User talk:Whatzinaname

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


Hello, Whatzinaname, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Fæ (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

Two things, if you're complaining about actions, have the decency to inform me. I don't like backstabbers who try to report me without me knowing. I like to explain my edits, but you're not exactly giving me chance to do that with your snide methods.

Secondly, xenophobia? What the hell? Paralympiakos (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tried several times in the past to talk sense with you, but you refuse to accept anything but your own opinion with fact. You've did it the daley wiki, the koscheck wiki, the pat curran and toby imada wikis. You have a serious probalem with understand NPOV, as well as properly sourcing your "facts". I didn't try to report you or go "around your back". All I asked that admin was to rollback the BLP violation you made on the Lentz wiki. Frankly. I couldn't care less about you.Whatzinaname (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you've not. Your mentality is "believe me and follow my rules, or I'll report you"

Daley/Koscheck: The cheating was sourced, you removed it Curran/Imada: There was a source saying it was a terrible decision, you said it wasn't allowed and replaced it with non-sourced content.

I don't have a problem with NPOV, you quite clearly do if you defend Koscheck/Lentz despite sourced content saying that they cheated/made the fight boring. Now, a BLP violation doesn't exist if the matter is sourced. You'll notice three separate sources backing it up, yet you can't accept it. Clearly you COULD care less about it since you seem to out to get sanctions. If you didnt care about me, you wouldn't bring out the Koscheck matter in a discussion about Lentz, you wouldn't accuse me of xenophobia. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been rebuked by dozens of editors on the pages ive mentioned, and I've yet to see a single person even agree with any of your POV pushing. Koscheck did ineed look like he was faking both the eye poke and knee in his fights with dalye and johnson. HOWEVER, later information/video data came to light, and it showed he was neither faking the eye poke or the knee. If you go look for planet earth in wikipedia, it will probably mention it's a sphere, at some point in time people didn't think it was a sphere, they thought it was flat. You keep thinking Koscheck is flat, and you refuse to accept sourced information that demonstartes it.
and in the pat cuttan/toby imada debacle, you continued to POV push that Imada was robbed, but that wasn't the main problem, the problem was tou keep trying to add that Eddie Alvarez had said it was a terrible decision, when he said absolutely no such thing. I provided a source with his exact cite, which you removed if I recall right. All he said was "it was a close fight", thats a far cry from "it was a terrible decions". Here is your rude edit where you deleted what alvarez REALLY said Whatzinaname (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been rebuked by you and one or two more, most likely pro-Kos fans. If you watch the clip, Johnson never touched his eye. His finger went about an inch away from it. Still, blurry images are useless. If you watch the clip, you'll see that he was never touched. Now, the current info is that video replays showed no contact. That is correct, those video replays live showed he cheated. New info came to light later suggesting he may have been poked on the way to his knees, but this was widely debunked by readers and other media sources. The sphere argument is nonsense and there is no source in the Kos edit you made.

