User talk:Skinmeister

Hi, you know if you look in "My Preferences" there's a section to set the way you want dates displayed? Joe D (t) 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Skinmeister, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Noelle De Guzman 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your date changes

Hey Skinmeister, you are going to a lot of trouble making changes to date formats which won't change the date we see on our screens. The reason we put brackets around dates is to make them appear in a user's preferred format. For instance, [[January 25]] and [[25 January]] which will both appear as January 25. If you are seeing January 25 but prefer 25 January, then go to your preferences (top right of your screen) and change the date format. Cheers. Moriori 08:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about people who haven't logged in or set their date format? I am changing the dates in UK-related articles to the correct form used in the UK. I'm not touching anything else. User:Skinmeister

There is no correct form for dates in the UK. The Times uses January 27 and the Telegraph uses 27 January. Whatever, if you want to spend all that time amending dates then have at it. Moriori 00:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the times is teh ghey. the telegraph r0xors. Skinmeister 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ditto. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 22:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're only wasting your time on the articles listed on my user page. How very queer. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. u r teh harlescott boyz i fink. Skinmeister 22:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire Strikes Back

Valid sources for Star Wars information include much more than Lucas' stories. Please take a look at Star Wars canon. You might disagree (and I do, too, to certain extent) but that's the way it is. The information from Timothy Zahn, which is C-canon, can be included in articles.

Please also remember to be civil in your remarks to other editors, including edit summaries. Kafziel 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see the Wiki policy that says that only info from movies can be discussed in articles about movies. You're relatively new, and it's certainly understandable for you to disagree, but you need to know that the changes you are making borders on vandalism, and reverting changes by Maru and myself are not going to win arguments for you. You can't just make up policies as justification for removing content. I'm putting the information back in. I've already given you the courtesy of explaining why it's there; please don't remove it again, or you could be blocked for breaking the 3 reverts rule. Kafziel 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section it's in isn't just discussing the film, it's a summary of the plot, and as such anything that is not part of the plot should not be included in that particular section. User:Skinmeister 22:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Don't say I didn't warn you. Kafziel 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

I have replaced the tag to Rennix's page and included a cite from official policy. You may want to have a closer look at that policy; having a friend sign on for the sole purpose of supporting you is no different than if you had performed the 4th revert yourself. Removing that tag will be considered vandalism, so please just leave it there until the situation is resolved. I'm watching your page, his page, and every page you've ever touched, so there's no point in changing anything further. You and your "friend" have gotten yourselves into this, despite my warnings, so now you will just have to wait it out. It's not too late to put this all behind you and become a good editor, but nothing will be made better by vandalizing articles and user pages. Kafziel 07:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes! I hope I don't get banned! I might have to go through the effort of renewing my IP address and setting up a new account.

Empire Stikes Back

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You're not making any friends by doing this. Why don't you go find something else to work on? Kafziel 13:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called improving, not vandalising. Skinmeister 20:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be able to call it "improving", then you should participate in conversations when asked to, like the one on the article's talk page, and abide by the consensus reached by the rest of the parties involved. You should not continue to remove content without discussion and try to use sockpuppets to subvert the rules. If you're willing to discuss the content with the other editors, then please do. Kafziel 20:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Sites

Heya,

Wondering why you consider that moid.org isn't a shock site? Is it due to it being an index, rather than one image on a page? Hauntedunix 18:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice

I would just leave her talk page be. Let the situation take care of itself:

Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message), except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However, reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.

Yom 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shock Sites

I appreciate that you disagree with me about this article needing sources. Could you please participate in the discussion on the talk page? That's what it's there for. Mangojuice 17:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." This is the first line of WP:V, which can be considered the CENTRAL policy of Wikipedia. It is "true" that those sites are shocking. It needs to be verifiable. I'm trying to help here; this article keeps getting nominated for deletion, and this is one of the problems with it. And PLEASE stop removing the cleanup-sources tag without discussing it; the article does need sources, but even if you don't think it does, it's just there to encourage editors who can help to do so. It's there to help! Mangojuice 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on this up for deletion again. I don't understand what the big problem with it is myself...Michaelritchie200 07:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been off WP for a while, sorry about missing the vote. If it comes up for deletion again, I'll be there. Vonspringer 21:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse mirror

How was that not an exact mirror? Jaduncan 09:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date format changes - please be careful

As well as the fact your date format changes are a near-total waste of time (how dates are displayed can be changed in 'My preferences' - and in any case, does it really matter? The meaning is perfectly clear either way), you're also introducing unnecessary errors (e.g. the second date change here). If you insist on spending your time on reformatting dates then at the very least, please be careful that you don't introduce factual errors when you're doing it. Qwghlm 22:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I came here to say much the same thing, could I point you to WP:MOSDATE, which explains in full why months/days shouldn't be swapped around. Thanks. —Wh o uk (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of List of shock sites

