User talk:Bat ears jr

I don't believe you. Vandals are vandals. Fan-1967 04:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Now you are calling me a vandal! That was never even the issue. Bat ears jr 05:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a message on your other talk page. You can still edit a talk page while blocked. The alternate account wasn't necessary.--Kchase T 05:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating worthless pages, that someone else is going to have to go to the effort of deleting, and continuing to do it after being warned to stop, how could you not consider it vandalism? Fan-1967 05:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, define vandalism how you want... Maybe I felt that the article List of National Basketball Association players being Filled with redlink names was vandalism... Maybe I too felt that I was doing something to combat vandalism (by getting rid of the redlinks). Bat ears jr 05:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The early bat ears/basketball players stuff was vandalism. I'm not sure filling in redlinks with stubby articles quite qualifies, but other admins have been deleting them, so apparently the stubs aren't wanted. The talk page thing is minor, but just pointless and means we have to go delete the nonsense there. This rapidly got out of hand. Can we just get to a point where there is a gentlepeople's (gender-neutral there) agreement to create articles with some content in them, instead of just that a person was a basketball player? Would that work?--Kchase T 05:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Totally with that. Bat ears jr 05:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And could you please choose an account and stick with it? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but please answer this: If one person uses two or more usernames, is that a violation/problem? If so, why? Seriously, Im relatively new here... Its an honest question. Bat ears jr 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. See WP:SOCK.--Kchase T 05:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]