Imada/Curran, I've no idea what you're on about. All I tried to do was reinstate that the decision was a bad one, with sourcing. I've no idea what the Alvarez stuff is about, but that is besides the point. I don't know why you seem to remove things like the Lentz sources. The mmajunkie says the fight had a lack of action. The other sources go as far as to blame Lentz for that. By removing sources, you're pushing your own POV, which is then a violation of rules. I've kept within all rules, so I dislike your snide, quiet reporting. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit: ah, that edit. Yeah, I was justified. You were removing any suggestion that the decision was poor. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It was a "poor decision" to you, but to wikipedia it was merely a controversial deciions. you have difficulty figuring out the difference.Whatzinaname (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't watch it. I've no idea, but a highly trusted media source says it was bad, I believe it. That's what you have difficulty figuring out. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You didn't even watch it and your edit was "the decision is terrible" and you didnd't even add a cite for anything. Then you edit warred with someone trying to tone down the POV pushing, and you added some bogus cite that did not substantiate your claim it was a "terrible" decions, onnly that it "surprised many observers". Heh. This is me changing the decision was appauling or something int "controversial":whatever. and you revert it back Whatzinaname (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
oh and how about this one I try to shave some of the POV pushing from the Imada wiki, and guess who reverts me claiming the previous version is fine?? You have serious issues with understandinf NPOV and BLP. 20:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You know what, for someone who doesn't care about me, you sure show it. These are the facts, no, I did not watch the fight live, but mmajunkie said the decision was terrible/appauling (whatever buzzword you want). I reflected that in my edits. Sourced additions are perfectly acceptable, but you removed that in favour of pointless commentary by Alvarez, who had nothing to do with the fight other than being a future opponent. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Have just read your edit summary, I didn't delete anything. I looked at the edit difference and edited from there. Simple accident, but again, you have act like a victim. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the mmajunkie cite and it says nothing even remotely similar to a "terrible" or "appauling" decision, in fact, it says it WASN'T even "a robbery". Whatzinaname (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that I think back, the source I thought was in at that time was the mmamania source, which called it appauling. You or someone else changed the source from mania to junkie. Obviously this was missed by me. Fact is, I was correct, mania did say it was appauling and that was originally the source (and still was as far as I was concerned). Now, back to the issue at hand, that being Lentz/Kos, I'm correct in what I'm doing. Lentz' fight being boring has been blamed on Lentz by several media outlets/fighters. Check the sources. The first one says the fight was dull and the two after that effectively blame it on Lentz. This is an acceptable addition by the rules, so stop removing it. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC) this is what you are talking about. It's a dude that writes a freaking blog and isnt even a MMA news reporter in any capacity. All he was doing was blow by blow commentary. You might as well have posted some email you got or maybe your own blog 20:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You're confusing fan posts with official play-by-plays by respected MMA sources. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No, you are confusing a blogger from SBnation whose opinions means nothing with an actual journalist with editorial oversite.20:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As I say, this isn't some fanpost, it's one of their journos doing a play-by-play. How is that any different to PBPs from the likes of sherdog/junkie? Paralympiakos (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Blood elbow doesn't even have any journalissts! It's a fan site! it's nothing but a bunch MMA fans/bloggers. 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

July 2011[edit]

It had to come, because you don't understand what you can and can't do on Wikipedia. I filed a report against you here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Civility / NPA[edit]

Unless you can put forward specific examples (WP:DIFFs) of Bretonbanquet's bias on the article's talk page, you need to stop such accusations immediately or risk being blocked for violations of WP:NPA. Toddst1 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess I will have to start compiling a list, then.Whatzinaname (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Jenson Button . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

1966 FIFA World Cup Final[edit]

Please remember verifiability from good sources when making changes. Statements like 'everyone knows' are unhelpful.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have said "everyone with eyeballs", but I do hope that ye olde oxford's greatest engineering brains own scientific study was enough to muster the dispelling of your nonsensical "no source" fantasies.Whatzinaname (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical records about Genghis Khan[edit]

While I don't deny historical records. The description make's it sound like was an white people,the fact some modern mongols today also display these physical characteristics and yet look 100% mongoloid in appearance. Also genghis khan belong to the genetic haplogroup C3, this means his paternal ancestry was mongoloid for sure. PLEASE LOOK AT THIS LINK. Mongolians and Hmong who have red hair and blue eyes, green eyes blonde hair. (talk (talk • contribs) 10:06, 8 march (UTC)

Reply to your post on my user talk.[edit]

  • This should be on the talk page. The claims were true and he has been suspended 3 times by confirmed accounts, one for the pot residue in the baggy, one for vandalism in which the 'burglary tools' were found, and one for attendance. The other previous 2 are not related to the shooting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
He was suspended three times. Not one. I've removed the other two; even though it seemed that the reports were the previous statements were lies they did actually happen. A weasely way which misrepresents the situation that was being asked. So I've removed the other two suspensions. Here's the link to prove it. [1] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My bigoted wingnuttery[edit]

