User talk:Lithium72990

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Lithium72990, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Missionary: Impossible. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


What are you doing? Tracing my edits and undoing them? Dumaka (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Question Reply[edit]

Yes because that is part of the steps for removing vandalism. Stop putting non neutral points of view on articles and I won't undo your edits.

Please sign your comments so I will know who you are in the future. I'm not adding NPOV on articles. All information has been comfirmed by the person in question himself. You're the one adding POV edits on all of Rick Ross articles. I haven't vandalised anything. Dumaka (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Once again sign your post! And second, please reframe from calling me names. If you can't conduct an argument in a civil manner I will report you. Third, I could quote all the things 50 Cent has said about Rick Ross but that would be considered Bias. Stop adding bias information and I'll stop countering your edits with bias sources. Dumaka (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
First off he isn't speaking on 50, he is speaking on what happened. Second, he is offering a different perspective. Using quotes isn't bias, it is promoted in the rules. Using slang isn't, however, neither is not capitalizing titles correctly, or not citing sources correctly which is why I undid your edit. If you're going to list Ross as a fraud you should also list every other rapper. Do you not see how that is bias. --Lithium72990 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I was just using 50 Cent as an example. This has nothing to do with their feud. If you want to add quotes to his page then I will also being to use quotes. If we keep this up, his article will become nothing but a conversation on feuds. By the way, he is a fraud that is why I added that information. It's known fact. Dumaka (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead and add quotes, it is fine. just expand on the information with the quotes like I did. Saying that someone lawyer said they aren't "gangsta" isn't in fact the entire story. You didn't even introduce the situation or the lawyer for that matter.--Lithium72990 (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. But you may not like the information I put into this article. No matter how true it may be. Dumaka (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And Mr.Dumaka still got banned anyways.

I didn't get banned. Dumaka (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

How do you expect me to contact you then?--Lithium72990 (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about[edit]

The user Dumaka has been editing these two articles to support his dislike of the entertainer. Notably was his revisions to the entertainer's article where he revereted a legitimate revision to another one which included the line " Next album = "Carol City Correctional - Represent".

