User talk:TheManWhoLaughs/archive01

Evan Almighty=HELL

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Evan Almighty, you will be blocked from editing. --Evb-wiki 15:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on User talk:Evb-wiki: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Evb-wiki 17:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I'm sorry if you disagree, but these are the rules. WP:AVTRIVIA is an official policy that all editors must follow. So either take it or leave it. Alientraveller 15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller is right; just because trivia sections exist in multiple film articles doesn't mean that they're appropriate to have. It's lazy, unstructured writing when it could be included in the article in a more encyclopedic context. Think about it; when you read an encyclopedia entry, do you really think it's appropriate to see a "Trivia" section in it? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The film is still coming out in the summer. If it was released in the winter as opposed to summer tentpoles, that may be worth noting. However, a month's difference is irrelevant for encyclopedic purposes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting warnings from this page

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 17:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Batman & Robin (film). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultimates

Until we actually have something to discuss about the characters, plot, and so on, all we have is Marvel's signing of a creative team for both U3 and U4. That doesn't warrant two watered down tiny one sentence paragraphs in two sections. It's enough to list it as future volumes, and wait for more solid citation to build it up. I have little doubt that there will be a u3 section a month before U# #1 hits shelves, but right now, we lack sufficient info. give it a few months for the promotional machine to start up, and then we'll have a few interviews and press blurbs to cite. ThuranX 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for citation in edit summary, and now in the article. Since it seems you probably have the source in front of you, please make a complete ref tag for it. thank you. ThuranX 20:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary on WrestleMania 22

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, some of your recent edits have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Also, you make help yourself when you call others newbs (especially someone who has been here for more than a year) when you are the one who is wrong, check the OFFICIAL WrestleMania 22 page and see the songs listed: http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wrestlemania22/. TJ Spyke 20:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:V. Removing the song can be considered vandalism since it can be verified that the song was a secondary theme for the PPV. You also should not remove legit warnings, that type of thing is frowned upon. Read WP:ARCHIVE if you don't know how to archive a page. TJ Spyke 21:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not harassment and I don't appreciate you saying it is. There is proof provided on the talkpage. WWE considers it a secondary theme and even say so on the official WM22 site, end of story. TJ Spyke 05:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I don't care if you think it is harassment because it's not and I am not a troll. I have proof showing you are wrong, and you are acting immature in response by calling others trolls and removing legit warnings. TJ Spyke 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

TNA Title

The NWA stripped Cage of his title and severed all business relations with TNA on the morning of May 13 2007. So by TNA Sacrifice that aired during the evening Cage was no longer the NWA Champion so he was billed as just the Heavyweight Champion of the World. That same title that Angle defeated him for was named the TNA World Heavyweight Championship the day after. So when Angle was stripped, he was stripped of the TNA title not the NWA title.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have already been warned about removing warnings from this page, but have persisted. Your recent edits have shown attempts to harass other users and unwillingness to work with others. Such attitude is considered detrimental to the project. I have blocked you for a period of 24 hours for all of these reasons. When the block expires, please come back and continue editing, but remember to work within the framework of a collaborative project. Further nuisance will lead to further and longer blocks. — Gareth Hughes 14:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheManWhoLaughs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

because i havent vandalised nothing. He put harrassing comments towards me telling me i was wrong and that i didnt matter. I erased this and i got blocked. totally unfair

Decline reason:

Standard template warnings are not harassment, they are an indication that you are doing something incorrect. — Yamla 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well that just proves it youre allowed to harass people on Wikipedia now.TheManWhoLaughs 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z episodes

Discuss this with member of WP:DBZ as they will probably tell you the same thing. Curse words have never been used in English episodes. -- bulletproof ^3:16 18:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Dragon Ball Z. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. Momusufan 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:TJ Spyke, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Momusufan 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Quit making a bad faith report on me. I have not done anything wrong. Do it again and you will be blocked. Momusufan 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dragon Ball Z. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Will (aka Wimt) 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheManWhoLaughs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

because i really havent done nothing wrong he kept deleting warnings AND kept deleting when i reported him. Ill admit i did wrong on DBZ but my claim is not unfounded as its true. I should have took it to the talk page and for that i apologize. HE should be banned.