Removing AfD notices is considered vandalism. If you disagree with an article's nomination for deletion, you should explain why on the AfD page. Deleting the tag was not constructive and leaving it there will probably do more benefit for your cause than deleting it at this point, as there are more votes for delete than keep & your best hope for keep votes are from people who visit that page regularly and will see that AfD notification. VegaDark 10:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 10:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalising my user page

I demand that you stop this instant. - Conrad Devonshire 11:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Please note that this user has been using his sockpuppet Rennix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to influence the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shock sites (fourth nomination). - Conrad Devonshire 11:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User talk:Conrad Devonshire, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Please note also that a request for CheckUser will also be filed, and if it turns out that you have improperly used a sockpuppet, the block will be extended on this account, and the other account will be indefinitely blocked. --Nlu (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vfd alert

thanks. jdb ❋ (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advert tag

Kindly stop removing the advert tag from List of shock sites and labeling it as vandalism. Whether or not the article conforms to Wikipedia's no advertisements/promotions policy is currently disputed, and simply because you think that it is not advertising does not give you the right to remove the tag without discussion. - Conrad Devonshire 18:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reported you to an administrator again. If I were you, I would stop right now to avoid getting into more trouble. - Conrad Devonshire 19:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks 4 letting me know...

... that ppl r still trying 2 delete the List of shock sites

3RR at List of shock sites

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. I have reported your 3RR violation for your repeated reverts at List of shock sites. Mangojuice 02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block on List of shock sites

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 48 12 hours. ~~Note: this block is as per User talk:Woohookitty William M. Connolley 09:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)~~ Revised based on rethink; CD gets 12h too William M. Connolley 11:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Skinmeister 17:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on "List of shock sites"

Hey Skinmeister,

Another user has blanked most of the List of shock sites article because he says they need sources. I've reached my limit of reversions and he's threatened to block me. Can you help?

Thanks,

Primetime 06:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That Aaron Brenneman guy apparently started a thread about himself at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#List_of_shock_sites. I think that he should be desysopped, personally.--Primetime 06:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you're honest, Skinmeister - brenneman^{L} 06:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

Hey -- I reverted your revert. You probably did this because I hadn't finished merging yet, but I have now. I take it you don't disagree with merging, since you were the one who proposed it in the first place. Mango juice^talk 12:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Yeah, that's what's happened. I actually did revert myself when I saw what you had done, as it didn't show up straight away in my browser, but I see it must have come up with an edit clash when you done the same thing at the same time, and I didn't notice. Skinmeister 12:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Strikes Back

Why are you removing the Irvin Kershner director template from the ESB article? There is no reason to remove it. If you give a good reason, I can understand, but please do not revert my edits and claim it is vandalism. The Wookieepedian 00:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shock site Talk Content Removal

Care to explain why you removed the policy that was put up? If you disagree with it then put it in talk page and discuss it. It was agreed by the few users on the talk page. I've put it back up until you are willing to participate on the talk page. Your "Removed 'requirements'. You are not an admin, and cannot tell us what should and should not be listed.)" it was started by me but the users agreed to it. I find it quite rude you removed it without leaving any message on my talk page or the articles talk page.--Andeh 21:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Shock site?

Hi Skinmeister,

Why did you revert my edits to Shock site, labeling them as vandalism? My changes do not detract from the quality of the article, and are intended to prevent careless clicking. Shock sites are by definition shocking. Thanks, GChriss 22:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add to that. This edit may have been misguided and against the consensus as it has been for some time, but it wasn't vandalism. It's not civil to describe edits as vandalism when they aren't made with the intent of damaging Wikipedia. Chris - please don't remove the links again; WP is not censored, and this has been an issue before on List of shock sites before it was merged to Shock site, and the decision was made to leave clickable links in the article. If you want to discuss the issue, please take it to the talk page. Mango juice^talk 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent more time with the two talk pages, and see what you mean. (I missed the discussion at List of shock sites due to the merge.) Thanks, GChriss 23:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beel Hooks/bell hooks on Talk:Blackface

Please do not continue to simply revert Blackface without discussing the issue (and if you do so once more, you will be in violation of the 3 Revert Rule). Deeceevoice has opened discussion on the issue at Talk:Blackface. Please come by and discuss this. — BrianSmithson 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Buddy, I love you, I think you are totally hilarious and a positive contributor to the dark corners of Wikipedia. If you ever need help in anything, drop me a line!! - Abscissa 10:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to shock site

I appreciate your opinion re: Moid, and I agree with it. I've reverted it out, and blocked the guy for WP:3RR violation. However, it's really not okay to "declare" an edit war, or use edit summaries like "I fart on your grave." I know, it's a pain in the butt dealing with users who don't discuss their edits, but we can do better than that. :) Mango juice^talk 02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Hoff Sommers

this is why — goethean ॐ 19:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule at Blackface. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but please also make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Thanks! :-) --Chris S. 05:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations

What is your problem with radio stations having their own articles on Wikipedia?? I want a VERY good explanation why these articles cannot be allowed because as far as I can see it has become a personal vandetta of yours to have no mention of Shropshire's local radio stations on Wikipedia.

