User talk:The undertow/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →

Contents

Congratulations!

The crazy, crazy, crazy Undertow
Congratulations! Today, you have officially earned the title of "Craziest, coolest and funniest user according to Phaedriel" award! Now, all we have to do is search for this "Wikistress" girl and beat the hell out of her! Love, Phaedriel - 12:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA advice

Thanks. :D It's very good advice. --Moonriddengirl 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The now-traditional RFA thank-spam

Click there to open your card! → → →

You're online?

MSN, dude. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 02:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

reply

Have you read the WP:DRV procedure? The first step is to contact the closing editor in case he or she simply overlooked something or acted too quickly. Secondly, number of comments has nothing to do with determining consensus. There were strong deletion arguments and weak keep arguments. I'm not taking it personally. Users hoping to become admins should not support bad arguments, and existing admins should know that. Jay32183 23:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Every invalid argument in an AFD should be answered. Let people know why their arguments are wrong, rather than having them be surprised by the closing editor. H2O is currently trying to become an admin, there's a note on the top of the talk page. By closing the AFD as "keep", all of those bad arguments were supported. Jay32183 00:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, now I see what you are getting at. However, there is KEEP, and then there is 'its staying here because there is no consensus.' The latter does not support bad arguments. the_undertow talk 00:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I, LaraLove, award The undertow this barnstar for writing some of the most amusing posts, including some of the most amusing edit summaries, as well as making some of the most amusing edits. Please keep it up! You make me laugh! XD LaraLove 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't add the url, but this is the diff that I wanted to add as the most amusing edit! LaraLove 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, shit. I sit in awe. You must have groupies lined up around your crib. LaraLove 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Aw, how cute! They even crap on your bed! Kinky... but whatever gets you off. ;) LaraLove 04:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. "Dr. Starr is Shasta's version of Dr. Pepper. I like it more than Mr. Pibb because I would not be caught dead drinking a soda that did not have a college degree." <-- That's the kind of stuff the barnstar is for! LaraLove 04:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Noted. LaraLove 04:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Good lawd! I think there's more words in your combined edit summaries than the article as a whole. Also, this is great. I can just pipe a link in a message on your talk page and BOOM!, copyedit. Nice. Anyway, I'm off to bed now. Thank you for keeping my wikimood up! Without you, it would have tanked today! :) LaraLove 05:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) Where's the tat, rockstar? LaraLove 05:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first, that tat looks sooo painful. Gawd. Second, it's unfortunate that your ex dumped you via text message, and Nextel is a bitch and you should hate them, however, I can assure you that Elvis never dumped a ho using a cell phone or text message (that's not to say you're a ho, I'm just sayin'). Furthermore, Elvis wouldn't condone that shit. He was about having affairs, not breaking up. So you see, your hate is completely misplaced! Think about it. He's the King, man... the King of Rock and Roll! LaraLove 11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Editor's Barnstar
For your excellent contributions to the Hogging article, I award you The Editor's Barnstar. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha. LaraLove 04:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah

Yeah, I realize that after I'd already posted my question. Sorry about that. Wryspy 06:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirby (surname)

Can you tell me why this page was deleted please? PC78 22:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no worries then. :) Regards. PC78 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been a week now, which seems like ample time for any housekeeping duties to be carried out. If it's not too much trouble, can the article be restored please? PC78 10:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! PC78 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA:Dihydrogen Monoxide

What happened? - I don't understand. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb ! er 19:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I do understand where you're coming from. I suppose the words I used weren't appropriate in structure or effect. I suppose my analagy of a dinner wasn't exactly the best I could of used and the sarchasm, I suppose, was imminent. I would also like to say I appreciate the response, so many editors don't do that and it bugs me. Thanks once again, and next time I !vote in a RfA, I'll make it constructive argument or at least true. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb ! er 14:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG

That is ridiculous funny. If you weren't already an admin, any RfA from you would be fucked. LaraLove 04:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No way. The sarcasm was unwarranted, and that I agree. But racist? That is a ridiculous call. I own the limited-edition, director's cut with commentary and 17 alternate endings version of White Men Can't Jump. If I can't make fun of crackers then who can? O yeah. Everyone else. the_undertow talk 04:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
ROFL. I've had a bad cough for a week, and laughing is a bitch. I can barely breathe. I sound like a 60-year-old Emphysema patient. Your shit is gonna kill me. I'm dying over here with my cough/laughs! Lara❤Love 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Dood. I hope you feel better! I know I do, considering I made love to myself[citation needed] while viewing this page. Haha. It's funny because it's true. the_undertow talk 03:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