You asked how I could be sanctioned for what you describe as my "bigoted wingnuttery". You can take a look at this site's dispute resolution policy, or its guidelines for administrators. You could consider a request for comments to discuss your concerns with my behavior, or if you feel it can't wait, you can go to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents requiring urgent attention. Please feel free to take up your concerns by whichever of those avenues you feel is appropriate. MastCell Talk 18:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading this place for long enough to know that wouldn't do jack shit. The biases, in process, policy, and personnel here are so profoundly ingrained I'd be better served calculating pi by hand. How about you just grow up and stop referring to large swaths of editors you don't agree with as right wing nut jobs and what have you. It's tiresome and childish. Whatzinaname (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall calling anyone a "right wing nut job"; could you point out the comment in question? MastCell Talk 20:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Equivocate all you want, man:
"every time I look at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, I feel like I've stepped into an alternate universe, one that destroys my fragile faith in humanity" -- Mastcell
"this talkpage: a large number of the most active editors here are clearly partisan and indistinguishable from conservative bloggers" -- Mastcell
Whatzinaname (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Both of those are true statements of my opinion. The partisan nature of discussion on the talk page seem fairly obvious, and the input of many editors is indistinguishable from conservative blog commentary (e.g. [2]). However, I don't see where I've called anyone a "nut job" or (as you've called me) a "bigoted wingnut", or other such terms of abuse. MastCell Talk 22:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It sure sounds like YOU would be insulted to be called a "conservative blogger". So in your book you insulted a "large number" of editors on the talk page Whatzinaname (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't be insulted to be called a "conservative blogger"; I'd probably be mildly amused, sort of like when you called me a "bigoted wingnut". But that's me. MastCell Talk 23:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall calling you any name, I addressed your overly partisan comments as bigoted(close minded) and wingnuttery (extreme partisnship), which is exactly what they were. You must have been confusing me with your own comments where you called a "large number" of editors a name that you personally have ascribed a negative connotation to. AKA I ain't your whipping boyWhatzinaname (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not make another personal attack. this was not acceptable, and should not be repeated. Hipocrite (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

that's nice Whatzinaname (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)


My edit was clearly factual and reliably sourced. I don't see what POV you are talking about. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the sourcing or the veracity. Your POV pushing in the lead, end of story. I made the lead POV neutral, but as usual you try to inject your brand of pro-british nonsense.
So you're OK with it being true and sourced – that was the only edit I made in the lead, so I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know how you construe that edit as pro-British either, maybe you can clarify that for me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You specifically chose to single out the vettel/webber incidnet instead of hamilton/Rosberg, which is probably the bigger story, just not in the bigoted british press, which is probably all you are exposed to. Rosberg/hamilton clearly shows that hamilton is the #1 driver for the team, while the webber/vettel incident shows us nothing in the F1 sport we didn't know already for years. Whatzinaname (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the Rosberg / Hamilton situation is the bigger story, because the Red Bull incident decided the race win, not 3rd and 4th. If you can find anything that says the Mercedes incident was the more important of the two, then let's see it. I can and do read sources from all over the world, including foreign language sources. I'll add a piece to the lead about Mercedes if it helps you. I added a source to your edit about Hamilton not deserving to be on the podium, yet you still think I'm pro-British. I remember who you are now, and I still don't really like Hamilton. I know that screws with your belief system, but there it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
we have no idea if Rosberg/Hamilton decided the race win or not, as rosberg was never allowed to actually race Webber or vettel after the third pit stop. It's only in your BIASED point of view do you surmise such. Whatzinaname (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, if you can find anything to back up your idea that Rosberg could have challenged for 2nd or 1st if he had been able to pass Hamilton, then let's see it. Maybe you weren't watching the race. That's the third violation of WP:NPA you've sent my way today, but from my recollection, that's what you do as a matter of course. You were asked a couple of years ago to either stop accusing me of bias, or back it up. Till you can provide something to support your irrational bleating, can it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You want proof that someone might pass someone else ahead of them in F1? What a joke. Quit wasting my timeWhatzinaname (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to put it in an article, yes. If it takes you three months to reply to a post, don't pretend your time is being wasted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh ya, brilliant stuff. What's next, the ever so clever grade school retort "prove you exist"Whatzinaname (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


Stop icon

Your recent editing history at shooting of Trayvon Martin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MastCell Talk 23:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

1. no consensus was reached. That's just something you made up. 2. reverting vandalism is not "edit warring". Whatzinaname (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Media bias in the United States[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --— Rhododendrites talk |  05:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

an awesome way to waste someone's time.Whatzinaname (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

You might be wondering why I'm saying "you're welcome", but in case you hadn't noticed, I took the time to do some proper impartial research and I corrected the info about the Schnellinger handball in the 1966 World Cup final. You could have done it yourself, but clearly you enjoy fighting other editors too damn much. So again, you're welcome. – PeeJay 08:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

oh, you found your eyeballs. Good show, old chap.Whatzinaname (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

48 hour block[edit]

I've blocked your account for 48 hours as you have been disruptively editing while logged out. PhilKnight (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

you blocked my account and i havent even been on wikipedia since last I dealt with your vile stench? genius. I'm glad wikipedia has such wonderful admins running around. Whatzinaname (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)