User talk:Bigjimsanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Contents

[edit] July 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Ralph Fiennes, you will be blocked from editing. I'm starting at level 3 because of the previous warnings and blocks he has blanked from the page Jackaranga 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC). Sure. I hardly think editing surplus text is a crime. "Level 3" means nothing to me by the way, care to elaborate? Bigjimsanders (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I removed this warning soon after having left it because I realised I was mistaken but someone else added it back in, in this edit. Jackaranga 08:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Lori Cardille. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Kubigula (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC) - Hold up mate, I put a citation in. Warning people for citing facts? Whatever. Bigjimsanders (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The "citation" wasn't a reliable source and didn't say she was in porn. Please take a look at the WP:BLP policy.--Kubigula (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC) - It helps if you check the link before deleting my edit. No need for an apology though, it's fine. Bigjimsanders (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam picture

The picture u have uploaded is horrible.. Did you know that pupils use wikipedia to prepare their homeworks? You are a moron.--88.106.51.93 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC) It would seem that they infact are the morons - nothing around here is 100% reliable. Another stupid American, no doubt Bigjimsanders (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not American you dumbass.. All I know is tha you are a horrible person. --88.106.51.93 21:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Saddam was hanged - that's life. It happened and I merely added a picture to illuminate it Bigjimsanders (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That is life but u don't have the right to put a pic. here showing a man with his blood on his mouth! What kinda moron r you? Plus, you really don't have the copyright --88.106.51.93 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC) I do - I'm what you might call a "photographer". What are you hoping to achieve? You clearly want some war of words, frankly I'm too busy. If the image bears any offence I apologise. Bigjimsanders (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I reported the image hopefully it will be deleted by one of the editors. And believe me there is no offence for me.. You have to know that adding vulgar or violent content/images here is not permitted and it is one of the good rules which keeps wikipedia clean. I suggest u to go to an anti-Saddam forum or something and upload your images there.. --88.106.51.93 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC) What are you, a clergyman? Go **** yourself. Bigjimsanders (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, this explains everything... --88.106.51.93 21:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
YOUR WINNER: Bigjimsanders

[edit] Ricky Gervais

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. 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.--John 18:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Eh? Gervais was critically panned at the Diana Concert - read up, it wasn't something I thought up while eating my lunch. Bigjimsanders (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] -.-

Hey.....hey....you.....stop it. Settle the hell down and watch your language before I feed upon your soul and report you to the administrators. Your actions, as evidenced by this whole talk page show you can't contribute without starting an argument. Vampire Warrior 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC) "before I feed upon your soul"... Sure thing. Why the f*ck are you here anyway? EDIT 08/01/08: I see you have now been "indefinitely blocked from editing" Wikipedia - bwahahahaha!!!! Won't be telling me off again in a hurry will you you SOCK PUPPET?! Haha. Also I see you've been making jokes about rape? Pretty distasteful mate, no? Bigjimsanders (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radiohead

I'd be grateful if you would take the opportunity to discuss your concerns with the article on its talk page before removing information from its intro. Thank you. Atlantik (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I'm not removing info, merley uncited, subjective claims, such as Kid A and Amnesiac "divided critical opinion." Links to EVERY SINGLE REVIEW of these records showing the division please...? Absolute garbage. I need not say more. Bigjimsanders (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia relies upon consensus. I'm afraid I also disagree with your opinion that links to every single review should be provided. It is clearly impossible to do what you ask. It is however to possible to show that critical opinion was divided (i.e. the opposite of unanimous) by showing links to a couple of reviews in prominent, notable publications. This is done later in the text and per WP:LEAD, the lead section should not contain redundant citations. I encourage you to discuss this on the talk page of the article before making further controversial changes. Papa November (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Isn't the purpose of this site to inform? Not to paint a picture of what a single user wants Radiohead to be? "Divided critics"? This is ENTIRELY uncited, unprovable and therefore completely unreliable, thus statements like this should not be made. And Radiohead's popularity increased in the UK with The Bends? It decreased if anything. They'd had a huge hit with Creep, from Pablo Honey, and didn't have another top ten hit until Street Spirit, the last single from The Bends. Remember not to confuse "critical acclaim" with popularity. The opening paragraph, as it stands, is riddled with inaccurate garbage. Read up, perhaps? Bigjimsanders (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The division of critical opinion is discussed at length and cited later in the text. The lead section does not need to contain redundant citations. I agree that the increase of popularity with the release of The Bends needs better citation, but please discuss controversial changes on the talk page rather than just making the edit. Papa November (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I should have known better than to correct rabid, hyperbolic, and relentless sheep tagging along behind the mighty Radiohead. Bigjimsanders (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, let me alert you to the fact that edit summaries such as this are not fooling anyone - it is clear that you are the only user with any objection to the intro as it currently stands. I would therefore urge you to tone down your negative remarks and belligerent editing style, and begin to look upon discussion of your concerns and consensus-building as a viable option. Thank you. Atlantik (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) See my above comment in response to your fellow Radiohead disciple... Bigjimsanders (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bret Hart

A tag has been placed on Image:Bret9.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

There's no information on who took this photo and if the person taking the photo released it as GDFL/CC. As someone acquainted with Bret Hart related media on the internet over the last 10+ years, I can confirm that this is a common photo that appears on many websites/blogs. Unless the identity of the owner of the image & specific copyright can be established, this should be deleted. The original uploader was Bigjimsanders.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. AreJay (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reservoir Dogs

I'm not sure about the legitimacy of the weasel words tags, in precisely what section does it contain weasel words? It only references particular movies and critics.--The Dominator (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, since you have not explained in almost a week, I'll remove it.--The Dominator (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)