I didn't even do this edit! did this. Don't accuse me of doing somthing I didn't do!Dumaka (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
You reverted it to that, even though it was clearly bias, and not a neutral point of view.--Lithium72990 (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything! What are you talking about? I didn't even notice this edit until you falsely accused me of it. Dumaka (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you check the logs and see what exactly what I did before you make judgement. Dumaka (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, you're right. I didn't notice that when I did the revert. What I was reverting was the bias in the article, not the vandalism. Don't accuse me of things just because you got yourself blocked. Dumaka (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I got blocked for editing the AIV page not for vandalizing actual articles. It just seemed odd to me that you were spending so much time on Rick Ross' pages. Obviously it looked as if you were trying to put some bias. Please explain though, how were my edits were non neutral? I offered quoted material of his exact words, and introduced the arrest and scenario where his lawyer discussed his non gang affiliation. The current article does not do that. It briefly mentions his lawyer, and it does that before the event (his arrest) occurred. --Lithium72990 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll put that back into the article. However, don't accuse me of things I didn't do. I saw the edit you did on the AIV page. If that's not consider vandalism then I don't know what is. I would also suggest you stop your little campaign of reporting every edit I do. The only thing that has come of this is your blocked account. And don't worry about me spending so much time on pages. You do not own Rick Ross articles or my editing power. I'll edit whatever article I feel needs improvement. A little advice, I would suggest you stop removing blocked Tags on your page from Admin. That will not help your case for getting unblocked. Dumaka (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing things from your page is allowed in the rules. I had the rule posted on here before, it actually shows that I read the information. The reason I edited the AIV was I thought I put my username by accident, so I changed it. It shouldn't matter though since the block you tried to put on me was already turned away. Also, you already acknowledged your mistake, so really what is your problem?--Lithium72990 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem is you not acknowledging your mistake and your continued harrassment. Don't report me when I haven't done anything wrong. Talk to me first. Even after I told you my mistake, you didn't even have the decency to say "sorry for falsely accusing you" You didn't even try to contact me regarding the issue you just jumped straight into reporting me. That is what my problem is.Dumaka (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would I say sorry when you're the one who made a mistake. Also, how am I harassing you, you're the one who keeps approaching me about this stuff. I want the admins to handle it like they are supposed to. I didn't falsely accuse you of anything, you have been reverting articles to include information that is bias. For instance, on the Deeper than Rap page you reverted the intro to include lines that state Ross will be rapping about being a drug kingpin, or something to that effect. Considering that the album hasn't been released yet, and the information wasn't cited, that should not have been reverted to. So I feel you aren't making sound judgments in your revisions, or you just have a bias. Furthermore, I told you why I reverted your edits and you accused me of being bias. You still haven't explained to me how my edits were bias, and I have told you why they aren't to me. --Lithium72990 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Because you are the one who REPORTED ME for making a mistake. Since when is making an edit mistake a reportable offense? Don't you see the hypocrisy in reporting me in the first place, simply because you don't like my edits? Do you want me to copy & paste what you said about me on the ANI? You were absolutely sure I reverted that edit for the purposes of bashing Rick Ross, when I told you that was not the case. If I had reported you for making a mistake I didn't know about, I would atleast acknowledge that I was wrong (which you have failed to do). And I told you they are bias because you keep importing favorable information without neutrality as if it were an ad campagne for his new album.Dumaka (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read my last message, you did it multiple times. It didn't seem like a coincidence to me. Moreover, apparently making an edit mistake is reportable since that is what happened to me. Please post lines where I put favorable information. Rick Ross did get arrested, and I also put what his lawyer said about gang affiliation. Furthermore, I put the exact quote of what Ross said on the situation. How is that bias? That would be like making an article about the Monica Lewinsky scandal and not including what Bill Clinton stated on the situation. --Lithium72990 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep avoiding the question of you falsely reporting me. It's ok. It doesn't even matter now. I got my point across. I will continue to edit Rick Ross's articles unbiasly. Once your block is expired, if you feel you need to revert what I've put in his article then just go ahead. It doesn't really matter to me. BTW... The reason I reported you in the first place is because you were calling me names. Dumaka (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding anything. I didn't falsely report you. I told the admin in the ANI and you on this page what I reported you for. This is the first time you have notified me that those were mistakes and I acknowledge that. Go back to the first time you contacted me. Your reply to my assumption that you were being bias, was to accuse me of being bias. You have yet to show proof of my bias. Also, that last part of your reply is impossible because you reported me before you contacted me, which is why the report was thrown out. So you are lying when you say that you reported me for name calling.--Lithium72990 (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And you are lying when you vandalised the Admin page saying it was a mistake. Which is why you are blocked now. My proof are your continued reverts of my edits. But it doesn't look like you will be vandalizing or editing anything for a while. Have a nice day. Dumaka (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to prove how I have been bias and now you to accuse me of lying. If you look at my edits of the AVI page, like I said I though I put my username by accident when I reported you, but that was your report of me that was denied. I deleted it because I thought I made a mistake in the name. If you are going to keep lying about stuff and not prove how I am bias, then stop harassing me. --Lithium72990 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right! If you would have look at the history (which you did) you could clearly seen your submission was still there. There was no mistake in the name because I signed it. You can't mistake a signed post. I'm not the one harassing here. You know what, this conversation is over. The Admin agree that it was vandalism. That's all I need. Have a nice week. Dumaka (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about, I know it is still there, it is part of the history. If you recall I didn't even know about signing posts. Again you still haven't provided anything about my bias in my edits. You are just trying to change the subject and harass me about being blocked even though it is just a misunderstanding. By the way, that's all you need for what? --Lithium72990 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I told you throughout my post why I think you are bias. Just read them. I'll leave it at that. Dumaka (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't even provide examples so stop harassing and leave me alone. --Lithium72990 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)