About my oppose

I just saw your characterization of my oppose reason (the too much socializing one) as "pile on" and "insane reasoning" at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide. Usually, I check back on the RfAs I commented on but I don't normally check on individual RfA talk pages and wouldn't have realized that you have an issue with my oppose. All you had to do was question me below my oppose comment (or even on my talk page) and I would have responded.

Anyway, here's my explanation: you selectively quoted my oppose as see as too much "socializing" when in fact what I said was I oppose to some extent because of what I see as too much "socializing" to the extent of forming cliques. This cronyism is a disturbing trend that I find on Wikipedia and this can only harm wikipedia. Hesperian correctly guessed what I meant by that statement. But I also qualified the reason with "some extent" meaning that I wouldn't have opposed anyone solely on that reason, if there were no other issues. And there are other issues here. Having been on the support side many a time in similar situations, I think I know how you feel, when a candidate you think is good is opposed for apparently trivial reasons. But this time I could not honestly support, having seen the candidate in various fora for ~6 months (although I never came directly in contact with them). I probably should have elaborated more on the reasons instead of adding a "per someone else" comment. The main reason for my oppose is that there is plenty of evidence of poor judgment. And while I often do not give much importance to the "too little time since last RfA" argument, I think that is relevant with regard to issues like judgment, civility or maturity, none of which usually improve overnight.

If you need further explanation regarding my reasons for the oppose, please ask on the RfA mainpage (which in fact is meant for discussions such as these) or on my talk page and I'll be happy to respond (when I have access to a computer of course). Questioning what you see as insane reasoning is good (I have done it too), but calling it insane reasoning rightaway, I don't particularly like. - TwoOars (Rev) 06:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic that you chose to bring this up on my talk page... Well, I couldn't possibly expect to hold a coherent conversation on that talk page which is a mess right now (Am talking about formatting and threading difficulties, not about people's comments :). And I didn't mean to be condescending when I said you can discuss it on the RfA mainpage. I know that you know that; I had written the above comment after reading the "harassment of opposers" stuff that's going on at R's RfA and I think I assumed that it would be taken in that context. Now that I read my comment again, it isn't so obvious as I thought. After all, you are not a mind-reader. I meant that I am not one of those people who would cry "harassment of opposers!" the moment someone questions their reasons. I am always willing to be convinced by better reasoning. Anyway, my oppose (a small part of it) was about cronyism, not the simple groupism that's everywhere. There's a difference between the two. I don't go around opposing just anyone who posts wikilove smiles, no matter how I don't like it. Note that I put the "socializing" in quotes, meaning that it's not simple socializing I object to. I agree with all that you said on my talk page. Only, this particular case is something else. And, like I said, the oppose was mostly about a lot of other things. But if you don't agree, that's fine. :) - TwoOars (Rev) 06:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

swinging in India

LOL! --Moonriddengirl 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah

I'm helping wikipedia out and trying to make the best site out there in the world! :)--Mariofan90 20:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues...

You have some. You are funny, though. So, were you an admin at the point when you quoted an external site regarding punc on Wikipedia? Haha. Don't feel bad though. I was doing a GA review for ShadowHalo (now 17Drew) when I pointed out that the quotation marks were misplaced. I then proceeded to go change them all only to see he had to revert them because I was wrong. It was slightly embarrassing, but he's great. So I don't think he held it against me. We've since worked together fantastically. I shall add that to my RfA requirements. We should make a list... OMG, we totally should. Of all the things we "require" of RfA candidates. Haha! What a hilarious, fucked up mess that would be. Lara❤Love 03:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a real man of genius. I'm surprised Budweiser hasn't made a Bud Light commercial about you. Lara❤Love 04:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, Archive 5!
Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I'd like to apologize to anyone whom I've offended in the past few days, and in your case, weeks or months. I'm normally not an jerk, and I guess it took the discussion for me to realize the I've gotten a bit peevish.

