User talk:Aviper2k7: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:09, 13 February 2007

Image request for Road America

I noticed from your comments on the WLUM article that you do photoshop. I have a request that should be easy for you: PLEASE draw the course map for Road America. You can find a source image here. Eyeballing it should be good enough. Labelling the corners would be cool. Skip the length. You can move my fans image down, the track layout is much more important. I am not efficient at drawing. MANY THANKS! --Royalbroil 23:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll try, I do my vector work in flash though--Aviper2k7 01:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS! It looks AWESOME! --Royalbroil 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Astyanax.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Astyanax.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rodland.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Rodland.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email from Jeremy Toaster

_{this was an email, but it should've been put in my talk page}

Why have you gone and removed all our infomation about The Toasters? We worked had to get all of our info about our band on this site and continue to update and modify it. Not sure exactly why you felt the need to edit our content and change it to something you obviously know nothing about. By looking at your history, you seem to be randomly going through Wikipedia and editing things to your like. Please do not edit info on our band anymore.

Thank you

jeremy

I was trying to follow the guidelines of Wikiproject Musicians . I did not remove any content about the band, just the discography section, which was too long and confusing, not meeting to Wikiproject Musicians standards, just copied off of the toasters website, and linked to albums not even by The Toasters. I was just trying to clear it up a bit, making it look neater and more like the featured pages. I added two CD's, Thrill Me Up and Skaboom in the list. And going around Wikipedia and editing things to my like is the point of Wikipedia, I don't know what you mean there. Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians and WP:OWN--aviper2k7 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Favre Playboy article

Adding a link to Playboy's criticism of Brett Favre is not vandalism. I added it to the page and you deleted it as "vandalism". That's improper. There are plenty of accoldaes for Favre on the page, it's only fair to include a legitimate (and sourced) criticism. I've included it on the page once more. Do not delete it.

For the record, this is what I wrote: Favre was named the Worst Player in Pro Football by Playboy in the fall of 2006. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.104.6.61 (talk)

It appeared to be vandalism, I mean, I didn't even know playboy had a sports column. The article is ridiculous. It's not credible and is by who now? Playboy.com? Criticism (if even included at all) should be by reliable sources and by credible columnists. See WP:POV also. It's ridiculous to say he is the "worst player in pro football". If he was the worst player in pro fooball he wouldn't be starting. If Favre is the worst player, than what is Rex Grossman? This is just a writing of a disgruntled bears fan. It's not even an article. It's a two paragraph rant on Brett Favre. Very non-encyclopedic. It's playboy.com for crying out loud!--aviper2k7 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent insertions in Brett Favre: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template for Green Bay Packers seasons

While your creation of {{Green Bay Packers seasons}} is indeed a good thing, I have seen discussions where users have poo-pooed the idea of templates having red links in them. Since this template is essentially full of them, what should we do? Do you have plans to create (at least) stub pages for these articles? Are all of them even notable? --King Bee 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I imagined some day, all these articles will have some information on them. Currently, the only NFL pages (I think) that have the seasons are the Bears and the Raiders. I believe all these are notable, but yeah, red linked templates are frowned upon. I'll have to do some stubbing I suppose to get rid of these. The next article I was going to create was the 1967 Green Bay Packers season with the infamous Ice Bowl. I probably should've gone to the talk page first. I think stubs would be a good idea, with a results table, and then expanded to include draft picks, stats, ect. The full blown pages would include each game summaries I guess. Thanks for the comment. ++aviper2k7++ 04:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll do what I can to help out as well. Seems like a daunting task for just one Wikipedian! --King Bee 05:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In adition, they all should be notable, because there are pages on every teams 2006 season this year, and teams like the Cardinals and Raiders are awful this year, and are less notable than any other season. If this years Packers season is notable, then all the Packers seasons are notable.++aviper2k7++ 19:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Packers vandal

