User talk:I AM JOHN SMITH

the human head

The information on this page may be the results of boneheaded editing. This page may contain factually inaccurate information, incorrect spelling, unrelated images, or other easily preventable mistakes. It is currently in the process of being revised.

TfD nomination of Template:Boneheaded editing

Template:Boneheaded editing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cheeser1 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure exactly where on that long ass page I'm supposed to comment, so I'll do it here. It's still in the testing stages, so sit tight. I may just drop the pictures, put it in a Wikibox, or try something new altogether. I just figured this template would make my so called controversial edits seem less uncivil.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The layout is not a problem. It doesn't seem to have any meaningful use. You should not be using template-space to store a sarcastic disclaimer about your edits, if that is your intent. It seems as though it could easily be misused or misunderstood. To comment on the TfD discussion, you can click the relevant links like: this one. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Check this [better worded version] out, and give me your opinion.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not fork this discussion. There is a TfD discussion and a discussion at your userpage going on. Minor rewording will not salvage a template with no conceivable purpose on Wikipedia. This is not what templates are for, not at all. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's getting a bit late in the TfD, but you might want to move this template to your own userspace. Either way, I would not advise using this template in article space, per WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Buddy

I saw you added a deletion tag to List of groups referred to as cults. I don't think the page is going to be deleted on the grounds you provided; if you disagree, you may try an AFD, but I believe the article is notable enough to stay. Jmlk17 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:NBA articles

Your edits were reverted because they go against the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which outlines the style of writing in the encyclopedia. I suggest you read through that fully before making anymore edits like that. The encyclopedia is not meant to be concise, it is meant to fully encompass the subject being written about. The wiki also is like a web, which is why there are so many linked terms in the first sentence. (referring to this edit) I am also going to ask you to try to be civil on here as being uncivil can get you blocked. --Michael Greiner 00:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Have any of you been diagnosed with anal retentive disorder?

I was just wondering. Cause it seems in order for one single edit to be accepted around here, it has to be freakin perfect!I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All we ask is that you follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's how Wikipedia functions. Being combative, rude, insulting, or adversarial does not help the situation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I havent been gone a half hour..

and I see it didn't take you bitches ;) very long to revert my edits...AGAIN To which I respond "JEEEE-ZUS KEYYYY-REIST!" And in case you dont understand that cause all my edits seem to get removed anyways, I'll illustrate it for you:

Jesus Christ is the one sitting highest with his arm raised. Clear eneough?,

I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? This is your talk page, and what you're doing amounts to talking to yourself (although some might overhear it and comment). The two reverts of yours that I see having been reverted were the addition of wikilinks that were inappropriate and unhelpful. You don't need to add links to random words in the middle of sentences. You were even directed to the appropriate policy. Being hostile, rude, or adversarial, as you continue to be, will not help fix the situation, and could get you into trouble. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of commenting to each individual, I figured only interested parties would visit here, that way I don't crash everyone's talk page and be interpreted as rude again.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You were already directed to WP:CIVIL on your talk page, about a week ago. Please read through the official policy again; avoid these ([1][2]) types of edit summaries and uttering “you bitches”, which may be considered rude. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and you should read the talk page guidelines before voicing your personal opinions. Editing other’s comments, even if it’s simply adding a link, is discouraged by the guidelines. Your edits to Talk:Cold fusion#Cold Fusion = IMPOSSIBLE appear to violate them; you should discuss the article and not the article’s subject. Because a topic is controversial, you are not entitled to “bring it”. If you were to be banned, I would expect the reason to be continually violating the policies and guidelines rather than an opinion. As long as you don’t violate them, you’ll rarely find your edits being reverted. —LOL (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I said "bitches" with a wink and a smile. Any one offended should stay in grandmas church and shield themselves from the real world.. Seriously, that word has been so watered down.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m just telling you it’s risky because I’m sure there are still people who consider it offensive (as dictionaries still do). Nevertheless, please do not try to make any excuses; do your best to follow the policies and guidelines, and you should be fine. —LOL (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, that joke is rather played out. All people get from it these days is a message of casual aggression. Consider WP:SARCASM. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured "bitches" with a wink and smile after it would make people understand that I'm conveying a strong reaction delivered gently. Its not like I said "you ass raping donkey fuckers" >:<> or something similar...And before you say it, I am allowed to swear on my own page for demonstration purposes, I believe..--I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I just read your sarcasm page, and being that the page title itself seems sarcastic, I'm not entirely sure what message it's trying to send. We need more of this confusion.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you’re coming from with the “bitches” thing, but I hope you don’t do the same in the future. Try to make your comments as low-risk as possible, and you’ll be out of trouble. As for the sarcasm, “bitches ;)” might be interpreted as such, so it’s best to avoid offensive language or judgmental remarks even if you put a smiley near them. —LOL (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I just updated the link "reaction" to reflect a "chemical reaction" related to cold fusion. Happy now?,....beeeeyiches ;)" --I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks alright to me because “nuclear reaction” might not be taken as a “plain English words” and I suppose it is relevant to the topic. If you’re still wondering why I undid your previous edits, it was because I’m pretty sure “concept”, “reaction” and “brought” are plain English, reaction is a disambiguation page and brought is a red link. —LOL (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be a smart ass, but now brought has an entry.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Brought