I do apologize if you were offended with my comment on the AFD page. I make no judgment on your abilities as an Admin. I guess we just differ with respect to how to carryout an AFD. Orane (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronald A. Carson

That comment was damn funny! I can't believe the DRV on the above though - multiple deletions by various admins, then the DRV get socks all over it - someone really wants this guy to have an entry here! Pedro :  Chat  07:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

*pokes*

Dood! Haven't you heard that vandalrapingfighting is for teh noobzorz? All the cool kids are reading hilarious RfAs.... :P — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

When I'm bored I vandalfight. Wtf have you been up to? the_undertow talk 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

DOD

Are you the person who removed the criticism and trivia from the Denial of Death article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.185.218 (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the weirdest thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I did not make this edit. I fixed an internal link, but made NONE of the other edits. And what's stranger, is that with all the content that was replaced and removed, it shows that only 1,430 bytes were affected, which would be exactly right for my single edit. What's even 10 times stranger is not only that content was removed, but the article was re-worded. I'm at a loss. the_undertow talk 00:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


No problem, just curious as to what the issue was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.185.218 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but now I think I may be losing my mind, which I assumed was lost quite awhile ago. the_undertow talk 00:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't figured it out yet - either an intervening addition was oversighted, or it was made by an account which has since been deleted altogther — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ffdposter2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ffdposter2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, great that you stopped by. I really enjoy all the information. But seeing as how I did provide a rationale...why am I talking to a bot? Is there an RfA for this bot, because I'm using this as an oppose. the_undertow talk 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Not meant to be condescending, merely descriptive, but point taken. My apologies. -Jmh123 16:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of articles on CIA pilotes Eric Robert Hume, James Kovalesky, and Harry Kirk Elarbee who took part in the abduction of Khalid El-Masri

Hello, you recently deleted the articles Eric Robert Hume, James Kovalesky, and Harry Kirk Elarbee, CIA pilots in the abduction of Khalid El-Masri. German authorities are searching for the CIA agents inflicted in the case, it has been the subject of a parliamentary caucus as well in Berlin as in the European Parliament. The articles are in no way "attacks", they just summarize in encyclopedia style what is widely reported in the news, and they gave the sources. Please restore the articles as quickly as possible. Happily ever after 12:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty much not a good source. That was from Eric Hume. I also didn't delete Kovalesky or Elarbee, but I surely would have. You used the same source for both. Source watch is a wiki that anyone can edit (sound familiar ;), which is not reliable. the_undertow talk 18:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand if you say the source was not enough, however, as you could easily see with the source, which gives its sources, there are MANY sources, and it is by no means an attack article. Please restore the articles so more sources can be added. Happily ever after 22:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The source, provided above, is dead. The article is about a living, breathing person, and it accuses him of an international crime with no substantiation whatsoever. Please see WP:BLP. I will be more than happy to email you the article but if you want the article restored you will have to file a request. You can go to this link, as it tells you how to file a request for a review. the_undertow talk 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote, there are many sources. Just to give some examples: a renowned network of journalists, many news sources published wanted lists, e.g. the Swiss tabloid blick. The discovery of the pilotes was also widely reported. [1] [2] If you restore the article, I am more than willing to add them. Happily ever after 20:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You are free to recreate the article and add the sources. If you need the original article emailed, just let me know. the_undertow talk 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please post it on my talk page? Happily ever after 22:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please post it on my talk page? Happily ever after 15:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I can email it as per before. the_undertow talk 03:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I can email it as per before. the_undertow talk 03:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not willing to publish my email address. Where is the problem with posting the text on my talk page temporarily? Happily ever after 21:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that I'm not posting defamatory material anywhere on Wikipedia. Go to your preferences, and enable your email. I'll email you with the article, and the email goes through the website, so I will never ever know your email address, and thusly we can never ever continue this discussion in MainLobby94 on AOL. the_undertow talk 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Once tried to register my email, didn't work. If you post it on my page without the name? Happily ever after 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC) PS: Is MainLobby94 on AOL something I should know?
Thanks for your message. It's not that I'm afraid of email, it just did not work technically when I tried to register my address here. Happily ever after 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi the_undertow,

As the author of the SourceWatch articles being discussed here, I've been following this discussion with interest. You said:

"The source, provided above, is dead. The article is about a living, breathing person, and it accuses him of an international crime with no substantiation whatsoever."

