User talk:Onorem/Archive 16: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:39, 6 August 2009

Hello. Please leave new comments at the bottom of the page, unless there is already a section related to your message.
Remember to sign your comments by adding --~~~~ at the end.
I will probably reply both here and on your talk page,
but sometimes I'm lazy...so keep an eye on this page if my reply is important or urgent. ♠

I prefer to keep my talk page history as intact as possible.

Unless there is a BLP violation or personal attack on someone other than myself, please do not remove comments left here by other users.

block

im not being blocked... NANANA BOOBOO BLOCK ME..... I DARE YA I can just restart my rotur and start again! I WILL SUE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.242.16 (talk)

Good luck with the lawsuit. Not exactly sure what case it is you think you have, but feel free to name me if needed. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh!

He is not only doing it to your page. I will not revert your page again but I think its considered vandalism. He's done it about 20 times in the last 10 minutes. OtisJimmyOne 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh! my bad. OtisJimmyOne 15:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

please

go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=purge#Legal_threat.... and look at the history... I have friends that joined me, and I did really sue, or atleast started on a TV show HA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.34.130 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC) YOU CAN"T STOP MEEEEEEEE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.34.130 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:This_flag_once_was_red"

Good luck with the TV lawsuit. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Superjail/"Edit War"

I did have a source: the ENTIRE FIRST SEASON OF SUPERJAIL! That's what the citation I added was for. 5150pacer (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Just saying that the first season is your source doesn't cut it. --Onorem♠Dil 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you make a citation for it then, because there's really no other way to put it. I'm all ears here. Just because it never specifically mentions that they're Scandinavian, monotone and rarely speak to other people, all three observations can be made simply by watching the show. It's something that occurs in every episode and it's more than a little strange because none of it is explained. 5150pacer (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it's original thought then. Caveat though: it's original thought that's not an opinion. Anyone can draw those conclusions from watching the show...and I must say I owe you a thank-you for being so frictionless on your reasons why my edits don't belong there; it's refreshing to deal with someone who doesn't act like brick wall. I promise I'm going to keep editing it though. sorry. 5150pacer (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What i'm saying is that there is no source that comments on it, so there can't be a citation can there? 5150pacer (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that logic, but it's just too enigmatic to leave out of the article. I'm ending the war, but the edits will continue. No disrespect, but it is what it is. 5150pacer (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for getting involved. I've been trying to be civil in this, but I was about to take it to AN/I; now I don't have to. ThuranX (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'm assuming you're looking forward to being blocked.

You know what happens when you assume, don't you? Wrong. It just makes an ass out of you, not both of us. Actually, I'm kind of shocked at considering that you must think I take Wikipedia as seriously as you do. My life doesn't come crashing down in flames from being blocked, but you seem to think it would end the world of any sane person. In any case though, I'll leave the Superjail page alone if ironclad rules get you off that much. Please do not reply to me as I consider this matter closed. 5150pacer (talk) 8:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Excused

I have a big penis. Will that change your mind?--86.45.130.30 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It won't, but good for you... --Onorem ♠Dil 21:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll stop vandalizing now. It's very boring being in an Australian secondary school you now. The internet is the only place to do anything and the first port of call is Wikipedia and what do you know, you think of something funny and you add it to an article and before long you've got four messages telling you to stop vandalizing. Ah well, I'll find something else to do now.

And sorry for wasting your time.--86.45.130.30 (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sure, blanking a talk is not vandalism. But I think blanking with warnings are. This is a vandal, getting rid of their warnings. See AIV. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Good to know. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocks...

Hi, I saw your comment on AIV. Our friend is operating from a /9. The largest that I can do is a /16, so unfortunately, there's not much to do other than whack-a-mole. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hungrywolf

Can you please keep an eye on the Field Commander article. It would seem Hungrywolf is up to his old tricks again. Thanks. Game Collector (talk)

Do you have anything better to do?

Than revert my edits. Come on, you can't vandalize the sandbox catch vandals who vandalize REAL ARTICLES. piss off --The professor with the tinted glasses (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A friendly note from 166.205.130.139

boo fucking hoo. I'll just find another ip. Get a job you loser and stop living off of my tax money — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.130.139 (talk)

New Zealand readers

"Please stop. I'm sure our New Zealand readers will be able to figure it out for themselves."

Forgive me if I highly doubt that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.44.15 (talk)

Doubt it all you want. Your edits are not helpful. --Onorem ♠Dil 06:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm merely attempting to help our somewhat less capable cousins across the pond. Oh, and that's Onorim for New Zealanders. You may want to add that to your page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.44.15 (talk)

I'll consider the suggestion, and once again suggest you stop. --Onorem ♠Dil 06:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Why do they against adding information about Michael Jackson ? I wanted to add the information about Michael Jackson's conversion to Islam in 2008. I also gave 2 relevant sources. Also, Jermaine Jackson, whose brother also witness of conversion cerenomy. Why do they against adding information he recently died as together lie of consensus ? I am sensible to their biased behavior. Please, they stop refuging to consensus lie.--Cemsentin1 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Billy Mays. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Onorem ♠Dil 13:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Two reverts does not violate 3RR. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No it does not. You were at three...which also does not violate 3RR. The warning is supposed to prevent you from breaking the rule. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are spamming templates to regulars with is only insulting, plus original edits are not reverts and 3RR is 24 hours. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Is there a user warning available for disruptive editing that does not technically qualify as vandalism? I will begin using that instead, if so. But calling this a "content dispute" gives it an intellectual legitimacy that it is far from possessing; this is one of several dozen anonymous edits that will happen this week by teenagers fighting over the genres of their favorite or least favorite band. I look forward to this page being semi-protected again in a few days. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if he has a history of doing this, because he is anonymous, and dynamic IPs are common. Regardless, I don't see why an anonymous editor who repeatedly removes information from a page without providing a reason, and who ignores requests to take it to the talk page, should ever be taken seriously, and I have no plans to do so. Chubbles (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User_talk

