User talk:Abrant01

Replacement of previously removed information

Stop!

Please do not add information that had previously been deleted, as per a editor vote. It just makes a mess of the article. Thank you. Unconscious 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i believe what i have added is important to keep so there for i will keep adding it whenever it is deleted. i sited the source therefore it is good enough to stay.

Stop! You do not have authority to go against a editor vote. Refrain from editing the section back in, or we will get you blocked. This is vandalism, and shall be treated as such. The 'interviews' section is not good enough to stay. It is irrelevant when it comes to a biography about Gerard Way, therefore, it was removed as per Wikipedia's Trivia Guide and Wikipedia's Biography Guide. If you have any more objections, please read those two Wikipedia articles carefully. Thank you. Unconscious 23:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever.

That attitude won't get you far on Wikipedia at all. Your information is irrelevant to the article, so it was removed, ok? That's the end of it. You do not try and start an edit war, or we shall get you banned for editing the Gerard Way article. Thanks to you, and a couple of other users, the article is now locked. Well done. Unconscious 08:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly think i care if i get banned? i know the band and i am constantly removing things from all five members articles that is actual graffiti, what i put up i honestly considered relevent in the wake of the VT massacre. "that attitude won't get you far on Wikipedia at all"?! WHATEVER!!! i am not some homebody loser who who cares if i can edit, like i previously stated, there have been numerous times when i have removed foul language regarding Mikey's wife Alicia, who is a friend of mine, from his biography page. That is the only reason i am on here, to protect and make sure that whatever is on those pages is true and graffiti is removed, which is what i often find. So don't come to me and act all high and mighty about one little section. Maybe if the other users don't post rude and obcene comments about the band memebers there would have been no "editing war" and the article would'nt have gotten "locked".

You don't seem to grasp the fact that you are one of the main reasons the article was locked. You have a serious attitude problem. When it has been voted that a certain section should be removed from the article, you do not, I repeat do not add it back in again. Once is an honest mistake, but you had done it two or three times, after a warning. That is no accident, and it's vandalism.

If you know the band, then respect Gerard Way's article, and stop editing it over something that is not to Wikipedia's standards, or relevant.

I'm not sure what you mean, on that last point. What has vandalism on other pages got to do with the vandalism you created on Gerard's page? Are you saying if other users didn't vandalism, you wouldn't have to? That is illogical. Unconscious 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am now coming on all high and mighty because a) I am good at it, and b) I have a badge (somewhere) that says I am good at it. In the matter in hand, User:Unconscious is right. We don't add in stuff that hasn't been said elsewhere first, but only if the source is considered reliable. Unreliable sources can include news by otherwise reliable sources quoting from from secondary sources that are not reliable (i.e. MTV reports that the Pooksville Reporter claims that it has pictures of a rock star proving that he has two heads... we can report that some paper has made the ridiculous claim, but we cannot write down that said rock star has two heads and then quote MTV). However, if a good source makes a claim we can report that claim citing the source. Regretably (for some) it doesn't matter if the claim is untrue; WP concerns itself with verifiability rather than the truth. In this way it is not permissable to remove content that has a good source, even if you are aware that the content is incorrect. WP has no way of verifying that you are correct. Even if you were to provide references to the contrary it is allowable to still have both references in the article.

You may not like how WP works, but that is how it is. You are free to write things your way on a site that you own, or have influence with, but here you have to comply with the rules, guidelines, etc. User:Unconscious did nothing wrong in pointing this out to you, and your responses have been uncivil and disruptive. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to block you (yeah, I have another badge - and I am wearing it - that says I can do that!) at this time since you are obviously concerned what is being written here. I suggest you work with Unconscious to get as much of your information into the article as possible. LessHeard vanU 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I was merely saying that on Mikey Way's page, Ray's page and Gerard's page there has been more than one occasion of vandilism that i have removed. I really dont care that the article is locked. You people need to get a life and leave me alone this is a moot point, and in case you need that broken down for you to understand it means this is a dead arguement seeing as i really dont care if it is locked or vandilized. I was merely trying to keep what i thought was valuable information like when Ge talked about the ring on his finger and then weeks later it is announced he is engaged, i would call that relevent. Who cared about your badge I am merely a friend/fan of the band trying to make sure information on multiple sites is correct and not misleading.