A tag has been placed on Brought, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Victao lopes (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I didnt remove the damn tag! I was on the talk page. The talk page!I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked again to make sure, and yep, I was on the talk page. See, I dont rant for nothing!I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to seriously chill out. That was not accusing you of anything, it was reminding you not to remove the speedy deletion template. Please read warnings, policies, etc. before making hostile counter-accusations. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing anybody of anything. I just thought that he assumed I removed the tag, without bothering to check who edited it. Since I seem to be becoming the scapegoat for everything wrong around here, I thought I'd clear it up. As I said in an earlier edit summary DONT PANIC!I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And there you accuse people of making you a scapegoat (although I don't see how). On the other hand, YELLING AT PEOPLE IN YOUR EDIT SUMMARIES is not helpful. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well,well, well.., it seems that in the short time I've been logged off, yet another BLEEPin' page of mine has been deleted. Public consciousness is NOT, I repeat is NOT a dictionary word. There are lots of off the wall pages on here that are created, nourished, and still existing after many years. But my concept, nope, cant be done.....*sigh, just about ready to give up this Wiki bull***t. Other people in my dorm warned me about you guys.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? John, there is no conspiracy out to get you. Familiarize yourself with policies (especially content policies like this one or this one). Contribute positively. Your contributions are welcome, but if they aren't encyclopedic, they may be reverted or deleted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. If you would simply behave in a civil manner and make positive contributions to Wiki, nobody would bother you, and your presence here would be welcomed. Right now you're being uncivil and belligerent and you are making edits that are frankly disruptive. You seem like a smart enough guy. You can do better than this--I think that's why so many editors here have tried to take the time to explain things to you. There's no conspiracy at all, but when you do things that disrupt the project, people are going to call it to your attention. DanielEng (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh,I just now noticed my brought page has been deleted. Awesome! I love you, all! >:o —Preceding unsigned comment added by I AM JOHN SMITH (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 December 2007

John, it's not "your" page, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Adding dictionary definitions to Wikipedia is not a good way to contribute. Instead of becoming angry or belligerent, try contributing positively in some other way. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The brought page was deleted because of WP:DICT, and public consciousness was deleted because of WP:CSD#A1 (or WP:CSD#A3 according to the deletion log). Now, what are these “off the wall” pages you speak of, and what policies do they violate? Also, I’m not concerned about what the other guys in your dorm warned you about. The only thing I can possibly care about is the fact that the undoing of your edits and the deletion of the pages you created are justified with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, yet you continue to violate them and believe you’re “becoming the scapegoat for everything wrong around here”. —LOL (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sheeple is one of the pages I speak of. Created June 30, 2005. Checkmate! I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How does this meet the criteria for speedy deletion? It is clearly not a dictionary definition (see WP:DICT#The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles), it has sufficient context, and it meets the non-criteria as a neologism.
I just noticed your comment on that article’s talk page. It appears that you’re asking why public consciousness “wasnt allowed its own page” despite the fact that I gave you the reason for its deletion in the first sentence of my Dec. 27 comment above. Also, there’s a link to the deletion log on your deleted page, and it contains the admin’s reason to delete the page. —LOL (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dont worry about my dorm, they're all dicks anyways. I cant get along with any of them, so I didnt listen. I was just angry about another page disappearing. I just sometimes feel between this website, and the jags down the hall from me (not to mention the ones living in my room), I cant get anything done.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the above rant. Dont get me wrong, I love Slipknot, But hearing it at full volume at 2 in the morning is enough to drive anyone mad.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)