Decline reason:

Edit warring at WP:AIV and making assertions of vandalism are pretty serious. The block is short so use the time to read up on wikipedias policies more specifically wikipedas comments on vandalism — -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

OK, I want to see you both over at Talk:Dragon Ball Z. If you go to the article instead, I'll protect it to stop the edit war.--Chaser - T 19:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Please do not report activity that is not CLEARLY and I mean CLEARLY vandalism. If you have any questions please read Wikipedias information on vandals. TO enlighten you as to what vandalism is let me quote the preceeding articles definition, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." REporting anything less as vandalism is bad faith and not appropriate. Please be sure it is actually vandalism before making such reports. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mary and the Lightning

Eh. We can't tell where it came from, you're right there :) But to say 'From an unknown source' gives the implication that something made it hit them, and we can't be sure right now. Lightning hit them - That's factual, and I thought that I'd split the diff and leave the sentence at that end, rather than put in implications or speculations. We'll find out eventually. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it you fail to see I'm agreeing with you? :) I left out 'Sorry' and just put the sentence as 'struck by lightning'. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You obvioulsy need a cool down. You were edit warring at WP:AIV earlier and now you continue to edit war. I have given you a 12 hour block to cool down. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheManWhoLaughs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I havent been edit waring. I provided a source on his talk page he deleted it. Ill put the source here as a reference. Im not making this up. I want to be unblocked. This is rediculous.

Decline reason:

Clear edit warring. And please see WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS. It is your responsibility to cite contentious material when adding it to the article. And please reread WP:3RR, your edit warring is not permitted here. — Yamla 21:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

direct quote: ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN #113 & #114 Written by BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS Penciled by STUART IMMONEN Cover by STUART IMMONEN & RICHARD ISANOVE DEATH OF A GOBLIN Norman Osborn, the Green Goblin, has escaped the maximum security facility in the Triskelion, once home to the Ultimates. Because Norman knows young Peter Parker is Spider-Man, Peter must rush to protect his Aunt May from this madman's vengeance. But Norman isn't the only enemy of the web-spinner to have been loosed on New York. Electro, master of electricity, also plans to fry Spidey on sight. This is the Goblin arc no Ultimate reader can afford to miss! Part 2 and 3 (of 6) 32 PGS.(each)/Rated A …$2.99(each)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheManWhoLaughs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I gave them a source! Im giving a source right now! Why am I being picked on today? This is garbage.

Decline reason:

Per above. Sources have to go in the article, not on other user's talk or user pages. No endless unblock requests, please.— Chaser - T 21:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TMWL, you seem to misunderstand how we do things here. I hope Yamla's explanation above about putting sources in articles is enough. Besides that, though, this is a community-written encyclopedia. It's not individual rule. If there are disputes, you have to take them to talk pages. If that doesn't resolve the problem, you have to ask for more input or a third opinion. We don't always agree, so we have to seek consensus where there is disagreement, and sometimes reference applicable policies and guidelines. It's not every man to himself. If you can only do article work individually, you won't be very happy here.--Chaser - T 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have protected this page until the block expires. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I see you cited a forum post in a recent citation. While citations are important, it is more important to make sure that it comes from a Reliable Sources. Please in the future refrain from citing forums as they are not relibale. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith

Please try to refrain from removing stuff from your page and calling it trolling. Everything you removed were valid concerns. Trolling is done in bad faith and the edits you removed were done in good faith. I would love to see you get settled in here on this project so if there is anything I can do to help you, please let me know. If you have any questions, feel free to ask as well! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

NEW YORK CITY MEET UP!!

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC
--David Shankbone 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Batman & Robin (film)

Please do not use uncivil tones on other Wikipedians' talk pages. I appreciate that the article needs a plot synopsis; however, it is better to have none, or a very basic one, rather than one written in hyped-up, fannish, non-encyclopedic language. Wikipedia even has a template for this:

I understand you want to "report" me. However, your continual reversions in the face of Wikipedia guidelines has unfortunately forced me to file a WP:3RR violation.