If this action continues I may report you as a vandal.

I've never seen such vindictive nonsense on Wikipedia in my life. David 14:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to know the reason for suggesting that Shropshire Radio stations (3 of them) be deleted, what is it about the stations that makes them 'Non-notable commercial radio stations'.

I am refering to Telford FM, The Wyre & The Severn. pjb007 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... perhaps the fact that they're non-notable, and commercial radio stations? Skinmeister 09:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.....

There is a whole category for radio stations listing all the stations by country yet these are not listed as ones to delete and most of those will be commercial radio stations too.

What makes a radio station non-notable anyway? pjb007 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackface

Hi Skinmeister. I would ask that you please join the discussion on Talk:Blackface instead of just continually reverting to your preferred version. Thanks! Powers 14:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Troopers edit

Please don't make edits like these. The movie came out years before the 2003 US invasion, so your edit was clearly inappropriate, as long as I haven't missed anything. Deliberately adding misinformation to Wikipedia may result in blocking. --Conti|✉ 23:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit! I hope I don't get blocked. Again. Skinmeister 09:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by any chance are you an abusive sockpuppet of Conrad Devonshire?--152.163.100.195 00:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Conrad Devonshire

Kindly do not revert my edits to this page without discussing at WP:AN -- Samir धर्म 07:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also stop copying barnstars from that page.--The Count of Monte Cristo ^Parley 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

I believe you may have violated 3RR at Blackface. We are not allowed to undo another editor's work more than three times in 24 hours. These need not involve straightforward reverts and need not involve the same material. Please review WP:3RR. Also, calling someone a "moron" in an edit summary is a violation of WP:NPA. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV template on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

I noticed that you have added the {{pov}} template to this article. While I personally do not disagree with the template being added, it is polite to add an explanation of the problems you see in the article to the article talk page so others will have a chance to either address or refute your claim that the article is not neutral in tone. Failure to add such an explanation will also tend to cause the template to be removed with the explanation that no known neutrality issues exist. --Allen3 ^talk 23:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edit summary

With regards to your edit summary here: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. --Allen3 ^talk 00:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring

Just so you know, I will not be reverting again as I can see that you are not open for decent discussion. However, other users are likely to revert so I will tell you about the WP:3RR. Take a read and see what it has to say. Rather than reverting back again, why not just leave it as it was, and wait until a decision is made as part of the discussion on the talk page?-Localzuk ^(talk) 11:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Stifle (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peta

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jean-Philippe 18:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to People for the ethical treatment of animals. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -Localzuk ^(talk) 12:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to People for the ethical treatment of animals, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Localzuk ^(talk) 14:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also!

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Your block will expire in 24 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and reversion

Hi, Skinmeister. I've noticed you're being blocked a lot for continually reverting without discussing the changes you wish to make. This concerns me. I know you just want to make the encyclopedia better, but I'm worried that your methods will result in either your being banned from the project, or other people leaving in frustration, or, perhaps worst of all, contributing to a deterioration of inter-Wikipedian relations. I'd like to invite you again to discuss the changes you wish to make on the relevant talk pages, instead of just reverting every time you get a chance. Thanks! Powers 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parry People Mover line in Oswestry article

I've replaced my own line in this article referring to the above. I would respectfully ask that if you delete it again you give a reason and not sneak it through as part of an edit to remove the Welsh place name, as you did last time. Thank You. Britmax 19:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re above

I may be wrong but in your edit of 11:27 on July 23rd 2006 with the edit summary "Removed Welsh name(it's not in Wales)" the article is edited in a few places, and my line re the Parry people mover disappears. Put the before and after history pages together and ask yourself what you would have thought? Britmax 11:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edmonde Dantes

Please be civil. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag on PETA article

When inserting a POV dispute tag, you must also provide specific reasoning for its inclusion the article's talk page. If you do not, the tag will be removed and ignored.-Localzuk ^(talk) 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not accuse good faith editors of vandalism

Your edit summary for this edit implies that you were reverting vandalism. You were doing nothing of the sort. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not which makes it clear that certain "gray-zone" behavior is not vandalism: in this case, the changes you reverted don't even enter the gray zone. Please do not make false accusations against other editors. - Jmabel | Talk 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to School prank, is considered vandalism and may result in a block. As noted in the hidden text, "Do not add uncited pranks. Do not add simple bullying." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on School prank. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 week - yandman 17:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

yandman 17:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh placenames

Leave the Welsh placenames until you get agreement to remove them. Any other removal will be regarded as vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Wknight94 ^talk 13:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z9

Pay attention dipshit, there is consensus, to remove it. Skinmeister (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]