First, let's clear up the issue of the link. The reason that you said the source was "dead" is simply because the above link contains a typo. The correct address for the article on Eric Hume is this.

I also don't think that "no substantiation whatsoever" is an accurate statement. As 'Happily ever after' has pointed out, Hume has been explicitly named by netzwerk recherche, which is basically a trade body for some very well-known German investigative journalists. Those journalists work for some of Germany's most well established and mainstream media outlets, such as Der Spiegel. So I simply don't think it's accurate for you to claim that the SourceWatch article on Hume accuses him of a crime without any substantiation.

Regards, --Neil Conley 10:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The article contained a single source, which was a dead link. It may have been a typo, but that fact is completely irrelevant. It is not the burden of any editor to correct the source; it is on the contributor. So basically there is no issue to 'clear up.' The article used a dead link, so there was 'no substantiation whatsoever.' Even with the new link provided, it does no good. Your article is not a reliable source because it's a wiki. That is not meant to offend, as wikipedia is not a Reliable source either. By the way, did you have a chance to see the article before it was deleted? It asserts his name, occupation, home state and direct involvement in an abduction. The 'sources' do not back up this information. They make reference to allegations, but they are not accusatory nor defamatory such as this article. We're really not here to expose CIA agents, showcase current events, or help catch fugitives for Interpol. the_undertow talk 18:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi the_undertow,
You said
"It asserts his name, occupation, home state and direct involvement in an abduction. The 'sources' do not back up this information. They make reference to allegations, but they are not accusatory nor defamatory such as this article."
Well, let's take a look at two of those sources:
  1. This Los Angeles Times article states that 'Eric Matthew Fain' is wanted in Germany on charges of kidnapping and causing serious bodily harm to Khaled Masri.
  2. The proceedings of the 2007 conference of netzwerk recherche (NR), in an article titled 'How does one unmask a CIA kidnapper', identifies 'Eric Matthew Fain' as Eric Hume. (I've just noticed that NR's site is currently down, so I've given a link to Google's cached copy of that PDF).
So source #1 asserts Hume's alias, occupation, home state, and alleged involvement in an abduction. Source #2 asserts Hume's real name, identifies him as the same individual as his alias, and repeats his occupation, home state, and alleged involvement in the abduction. Therefore, I don't really see a difference between those two sources and the claims you say the original article made. Both sources are from organizations which AFAIK meet Wikipedia's citation standards - although as User:W.marsh as pointed out, source #2 is in German rather than English.
You also said:
"We're really not here to expose CIA agents, showcase current events, or help catch fugitives for Interpol."
Now those are arguments you haven't previously used - up until now, you've only talked about your objections to the article's sources.
Cheers, --Neil Conley 09:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So recreate the article and source it. Or take my deletion to WP:DRV. My inclination is that the article will not survive, because newspapers and encyclopedias are different creatures. I hardly believe that an alleged kidnapper, who may or may not be named Eric Hume, who may or may not work for the CIA is going to pass notability, but that's not my job to decide. The original article insisted on attributing a heinous action to a living person using a broken link. That's pretty bad. the_undertow talk 18:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I saw your message on Agüeybaná's RfA: "I don't know what I'd do with just one other admin around." That really just made my day. :) *Cremepuff222* 14:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I really do my best to interrupt wikipedia to make a point :) the_undertow talk 06:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Seconded! For some comments on my RfA. Regards, The Bathrobe Cabal. - TRANSMISSION ENDS - Dfrg.msc 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Only the fact that the bathrobe picture is so very attractive - and is obviously the harbinger of something wonderful - prevents me from brutally disemvoweling your message. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 00:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I know, I'm sure a few editors (Riana :) are thinking "Damn, I wish it could look that smokin' hot in a bathrobe". "Well, if I can't be a part of their piratical regime, then I'll bring it down". But no, we've grown too powerful already, (x2 members) .The Bathrobe Cabal is watching. The Bathrobe Cabal knows.

Anyway, here's the draft.