I hope and urge that you read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and join us as a rule-abiding editor. Thanks. --Tenebrae

Hello. I removed your report on Tenebrae from WP:AIV because AIV is for vandalism, not edit wars. See WP:DR for that instead. I'll see if I can copyedit the "Plot" section to help as well. · AndonicO ^Talk 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't expand the section (never seen the movie), only improve the grammar and sentence structure. You can add more content later (or Tenebrae can do it). · AndonicO ^Talk 23:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

cc of posting on Tenebrae talk page

I really wish you wouldnt hold personal grudges.TheManWhoLaughs 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not. I'm sorry you believe I am. You can go my contributions page and see I edit widely.

You are continually reverting a page in a way contrary to the Wikipedia guidelines I have stated and give you links to. An admin has given you warnings and a block. I'm surprised and disappointed none of this seems to be having an impact. --Tenebrae 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your 3RR page comment, "He is just trying to pick a fight with me because he thinks he can get me in trouble," is uncivil, to say the least, and inaccurate. --Tenebrae 23:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I have set you up an archive at the top. The link is red but once you move something to the page it will turn blue. About getting blocks (please not there is a difference between being banned and blocked). Wikipedia has some pretty fundamental things to keep people working together well. THings like WP:3RR to prevent edit warring and encourage colalboration and discourse as well as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. We understand that wikipedia can be overwhelming and while many new editors are excited to get into editing, it is sometimes best if they take the time to read up on wikipedias policies. Just remeber, talk about it on the article talk pages and know that good changes dont happen instantly but often take weeks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The archives do not work automatically. The most populr way is the cut and paste method. Click edit the page, select the portion you want to archive, and cut it (CTRL+X on the pc). save the page with an edit summary like "archive run" or something then edit your archive where you will paste it (CTRL+V on the pc). Hope that helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are catching on pretty quick, looks like you already have it! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Solicitations disallowed

As mentioned previously, WikiProject Comics disallows solicitations to be used as reference sources. Wikipedia in general disallows use of forums, bboards, and, except for those of the subject itself, blogs. Thanks. --Tenebrae 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to reccomend that you listen to the kind advise of user:Tenebrae. It appears you have learned nothing about Reliable SOurces. If you continue, I can give you a longer block to give you time to read up on appropriate behavior! Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A Question

Hello, I'm just would like to know if you could provide a version of the edit you just put at Venom (Eddie Brock) that "flows" better than the one in this edit. I noticed that all the sentences begin with "he", and that some of the change was a bit incoherent. What I am asking you to do is to rewrite that edit so it is more in line with the Manual of Style. Thanks! SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 23:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae 2

Admins are supposed to help. So are other editors; that's what all the links I've been supplying. None of this negates the fact that you were blocked, which is a major step admins are reluctant to take. Your behavior is not in the best interest of Wikipedia, and your selective removal of posts is a breach of Wiki etiquette. --Tenebrae 00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with Tenebrae

Please go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TheManWhoLaughs. No more edit-warring. No more name-calling. Let's solve the content dispute.--Chaser - T 00:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A few more things. First, no one is trying to ban you. A ban is different from a block; blocks are sometimes used to enforce bans, but they are usually much shorter. Second, you have the right to remove things from your talk page (archiving is preferred), but don't call people trolls while you're doing it.[1] [2] It's not true, and it aggravates the situation.--Chaser - T 00:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with the Batman and Robin article as it appears now?--Chaser - T 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, why don't you both try to be the bigger person and end this conflict by turning the other cheek and ignoring these alleged insults.--Chaser - T 03:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to post at Tenebrae

As I keep saying, it's not a matter of personal feelings. A bad edit that violates Wiki guidelines and standards of encyclopedic writing is a bad edit. Inabillity to take criticism from multiple editors and admins may be a personal failing, but my own personal feelings have not entered into it.

If you hadn't erased so many postings — which is ineffective in any case, since they're available via your History page — you would be taken as a more responsible Wikipedian. --Tenebrae 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to snotty post at Tenebrae

As I keep saying, it's not a matter of personal feelings. A bad edit that violates Wiki guidelines and standards of encyclopedic writing is a bad edit. Inabillity to take criticism from multiple editors and admins may be a personal failing, but my own personal feelings have not entered into it.