Not to spam, just thought you might think this was funny, the guy that just vandalized the article...I looked up his IP info and he is apparently from (surprise) Chicago. Ah, to be a homer. Treima 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, happens every day. Most of the time it's by Bears fans. Oh well, just see who will be laughing after Monday night. Grossman less than a 2 passer rating last week? Come on!++aviper2k7++ 03:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren moon picture

Not only is it fair use, it's unrepeatable and the source is credited on the page. How is that a copyright violation? Daniel Case 04:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was uploading a free image and fair use is only claimed for images with no substitutes. Sorry, I should have uploaded the image first. Almost done++aviper2k7++ 04:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the fair-use rationale, that picture illustrates his football career, in an infobox dedicated to it. It is not used to identify him as his face isn't visible. He won't play again, so therefore any picture of him playing is an unrepeatable historic event. It thus meets all the fair use criteria. Daniel Case 19:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same image was at the bottom (go figure), but the free image should be used and the fair use one should be deleted.++aviper2k7++ 04:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your assistance. Schenectady massacre

GeoFan49 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dumb deletion

what exactly was so 'dumb' about the trivia at RHS? Im putting it back. Temp— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.102.163 (talk • contribs)

Please see the talk page of the article.++aviper2k7++ 02:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case

Hi Aviper2k7, I'm Shadow1, the mediator handling a case opened for Brett Favre by User:AdamWeeden. After reviewing the case, it appears that this case might move into a checkuser request due to possible sockpuppeting, but for the time being, I'd like to commence discussion on Talk:Brett Favre. Thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brett Farve photo

The picture I uploaded was indeed taken by myself before the Packers @ Bills game this November. The image in the infobox is scaled down to about 35% of the size of the high-res original that I have, though. I wish I could have gotten some better pictures of him from the front, but that was the best that I have that would be suitable for the article (I have some in-play shots that are a bit more blurry and that were taken from a greater distance than this pre-game one). --PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a pretty good picture and it really helps the article.++aviper2k7++ 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Starwars1955

Look, I know it's annoying you as much as it's annoying me, but please remember to remain civil at all times, even when it gets really hard. I'm referring to your edit here; it sounds a little insulting. You don't deserve to be blocked for any reason from Wikipedia, so try and remain calm. Thanks. --King Bee 21:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aly & AJ

Please do not edit the genre for Aly & AJ. There is currently a discussion of the correct classifiable genre taking place on the Aly & AJ talk page. Thank you. Switchfo0t813 18:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to alert you of this. Aviper2k7, there is indeed a Mediation (beyond a normal discussion) about the genre; we've had to go around telling Users who changed the genre not to change it. Acalamari 18:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it looked like the mediation was dead, but I don't think it's right to change it to something that is unsourced. I believe it's between adding both or just teen pop, because MTV classifies them as teen pop, and removing teen pop would be against WP:V and would even be WP:NOR to go against major sources.++aviper2k7++ 22:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation isn't dead at all, it's just that our Mediator has been blocked and Switchfo0t813 isn't doing anything with the Mediation. King Bee and I want to keep Teen Pop, but Switchfo0t813 wants to change it. King Bee has sourced Teen Pop and so have I, but Switchfo0t813 has yet to give a reliable source. Acalamari 22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gave my statements on the talk page, I've done a bit more research on the debate.++aviper2k7++ 22:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a stand. Switchfo0t813 is simply avoiding the discussion (as mentioned above), and we're waiting for Alan.ca to come back and officially close the debate. I'm pretty sure it will be over as soon as he comes back. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan.ca is back, we're now just waiting for Switchfo0t813, but I'm thinking that we'll be able to end the Mediation without him if he doesn't come back. Acalamari 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you wanted to know, the Mediation is over. Acalamari 04:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I see, I'm glad I was able to help.++aviper2k7++ 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you did. Thank you. Acalamari 18:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Thanks for fixing that image - I wasn't sure if using the bowl logo was okay. Between that and the fun we're having over at the Favre article, I'm definitely in need of this vacation right about now! -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 10:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially Favre's last game