The Bathrobe Cabal

You are all under special arrest; for crimes against fashion...
You are all under special arrest; for crimes against fashion...

As a new requirement ALL RfAs must have pictures in order to confirm validity of the identity concerning the user running and his nominee. In addition, candidates must wear nothing but a dressing gown, a cheesy grin and a thumbs up in the picture.

Aims:
  • Cancellation of compulsory education
  • Creation of centers for physical love, so-called Mitfickzentralen (literally "fuckpooling centers")
  • Abolition of police
  • Reducing the legal voting (and drinking!) age to 12. "When was the last time a 12 year-old started an edit-war?" [3]
  • Legalization of all drugs
  • Re-building the Berlin Wall
  • Re-instatin' "Ramo".

The Cabal is semi-anarchistic, although there is claim to promote a form of direct democracy.[4] Proposed laws of the Cabal appear to support activities such as drinking, recreational drug use, and recreational sex. [5]

- TRANSMISSION ENDS -

[1]

I'm not sure if I'm on board with the aims. I'm thinking more like:
  • Mandatory daily doses of antibiotics as a preventative measure.
  • Relaxed admissions criteria for medical school.
  • Implementing a maximum age of consent for sexual contact.
  • Putting ketchup and mustard in same bottle to save vital time.
  • Interrupting infomercials with 2 minute segments of television shows.
  • Segregated vomitoriums.
- TRANSMISSION ENDS - the_undertow talk 03:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Dear The undertow, 
 ______  __                       __                               __     
/\__  _\/\ \                     /\ \                             /\ \    
\/_/\ \/\ \ \___      __      ___\ \ \/'\   __  __    ___   __  __\ \ \   
   \ \ \ \ \  _ `\  /'__`\  /' _ `\ \ , <  /\ \/\ \  / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \  
    \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ 
     \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\
      \/_/  \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/  \/___/   \/_/
                                                /\___/                    
                                                \/__/                     


For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.

The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 08:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

HUH

What fish??????WHat Pokemon?I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 11:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks.'''''[[User:Coolgirly88|<font color="Blue">Coo<font color="Red">lgirly</Font color="Red">88 </font></b><small>[[User_talk:Coolgirly88|<font color="yellow"></font>]]<Big>''''']] 23:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
This barnstar is awarded for the most humorous comment in support of my RFA, and for your equally smile inducing edit to my user page. Hiberniantears 17:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Tip o' the hat.

Speedy response on Ben Ryan. Thanks. --James52 01:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I was about to boot it when I decided to look at the revision history. The guy was remarkable. I will miss Ben. the_undertow talk 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

Nice... Just gave it a try on an A7 speedy to get the hang of it. I felt like something was missing before, and this was it. Thanks for the help!. Hiberniantears 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

nope

I have not violated the 3RR, so no need for you to come to my page to tell me the policy. But I will add it back at a later time as per wiki policy both are reliable sources unless the material can be disproven. Which none of you have been able to do. Also if you know the 3RR then you should also know the policy on reliable sources.Aladdin Zane 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR doesn't give you a license to keep adding material when the clock is anew. Your edits will be considered disruptive. The threat of adding back material is absurd. Forget your sources and your reverts - you have NO consensus and consistently going against consensus is also disruptive. Either way, you are going to be blocked or the article will be fully protected until a consensus is reached. It need not go to either point if you start taking the assertions of other editors into consideration instead of pounding it into others that blogs and IMBD are reliable EVEN without inline citations. Policy about sources being accurate until proven inaccurate is nonexistent. I have no idea where you are getting that from, but please share. the_undertow talk 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're Wikipedia Editin' Hand

I love your tattoo. It looks awesome. Who did it, and did they design it? Awesome tattoo. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 21:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the information. Good luck out there, I heard it's getting bad. Stay safe!! Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

== Userpage

Hello. I like your user page very much. Could you give me some pointers on how to edit my user page so that I like it very much too? Yeanold Viskersenn 00:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Less wordy (White Pride)

I meant less wordy than the version (listing all the excluded groups) that started getting reverted last week. Not less wordy that your version, which is simply misleading - that is, POV/normative of the notion of White Pride. The "less wordy" version to which I've reverted was not considered controversial until you came along and decided it was. - Maggie --76.67.72.103 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)