User talk:JuliusNero

AfD nomination of Braves-Mets rivalry

I have nominated Braves-Mets rivalry, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braves-Mets rivalry (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mayalld (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey

I got your message on my talk page. I just wanted to let you know, the only real problem I have with the article is the lack of sourcing/content. If you can come up with some, I'll quickly change my vote to keep. Good luck. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE- The sourcing- Just anything from a reliable third party that discusses the bad blood between the teams. Like something from ESPN or SportsIllustrated. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message, saw the sources that had been added, and went and changed my vote. And sorry if I seemed like I was biting. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem!

Yea, it is a pretty clear case, which is it caught my eye on the AfD page. You're very welcome! SMSpivey (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know what we stand for?

How would you know what Wikipedian's stand for? Idiot. 209.235.156.69 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit biased vandalism? Yeah, I doubt Wikipedia stands for that. Maybe that's a stretch. JuliusNero (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're the one who should have been aborted you useless waste of space. 209.235.156.69 (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Great to see we're mature enough to remain above personal insults, eh? JuliusNero (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. It is against the rules. 209.235.156.69 (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Wikipedia:Ignore all rules JuliusNero (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, Julius, you're a n00b, so stop reverting my edits. 209.235.156.69 (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Uh oh, he used the n word! I can go pretty much all day and night, so....no? JuliusNero (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go check out Conservapedia and, after reading a few articles, tell me if you still think that the creator, Andy Schlafly, shouldn't have been aborted. 209.235.156.69 (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - While that very well may or may not be and we're all entitled to our opinions, such bias is simply not what Wikipedia is for. This isn't a personal opinion blog, its an unbiased encyclopedia and I try to keep it that way to the best of my ability. JuliusNero (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UI) Please stop edit warring. This is a bannable offense. 209.235.156.69 (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Is repeated vandalism a bannable offense? JuliusNero (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my edits are in good faith, so it is not vandalism. An edit war is NEVER in good faith except when reverting SIMPLE vandalism. Even if you think what I'm doing is vandalism, it is certainly NOT simple vandalism. 209.235.156.69 (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - So you're telling me that putting biased, clearly unsourced bullshit on wikipedia is in good faith? GTFO! JuliusNero (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your feelings may be, it is still not grounds for breaking 3RR. 209.235.156.69 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Exceptions to the rule:

"Obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may have to revert vandalism repeatedly before administrators can respond."

and in a minor sense since this page isn't technically a biographical one, "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)."JuliusNero (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion is such a polarizing issue that 'well-intentioned' has no meaning. Pro-life and pro-choice people do nutty things and a lot of 'well-intentioned' people support them. 209.235.156.69 (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My viewpoint isn't biased. Though I may hold personal beliefs, what you're posting isn't kind of slanted arguments. It's just personal attacks that are, frankly, very insulting and in poor taste. That sort of thing isn't allowed. JuliusNero (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'm bored now. I just wanted to get a rise out of you. Keep up the good work! 209.235.156.69 (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have a good night/day. JuliusNero (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: March for Life

Warn the IP with one of the vandalism templates and then report at WP:AIV if they continue. I'd also request a semi-protection at WP:RFPP to be safe. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The issue has been (hopefully) resolved, but it may be wise to do so anyway to prevent future people from making changes. JuliusNero (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a warning on the IP's talk page. If they continue or resume their vandalism, keep warning as appropriate and request the Semi if you think it's needed. Might be wise to keep an eye on their contribution (just click their IP number) to see if they're trying that with any other articles. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Braves–Mets rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Braves–Mets rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braves–Mets rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sandstein 08:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]