This probably isn't the place for it, but...GO FAVRE! I hope you can watch tonight! =) –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you bet I'll be watching. But I don't think it's his last game.++aviper2k7++ 17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. Morgan Peer review

Hello there. I have noticed that you have peer reviewed several articles at Wikipedia before. I am asking if you could find some time to peer review J. P. Morgan for me, and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer_review/J. P. Morgan. Many thanks! — Wackymacs 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will today or tomorrow, as soon as I get time.++aviper2k7++ 00:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like someone already reviewed it, but I'll see what the user possibly missed.++aviper2k7++ 03:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Starwars1955

Starwars1955 has blanked his Talk Page again, which is at least the third time that he has removed my messages. Blanking Talk Pages was considered a personal attack I thought. Anyway, I asked about the sockpuppet because I've read the Talk Pages of Cute 1 4 u and the sockpuppets, and aggression seemed similar; but you've said they're not the same Users, so I'll leave that. Also, what’s the reason why Starwars1955 hasn’t been given an indefinite block for continued vandalism and personal attacks? The reason I’m asking this is because Opronc and Opronc-oA (an ‘‘extremely’’ obvious sockpuppet; have you heard of these Users?) vandalized my User page, Tra’s, and Jack O'Lantern’s. Opronc and Opronc-oA have been given indefinite blocks, yet to me, their actions don’t seem to be as aggressive as Starwars1955’s. I know that we can’t block him, but I’m just asking. To learn what the Opronc’s are doing now, read this page, it's actually quite funny. Acalamari 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is indef blocked now. Admins were slow to ban him because he's a new user and he's only edited basically one page. Starwars1955 wasn't really vandalizing, just being completely ignorant toward Wikipedia rules. There's alot of aggressive users on Wikipedia, so finding two similar users like that is not always the hardest. There's a bunch of users on Wikipedia and many editors (as myself) stick to editing articles which interest them, so I cannot say I've heard of those people as I edit a lot of sports articles.++aviper2k7++ 21:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opronc and Opronc-oA are the same User, not two different ones. They both vandalized my User Page (see here: [2]

[3] [4]). I hope you read what was on the Opronc-oA Talk Page. Since Starwars1955 is now blocked, he could either write similar messages on his Talk Page...or worse, create a sockpuppet (which is what Opronc-oA is). Acalamari 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Marcol

Thanks for fixing the Chester Marcol page. The great Chester Marcol needed a page so that everyone could know his glory. I had no idea what I was doing I hoped just creating one would get the ball rolling and someone who knew what they were doing would fix it. THANKS --ChesterMarcol 08:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChesterMarcol (talk • contribs) 08:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I actually had started the page but never published it, so I copied a bit of the info that I already started and cleaned up the rest of the article.++aviper2k7++ 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is mentioning that Strahan's wife is white racist?

If you read more about the divorce I think it explains some of the allegations being thrown around. I do not see how it is an irrelevant detail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lazio gio (talk • contribs) 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think tagging his wife as white is relevant at all. Strahan's race isn't even mentioned in the article. The "white" just made it seem like that was the reason why he got divorced. I guess it could be reworded. Thanks for the comment.++aviper2k7++ 03:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Packer logos