If you hadn't erased so many postings — which is ineffective in any case, since they're available via your History page — you would be taken as a more responsible Wikipedian. --Tenebrae 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

TMWL, please use the article talk pages to discuss whether a source is acceptable. If you go right back to arguing over sources and edit-warring, you won't stay unblocked for long.--Chaser - T 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chaser. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Report them for what? Reverting you and asking for a better source? Use the talk pages to discuss this. Edit-warring is the wrong way, and I will block you myself if it continues without use of talk pages.--Chaser - T 18:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You have now reverted 3 times at Iron Man (film). Please do not engage in edit wars. This is your last warning. One more reversion at this article or engaging at edit wars on any other articles will result in a block. If somebody reverts your changes asking for a reliable source, discuss it on the talk page. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours to give you time to read WP:RS and WP:CITE. You have been asked repeatedly to not insert information into articles on comics without appropriate citations. If you cointinue this behavior your block lengths will get longer and longer. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheManWhoLaughs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

To be honest Im not sure what article im being blocked for, but im assuming monarch as it was reverted. I didnt think i had to provide a soucre for something that is out. I have the issue and i added the information. Chrislk should have asked me instead of just blocking me. The issue is out and i provided accurate information.

Decline reason:

You ahve been told over and over again that you must not insert information into articles without a reliable citation. See WP:V. This is your responsibility. This is not optional. — Yamla 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To other admins, it is at least a plausible claim here that the information was already verifiable given what was presented by TheManWhoLaughs. I have no way of verifying the claim, not owning this particular comic book and I cannot find an online citation. However, if this information is accurate then it is also cited appropriately. --Yamla 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Iron Man

The original source was AICN, which "exclusively" reported that Samuel L. Jackson was in the movie. This is not verifiable since the information was not made public by the studio itself, but rather through unreliable connections. Please see the talk page for discussion on the matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The case is the same for Scarecrow in TDK. It is a scooper report and cannot be verified. Please see the talk page for discussion on the matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, if I sent a "scooper report" that Stane turns out to be the Mandarin, it isn't reliable is it? Same here. Alientraveller 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There isn't even a photo of Jackson on set! That means it's even less reliable than the Scarecrow report. Alientraveller 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? Are you the scoop reporter then? That would fall under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It's not going to matter anyway, when it is officially confirmed, we'll add it. Same reason I never added leaked images of the Transformers to the article last year. You must try to understand, scooper reports are unreliable. Scarecrow I can understand as there are pictures of someone in a costume, if not Murphy, but Jackson is just hearsay now. Alientraveller 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice to save in my computer. Nonetheless, do you remember rumours about how the Lizard would be in Spider-Man 2? And Bruce Campbell was Mysterio in 3? Could end up the same. My advice is not to jump the gun with potentially false resources. Alientraveller 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

THese guys are correct. I would listen to them TMWL. They are not here to annoy you, they are here to hekp you. IF you choose not to listen to them you may end up re-blocked. It is getting to the point where it is just becoming disruptive. Again, please use article talk pages and listen when other editors express concerns. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Chill out dude. I know it is frustrating. I have asked you to read WP:RS. SOmething may be true, we may know it to be true in our heads but until we provide a RELIABLE, and the key word is reliable, source it does not belong here. There is supposed to be no orignial resaearch on this project. If other users are concerned about the relaibility of your sources, discuss it. read WP:CITE, and WP:RS I promise they will help. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

response

What the fuck ever Im tired of this shit. You say "provide a source or youre banned" then when i provide the goddamn source you go "well its still not eligible" Im fucking tired of this shit wikipedia is getting to political and its fucking garbage. When hes confirmed to be in the movie you guys can go fucking eat crow. Fuck it.TheManWhoLaughs 18:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

TheManWhoLaughs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

207.144.215.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Goblin420". The reason given for Goblin420's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

• Blocking administrator: Alison (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: This is most definitiley a sock puppet of you. see [3]. I will also extend this block to you for use of sockpuppets to vandalise. — -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Im at school right now so that probaly why i was blocked.

