User talk:BadaBoom

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Talk:Vanessa Redgrave, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Akhmed Zakayev. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Akhmed_Zakayev&diff=prev&oldid=408561618 SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Kip Brennan, you may be blocked from editing. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops. BUSTED! :-D Leo (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Hello and welcome! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Metricopolus. Wikipedia is written by people like you and me, so thank you for taking the time to participate. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to User:M1$CR3ANT with this edit, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions about editing, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Template:Z85 Metricopolus (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:M1$CR3ANT with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 03:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, you are not allowed to make abusive changes to other user's user pages. This is considered vandalism and you can be blocked for it, so please refrain from doing so. Thank you. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 03:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So the page itself wasn't abusive? Porn is allowed in Wikipedia? And you're one of the protectors of porn pages? Is that correct? Leo (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, porn is allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not censor pornographic or otherwise offensive images. Take a peek at WP:CENSOR --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 04:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest YOU take more than a peek at that article and read it to the end. And keep on reading the following section named "Wikipedia is not an anarchy". If you continue to protect pornography (i.e. erotic content not related to any article), your actions will be reported. Consider this a warning.

Thank you for not visiting my page anymore. Leo (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You have nothing to report, I haven't even edited the userpage. The only thing I have done is talked to you on your talk page. Secondly, what does Wikipedia not being an anarchy have anything to do with the situation? I see you are getting rather rude with me now, using CAPS every few words. I am here to discuss it with you calmly, but you are responding negatively. If anyone is doing anything wrong here, it certainly is you for edit warring with the creator of the page. As you said earlier, "Consider this a warning", however this is not a warning for me, it is a warning for you. Have a wonderful day. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 04:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your comment as it was wholly inappropriate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please, do not make edits like this. Such edits are not constructive. In general, provide reliable sources for your claims, or it's considered original research, which is not acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you not like? I basically summarized what is said in the sections below. What kind of sources do you want? Just listen to their songs! Or you want it to be noted in Britannica? Nomad (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There's many issues, but let's start with this: Care to point out which source said they were popular amongst "Alcoholics Anonymous"? Because I just did a ctrl+f search and the word "anonymous" does not even show up in the article any other times other than where you wrote it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you try AA? Nomad (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the burden to check for sources is on you, when you're the one adding the information, and it's been challenged. Furthermore, I doubt any reliable source would make such a claim to begin with, so I wouldn't waste my time searching for something like that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. When you recently edited Yo-mobil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SKD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hey, when you recently edited S7 Airlines your edit summary was in Russian. Don't forget that this is the English wikipedia! :) It's not a big deal (I could easily figure out why you made that edit by looking at the diff) but try and avoid this in the future. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 17:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I was editing articles in two windows, one in Russian, one in English, and forgot which one was which. I realized it when I hit the save button but it was too late, so I decided to leave it like that since the change reasons were obvious. Nomad (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's all right, I just wanted to make sure you knew. We all make stupid mistakes like that! :) —Compdude¹²³ 23:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Lugansk, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Cst17 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing sourced material from articles

Please do not remove sourced material, as you recently did at Child abuse, merely because the source does not include a web link. Not all publications are available online; the citation in question was apparently to the proceedings of a conference held in 1990, and is thus unlikely to be available on the Internet. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If there was no confirmation of that point of view since 1990, chances are, that point of view is no good. If you don't like it, you can blame the Government of the United States of America for keeping the Arpanet project secret for so long and not allowing Internet to appear earlier. Find a proper source that everyone can read to verify the statement. Nomad (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not how things work here. We don't discount sources merely because they are old or not available online. Please refer to WP:RS and other policies concerning sourcing material. I have restored the content in question. Note that the sentence in question doesn't claim that corporal punishment leads to child abuse, only that some professionals believe that it does and have launched campaigns accordingly. That's hardly a controversial view; it's a mere statement of fact and is easy to verify. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, then verify it. That's how things work here. You have to have a source I can go and read. It should be a link or a book's library code that I can order through the library system. YOUR source does not exist. Nomad (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you take a look at this. Nomad (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The claim has been verified. That's what the citation is there for. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in continuing a useless discussion with someone who only contributes to a common project by criticism and destruction. I told you why that source is not reliable. Want to change that - find the REAL source: book title, author, publisher, volume, page, quote. Library system number would be preferable. Until then, I'll be reversing your edits of that page. You can't use the source that noone can find. As simple as that. This conversation is over. Nomad (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Admin who is too lazy to create a new section is warning me about something

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash, you may be blocked from editing. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who made you an admin, but you definitely can't read. I explained my edits and removed the parts that were DISPROVED by the links provided. And next time you decide to write something on my page, do us all a favor - start a new section. Need a lesson in that? Nomad (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bidgee (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)