What's wrong with using the fair-use Packer logos? I'm ok with removing the flags. — Zaui (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're too big. WP:FUC (#3) says to use low resolution logos.++aviper2k7++ 18:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - you're more concerned with their fair-use criteria - not their use in the article. I thought the logo history was interesting and hope someone can find good-quality low-resolution versions. — Zaui (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to confirm with you that Image:GreenBayPackers 1001.png is now low enough resolution to not violate copyright before I add it to the article. Thanks. — Zaui (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My image is fine. Please keep it, the 100x100 one is now the duplicate. Please Soxrock 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 100x100 image is Fair Use. The large one violates copyrights. Stop adding it to every article. It doesn't even look good because it's distorted. It fits awful with the season templates. Please stop adding it. And for gods sake read WP:FUC #3.++aviper2k7++ 02:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree with you for once tonight. An arbitration would settle it all. Lets do it. Thanks for the idea. Lets get this settled, I want to see which image wikipedia decides on. Lets do it tomorrow, I'm too tired tonight. Thanks Soxrock 02:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add a little light on the policy ... the reason for using a smaller image for fair use images is that if someone is making money by selling the image, you don't want to infringe on their right to make money by offering an image just as good as what they are selling. For example, if I am selling prints of a photo and Wikipedia uses my photo under a fair use claim, if a we have a 300dpi copy, then anyone could take that image and print it out on their printer - you would be costing me money. But that isn't really an issue for a logo. It's really only an issue for a photo, or to a lesser degree, a screenshot. But really, there's an even better alternative - use an SVG version of the image. If you ask at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve, someone may be able to create one. SVG images are vector-based, as opposed to raster, and so they scale perfectly. No matter what size you want to the image to be, it will be displayed perfectly. --BigDT 03:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can make a scalable SVG for a fair-use image. If it's allowed, I can make one, but I think that would violate WP:FUC #3. I did notice Image:Chicago White Sox Logo.svg, so I guess I'll make one if you don't think it violates WP:FUC. Thanks for the clarification.++aviper2k7++ 03:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been debated before. See Wikipedia talk:Logos/Archive 1#SVG and I know it's also been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Fair use though I don't really want to go through all of the archives to find it. Really, the objections arise from a misunderstanding of what an SVG image is. SVGs are resolution-independent. They aren't infinite resolution - they don't have a resolution. It's like talking about the color of a thought - that property just doesn't exist. Usually, just clarifying what an SVG is clears up the objections. Really, we ought to have SVG images for every logo - it makes the page look much better. --BigDT 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I hope I did this right- Image:GreenBayPackers 100.svg. Please tell me if I did this right, and if I did can you delete the others then?++aviper2k7++ 04:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very nice. What software do you use for it? I'd love to be able to do SVGs with something other than notepad. ;) CSD I1 only applies to images that are redundant and the same format (meaning both pngs, both jpegs, etc), so I can't speedy delete the other two, but if you replace all uses of them with the new SVG and tag the old ones with {{subst:orfur}}, they can be deleted after going through the five-day waiting period. Great work! --BigDT 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inkscape. It's totally free also.++aviper2k7++ 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are smart. You found a way to end the dispute. Thanks Soxrock 13:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get the older logo at Image:GreenBayPackers 1001.png changed to a SVG also? — Zaui (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of that image, read the discussion page for the verified information. It's said to be the logo from 1961-1979 on Sportslogos.net Soxrock 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sportslogos.net is not a verifiable source. Packers.com, however is. I trust Packers.com over Sportslogos.net.++aviper2k7++ 23:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message about the Packer logo

I deleted it because it was tagged as a redundant image, which is speedyable under CSD I1. I am not a party to this dispute so I had no idea that a discussion was going on ... I simply looked at the two images, saw them to be the same except for resolution, and deleted the smaller one. I have restored it per your request so the discussion can go on. I have no particular interest ... I was just going through CAT:CSD. ;) --BigDT 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Packer seasons, redux

Hi, I know it's been an eon and a half since I told you I would actually help you out with the crazy task of creating pages for all the Packers seasons, but I want to ask you about what I have been doing to the 2006 season. Is it superfluous and just lame to have all the info I added, like weather and scoring summaries? I noticed that the Bears seasons have all this info, and I didn't want to be outdone (you know, that rivalry thing). What do you think? –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great, the scoring summaries look pretty nice. I wouldn't do that on every page, I think just getting season stubs started is first priority. The 2006 season is absolutely complete. Looks great.++aviper2k7++ 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I have created seasons for the Packers up through 1999 (going backwards from 2007). Take a look, let me know what you think. Feel free to add info as well. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, I have the 1993 season started in my userspace. It should be pretty good when done.++aviper2k7++ 06:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you working on any others in your userspace? I don't want to create one that you're working on. And btw, we have 1996-2007 now. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just 1993.++aviper2k7++ 18:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We now have 1994-2007. I have been adding significantly less information as I continue to go backward, as I see it as a good idea just to get something up there. I have the draft results up as well as a sentence or two about the regular season results (instead of a full schedule listing, like in the 2003 Green Bay Packers season). We could probably at least add season statistical leaders to all of these, as well as playoff results. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 16:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Green Bay Packers.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Favre citations