Sorry for butting in again, but that was not the information I removed. I removed your section on a section about an DIY interview with Gerard Way, on some radio station. Considering he didn't annouce he was engaged (He met someone special-- that's all I can find. It doesn't mean engagement), and no where has he annouced that it is Eliza Cuts he is engaged to (Apologies if it was not you editing that in on numerous occasions, someone was, however).

It is well and good you considered it to be valuable information; but following the first 'warning' I had given you about how it was voted off, you had added it back in... When the amount of people who think the information is valuable is the minority, the majority get rule. Unfortuantly, in this case, YOU, a single user, was the minority.

So for misleading information, I ask, why didn't you remove the Eliza Cuts statements? Or the engagement statements? None of which are particulary sourced well. If you want to help the articles from being misleading, why don't you help us by sourcing everything? We have a lot of information that I have planned to remove due to lack of sources. Unconscious 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I figured since he (Ge) was talking about current events, such as the VT tragedy combined with him for the first time in public acknowledging that he "met someone special" it was relevent enough to keep up there. When someone unknown to you writes you an email basically degrading your work i am inclined to not listen to that person, but when someone like you comes in and actually explains things i am inclined to listen and have respect for that person. I will leave that section out but continue to monitor the bands' site's and take out deragatory marks made against them or their significant others. In regards to the Eliza Cuts statement that was added in there, when I was checking out that source it looked fine to me, but maybe you should tell me what to look for so in the future I will be of service and not a problem.

The 'met someone special' remark is indeed important enough to keep. The rest of the paragraph, however, was not. The source stated for the Eliza Cuts reference does not in fact say anything about Eliza Cuts, instead, it just verifies that Gerard Way has found someone special... Even so, 'found someone special' does not always mean 'engaged'.

Good to see we can work together on this. Unconscious 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way I did not add the Eliza Cuts remark, i thought it was oddly placed in the article. When I clicked on the reference the article did say that he (G) confirmed he is engaged and "really excited about it" so i thought it was enough to stay, i did not see it when it directly named her, otherwise I would have taken that out as well. In any event, I do not know much about this website, as i have stated before there are many sites I try to help maintain, how is the article "unlocked"?

Sorry, I'm getting you and another user confused continuously. You're the one with the interview section, correct? I'm confused as there was two similiar situations going at once-- the edit war between me and you, with the interview section, and an edit between me and another user with the Eliza Cuts statement.

I disagree with the way the article had his "engagement" phrased. He just said he had met someone special-- not that he's getting married.

I have requested an unprotection, but I'm not sure it will be accepted or what. Unconscious 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When he was asked to talk about the ring on his all important finger he stated that he met someone special and thats all he was gonna say about that, then it came out that he is infact engaged. Either way, the article is now unlocked and i will continue to make sure that the things put up on his page are correct, along with the other memebers of the band.

I haven't seen any sources verifying that he *is* engaged... Only that he had found someone special. Thanks for contributing to wikipedia. ;) Unconscious 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You may have to inform me what an acceptable source is because I have seen articles on this matter. I will never, out of my loaylity to the band, confirm or deny anything on personal matters such as this one, but I will do my best to make sure what is on their pages is the truth.

Fan-sites aren't the most reliable of sources, but they would do-- as long as it's a notable website. If your section was about the interviews, as far as I can remember, the sources were fine, but someone had edited in a Eliza Cuts reference. (Said users are still doing so now) If you're still not sure what a notable source is, I suggest you check out the Citing Wikipedia article. Unconscious 08:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I am starting to get upset, someone, I am not sure who put "He is maried to Eliza Cuts (as thought to be) and it is rumored his parents are divorced." and "Also known as Gerard GAY." in his biography section. How can you find out who makes this changes so I can ask them to refrain from putting such rubbish in his article?