User talk:68.252.94.153

A Perfect Circle

If you keep vandalizing that page, I will ask an administrator to block you from editing (or ask an administrator to protect it to stop your vandalism). Alex 18:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on A Perfect Circle. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. (Both of you need to knock it off and discuss this without clogging up the edit history of that page.) --Dynaflow babble 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

just look at the evidence on hand (the talk page for A Perfect Circle -> Was/Is section), myself and several other people have pointed out to "Alex 101" that he is wrong about this and he still continues to edit the page to state that the band is no longer together. if you look @ the talk section of his userpage you'll see that this is nothing new and he even says that he got banned for several months for his behavior on another talk page/article. i would say he needs another ban, but i don't know how any of that works. all i know is that according to the most recent sourceable info, he is wrong, is editing a wikipedia article to reflect misinformation, and is now threatening to get me banned for trying to correct this. i've tried to clear this up in the talk page and he is being obstinant and refusing to listen to reason. so i guess now i'm just supposed to let the article remain inaccurate and completely wrong. or else i'll jget banned for trying to update it with correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.94.153 (talk • contribs)

I've warned you both. Edit warring is unacceptable under any circumstances, and the two of you need to cool it and bring in others for third opinions if you can't agree between yourselves. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism on A Perfect Circle --Dynaflow babble 19:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to give up; just try to get changes made in a different way. I've found myself in situations like yours before (and situations like Alex101's too), and the best thing to do is to ask someone else experienced with Wikipedia and knowledgable in the subject area to weigh in. I suggested to Alex101 that he post on the Talk board at WP:ROCK, and you may want to do so as well. Also, consider getting a username. Due to myriad factors, not all of them valid, users with names tend to be taken more seriously here than users with only IP addresses. Take a look at WP:U. [EDIT re: your WP:ANI post:] :::That was in reference to your calling Alex101's view "retarded." Because things tend to "sound" much harsher in text over the Internet than they would, say, face to face, it's best to keep one's verbiage as civil as possible here. --Dynaflow babble 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

meh. i value my anonimity. and i'm not losing sleep over the fact that people on wikipedia don't take me seriously. i posted a link to an interview with the singer of the band in question. and several people on that talk page before this interview was done pointed out that alex is wrong. i don't care about me being "right", in fact (generally speaking) if i'm wrong, i'd like to know rather than go around spreading false information. it just irks me that some kid from california is being as obstinant and insisting in the face of reason that he is correct, depsite the fact that this seems to contradict what the singer stated. like i said before, i really don't care anymore.. i mean i do, but i've wasted far too much time on this crap over the past day or two, and it's just a bunch of ones and zeros floating around that technically don't really exist anywhere in any physical form.68.252.94.153 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The username actually helps in the anonymity department. With a username, all anyone can tell about who you are is what you put on your own userpage. With their IPs displaying, "anonymous" users are actually far from anonymous. It's just something to think about. In any case, it would be a shame to lose a contributor over a tiff like this; do consider riding it out. --Dynaflow babble 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah but the username makes it easy to track the edits i've made (that's all i meant when i spoke of anonymity). i've made quite a few contributions over the years and done considerable work on several band's pages, but i really don't care about receiving credit for them, especially when you consider that many things you contribute may be edited out or completely changed within a year. and don't worry, i won't stop contributing and tweaking mistakes anytime soon, i just don't care about the is/was apc conflict anymore. like i said it's all just 1's and 0's floating around in cyberspace and if all of the computers in the world died tomorrow it would mean that i've wasted lots of time for nothing. 47 is the answer to life, the universe and everything adjusted for inflation.68.252.94.153 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing

What's with vandalizing the A Perfect Circle page over and over again? And who do you think you are accussing me of vandalism and saying that I should be banned for life, are you on drugs? It's true that they're not active at this moment and you should be aware of that. If you don't believe me, just read the "hiatus" section and you'll learn that there's actually nothing wrong with leaving the article as "was". That section says "although many belived that A Perfect Circle was actually breaking up for good". And even if Maynard James Keenan did say they're actually coming back, that hints a possible reunion. Alex 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

i wish i was on drugs. maybe it would help me understand what you just typed. i understand that the band is not active at the moment. but you need to understand that when you use the term "was" it implies past tense and implies that the band is not going to be active again. i'm not discussing this anymore. i don't give a shit. fine. you win. apc has broken up and will never record again. you're right. maynard is lying in that interview he did.68.252.94.153 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say he was lying in the interview he did. Maybe I should just add a new section about returning and just remove the "do not change this to is/was" paragraph. Alex 20:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)