I hope you understand that I didn't mean to come off as a jerk. It just kind of sucks to waste an hour reformatting the citations to find out that I did it incorrectly. Gar! –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The return of Starwars1955

Just wanted to let you know I opened a suspected sock puppet case on LOTR04 (talk · contribs) and AllStar27 (talk · contribs) based on their recent edits to Brett Favre. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever he edits, just revert whatever it is he has done, regardless of its legitimacy. We can do this all the live-long day, per WP:BAN, and I directly asked an administrator if we could, and he said we could. He will eventually tire of it. I have more stamina in me to protect the page I've worked so hard on than he does to continue to demand his way. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All your edits have been crap King Bee, you don't know the first thing about Favre, you can tell the page is run by kids, it's crap, uneducated, and your a stupid idiot and you know it, nobody visits the site but you and you lynch mob, pretty pathetic, 4.245.121.179 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)starwars955[reply]

Yeah, he's pretty easy to spot out, and it's pretty easy to revert what he does.++aviper2k7++ 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm serious when I say "stop talking to him." He shouldn't be given the time of day; just revert his changes, alert an administrator, and get him blocked. I know it's tempting to talk to him. Hell, he keeps calling me a vandal (obviously because he doesn't understand any Wikipedia policy whatsoever). The more you pay attention to him, the more powerful he gets. Just ignore him. Thank you. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 13:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PSUMark2006 now agrees that all the material can stay in BeverlyHills85 edit, except for the attempts, which is being looked into whether it's 8,223 and 8,224, you can see this in the PSUMark2006 talk page and Isotope23 had looked into this also, they way you too are talking here needs to be seen, starwars1955 created the playoff stats, the stats box above it and almost all the records and milestones, you gonna delete them to, this is a case of two kids with a vandetta, well now PSUMark2006 and Isotope23 has approves all BevreyHills85's edits, except for the attempts, which is being decided on, it's either 8,224 or 8,223, that's in the air, Malibu55 05:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55[reply]

Hold on a second. I never "approved" any edits. I just said that I concur with their verifiability. I don't get to approve anything That's the point of WP:CONSENSUS. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying you agree with there verifiability, and you would approve if they were added, that's what I meant, I know the WP:CONSENSUS, that wasn't very nice the return of starwars1955 comment, why were you nice to me last night, just to make those unnessary comments tonight, Malibu55 06:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55[reply]

I have suggested that Starwars1955 be banned from the community. Please see this discussion. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew King Bee was the start of that, GrowingPains1 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)GrowingPains1[reply]

@@ Line 200: / Line 200: @@
 Whenever he edits, just revert whatever it is he has done, regardless of its legitimacy. We can do this all the live-long day, per [[WP:BAN]], and I directly asked an administrator if we could, and he said we could. He will eventually tire of it. I have more stamina in me to protect the page I've worked so hard on than he does to continue to demand his way. &ndash;'''''[[User:King Bee|King Bee]]'''''&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:King Bee|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/King Bee|C]])</sup> 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
+All your edits have been crap King Bee, you don't know the first thing about Favre, you can tell the page is run by kids, it's crap, uneducated, and your a stupid idiot and you know it, nobody visits the site but you and you lynch mob, pretty pathetic, [[User:4.245.121.179|4.245.121.179]] 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)starwars955
 :Yeah, he's pretty easy to spot out, and it's pretty easy to revert what he does.++[[User:aviper2k7|<span style="color:green;font-weight:bold;">aviper2k7</span>]]++ 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)