house must be getting chilly from all your casually thrown stones.Theplanetsaturn 22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Use of: Hypocrite again. Sarcastic "Mr. Journalist" jibes. "Your glass house must be getting chilly from all your casually thrown stones." --Tenebrae 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny. We had come to an accord and then you relaunched an aggressive attack upon me without discussion. Notice, I'm not the one escalating this to your own personal talk page. Notice, I'm not the one who acted in a hypocritical manner. I was more than happy to discuss this issue with you, instead of returning to discussion, you turned to unnecessary moderation reporting out of context quotes. Blatantly a personal attack. You want me to stop? Look to yourself first. And I'm sorry you find your self described label as a journalist offensive. Perhaps you should rethink further appeals to authority.

Theplanetsaturn 01:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you believe my "motives are suspect". What do you suspect? --Tenebrae 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not applying your logic universally. You justified the removal with the argument that it does not fall under the definition of "bibliography". True enough. Yet you leave Invader Zim. So you expose either a misunderstanding of the the content or a bias against this one particular item. Even after I clarified to you the flaw in your approach, you continue to remove video from a bibliography in an inconsistent manner. Which leaves your motives "suspect". Either delete all video, leave the section as all encompassing as I have it, or use a new term of your liking. Whichever it is, apply your argument in a consistent fashion. This applies to demanding sources as well. There are many, many claims on any given Wikipedia page that are not sourced. You seem to be applying Wikipedias standards of sourced information only when it comes to what is unfamiliar to you.Theplanetsaturn 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, I didn't notice it?--Tenebrae 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems unlikely, as I've pointed it out long before my post above. Take a look back through the history of our exchange on this. Furthermore, why do you continue deleting the video? I've added the source information and you continue to revert.Theplanetsaturn 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying "That seems unlikely" is flat-out calling me a liar. I've endured your verbal attacks patiently. If you had put a proper footnote rather than an inline link, which is a deprecated form long gone out of editorial style and policy guidelines, the citation would have been more noticeable. You also could have pointed it out. Instead, you went straight to thinking the worst. That's fine. Calling me a liar is not. --Tenebrae 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The only one using the word "liar" is you. Infer what you will. But to clarify, when I say that your failure to grasp the blatantly obvious as "unlikely", I'm giving you the credit for not being an idiot. If you wish to warp that somehow into the opposite, that's your business. It's really of no consequence. But for the record: You only suggest that "perhaps" you missed the information. You bring it up not as a fact, but as a possibility. I consider the possibility unlikley. And by your own words, you do not consider your own explanation definitive. Hard to call someone a "liar" when they never made a clear statment in the first place.

And by all means, explain how you somehow missed this statement, as posted in the edit notes for Jhonen Vasquez: "Invader Zim does not fit the definition either, yet you did not delete that. Your motives are suspect. Address on talk page before applying deletion of relevant information." That was at 02:04, 23 January 2007. Yet when you reverted again 15:44, 23 January 2007, you repeated this error. After this, you make the claim at 21:08, 23 January 2007 that "perhaps, I didn't notice it".

Seriously, how did you fail to notice it? You comment on the "Your motives are suspect" part but somehow you missed the very clear sentence preceding it? I'm sorry you find this offensive, but the concept that you missed this is very unlikely. And if you did miss it, then you have no business reverting as you're not paying enough attention to the text. You want to take offense at these issues, be my guest. But you are being incredibly indulgent in your desire to do so as I have made no comments or claims in your direction that are unwarranted.Theplanetsaturn 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of civility and good faith has been noted. Oddly enough, we collaborated fruitfully: You put in information, I formatted it properly. Since the article is up to snuff, I don't think we need to communicate any further. Have a good day.--Tenebrae 01:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Of course. You wish to step in and cast aspersions on my civility and good faith when all insults are a matter of your lack of comprehension, be my guest. Your passive aggressive nature and your failed pretense at the high road are noted as well. By all means, take your ball with you and go home.Theplanetsaturn 01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:GREEN DAY

 Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tron3 400.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tron3 400.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little Gloomy "see also" link on Goth subculture

Hi there! The reason I purged the Little Gloomy "see also" link from Goth subculture (along with many others) is that the article made no reference to the goth subculture nor gave any sign as to why it was a significant and relevant link. If there is goth subculture content in Little Gloomy you might want to add something to the comic's article. --Stormie 08:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Stormie 12:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)