thx Henna (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Conrad Black

It is an absolute fact that Black surrounded himself with jews, married a jewess, bought assets in Israel, bought Israeli gov't bonds, and was a jew-ophile. I don't have a problem with that guy rearranging the discussion in a different way, but to just blank out the entire discussion of Black's obsession with jews and things jewish is out of line. I put it back in so that it can be re-arranged in a constructive way. But to blank it out - without that discussion in there, there is nothing - absolutely nothing - absolutely nothing at all - in either the bio of Black or on his Discussion page about his obessesion with jews and judaism for the past 40 years - it's laughable to leave something like that out - somebody who didn't know anythign about Black would read that Wiki bio of him and would miss an entire side of the man - a very large side of the man. It's an example of an extreme bias at Wikipedia - you cannot mention jews. It's like the entries of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors - there is no notation made that the majority of the governors of the Federal Reserve have been jewish for the past 15 years (go down the list: Chairman Alan Greenspan (replaced by Ben Bernanke), Vice-Chairman Donald Kohn, members Frederic Mishkin, Ronald Krozner, and the kid - the 35-year-old kid Kevin Warsh - now he claims he isn't jewish . . . . . but a rabbi officiated at his wedding (he married Jane Lauder, daughter of Ronald Lauder of the jewish Estee Lauder Cosmetics fortune) - yet nowhere is it noted that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has been jewish for years now. Oh well, let's hide the fact that Conrad Black is in love with everything jewish (well, he WAS until they turned on him). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.175 (talk)

Have reliable sources commented on the issue? --Onorem ♠Dil 20:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how you look at it. Reliable sources certainly document that the people he put on his board are majority jewish (when one would normally expect only about 1 in 75 to be jewish), and he married a jew, and he bought newspapers, and he bought the Jerusalem Post, and he was a big supporter of Israel. Certainly those things can be said - but it verboten to put all that together in one place in a mainstream newspaper. But it might be in "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

I'm sure it's mentioned in websites from muslim countries, but America and Europe are slanted towards judeo-christianity - surely you must know this. This stuff is openly talked about in Japan, but how do you put a Japanese newspaper link up??? A big problem with Wikipedia is that it is restricted to mostly North American and UK, Australian, South African sources. It also gets talked about a LOT in Switzerland, Austria, Germany and Scandinavia - but can we put a German-language link up??? In Switzerland, for example, these days you can say ANYTHING about the jews - you can call them "dirty jews" - ANYTHING - because of what Edgar Bronfman did, but it's all in German (or French or Italian) (Bronfman did a great job of turning an entire country against the jews - and what did he get out of it??? - almost nothing). But I think it can certainly be said that "Conrad Black stacked his board of directors with jews" - because it is fact, and just name them (in fact, they were named, and that is part of what that guy blanked/deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.175 (talk)

Foreign language sources are allowed, just not preferred. Reliable sources may document that the majority of people he put on his board were jewish, but do they make an issue of it, or simply document it?

"Bronfman did a great job of turning an entire country against the jews - and what did he get out of it??? - almost nothing" - If that's phrased the way you meant it to be, I don't believe I have any interest in discussing the issue with you further. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick's Article

I do not get it. This editor in question has reverted for the eighth time so far today on this article. That is more than twice the violation of the 3-Revert rule. However, he is still allowed to edit back to the same controversial unsource information. Lets face it. This editor is not going to back down in his unreasonable ways no matter how much sense you talk into him. I have tried to be patient and be civil about this. But what I seen so far between you and him, it's not going to work. Editors including myself have been block in the past for the 3RR rule on Biographies of Living People articles, no matter whose fault it is. No offense, what's even worse is that you are allowing this nonese to go on for as long as it has. You want me to be appropriate, I am willing. But this is a two-way street, and nobody like this editor in question should be allowed a free pass like you are giving him now, more or less. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop saying useless stuff to me.

Stop sending me offensive messages.Stop sending me dumb messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.185.75 (talk)

mj

cool well i wanna help. what shud i do? LB — Preceding unsigned comment added by LBinDaHouse (talk • contribs)

Rebecca Quick (revisited)

Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married

Undisputed in Quick’s Wikipedia entry is that she is “currently married to a Squawk producer.” The source is Gawker.com, dated Jan. 19, 2009, which mentions Quick “recently married” the producer. Gawker.com’s likely source for this information is Richard Johnson’s column of the same date in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/gossip/pagesix/squawking_season_at_cnbc_150882.htm). Johnson writes that Quick married the producer a few months ago. AND that Quick was previously married to a computer programmer.

The Wikipedia entry also cites a 2006 profile on Quick in The New York Times. In that report, the Times writes that she was married at that time to a computer programmer.

Is the above good enough now to note in Quick’s Wikipedia entry that she was previously married?

Welcome to Wikipedia

Point taken. Clarification did seem important, considering what a banned user had been through today.