I don't think that's why you were autoblocked. Do you have any other ideas?--Chaser - T 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for a week for use of the abusive sock puppet User:Goblin420. Please do not create alternate accounts to intentionally abuse this project. When your block expires, please feel free to contribute constructivley. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats the only reason i would be on the same ip ive been logged in at my school and at my local library today so its coul be anyone of those reasons the edits are different and i gave up on electro yesterday. I havent been using socks i actually like my account and i jsut got unbanned finnally so why would i try to get myself banned?TheManWhoLaughs 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheManWhoLaughs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

because i havent been using socks. I know people might think it was me but there have been multiple people to put that on there not just me. The only reason i was on that IP was bc i was at school. Im not asking for much just benefit of the doubt.

Decline reason:

Sorry, no, the odds are too astronomical for this not to be your sockpuppet or meatpuppet. — Yamla 19:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

See this edit. Most obviously a sock. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened it to 48 hours. Next time it will be a week or a month. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont see how thats most definetly a sock ive never shown that type of direspect to anyone on here. Im glad you shortened it and if i dont get unblocked thats fine im usually the one to blame anyway because people hate me for no reason.TheManWhoLaughs 19:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

remove

I want somebody to remove that ive used socks to evade my ban. first off i didnt use socks and second off i got accused before i got blocked. The guy that put it just wants to hole a fucking grudge and im starting to get very pissed. Accussing me of the shit is retarded. if i did it i would say i did it. Somebody take it off or tommorrow i will.

June 2007

With regards to your comments on User talk:TheManWhoLaughs: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kariteh 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly is that a personal attack? he put that because hes a douche. He keeps coming on my page telling me im wrong and junk. Im not a sockpuppeter and i dont appreciate being called one. I didnt make that sock but yet im getting blamed for it bc i got on my account at school. This is garbage and if you dont want to help then i would ask you to please stay off my page. Thank you.TheManWhoLaughs 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know. The odds that User:Goblin420, if he is completley unrelated to your activity as you claim, would edit the same page you edit warred at and vandalise a user whom you activley disagreed with on this account are about .000000000000546% or approximatley 1 in 1,831,501,831,501. Those odds are astronomical. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well then i guess i broke the odds because i didnt fucking do it.TheManWhoLaughs 14:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you. It is either your sockpuppet or your meatpuppet. We wont care after the block expires unless it happens again. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Whats a meatpuppet?TheManWhoLaughs 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The context I was using it in was referring to you in your class asking your buddy in the seat next to you to create an accoutn and vandalise the article for you. However you look it, you were involved with User:Goblin420's actions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I didnt do that though I have NO idea who did. I look at the page and the link i provided is different from the link he provided even.TheManWhoLaughs 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So, and out of a MILLION+ diffent user accounts, The user User:Goblin420 attacks attacks[4], [5] after adding the same content to the same article from the same IP? As i said when your block expires please feel free to never do that again! thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the user he attacked happens to be a douche i can see where Goblin was coming from but he went about it the wrong way. I am not him. Tenebra has a very bad tone when it comes to other users.TheManWhoLaughs 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:TheManWhoLaughs. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kariteh 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And once again im not attacking anybody im stating my opinion on my page. Butt out. I can see you have alot of conflict with other editors dont start one with me. TheManWhoLaughs 16:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What he is trying to sy is dont call people douches. be WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL. While there are often contentious situations, calling people names is not the acceptable course of action to resovle it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I calls them as i sees them. If someone acts like a douche then i call it. He didnt hesitate to call me names and try to embaress me on my own page nonetheless but nobody says shit to him and he did it on my page! im banned for something i didnt do and i wouldnt be suprised if he wasnt somehow involved after the way he is acting.TheManWhoLaughs 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Watching your back

You made a comment on my page about how no one watches your back, so I am going to step in a little bit and try to do that for you. The first rule in having someone watch your back is that you try very hard not do anything that makes someone have to watch your back. I am going to offer you some suggestions on how to avoid needing your back watched. The idea is that if you try and follow them, folk will come to your defense if you get clobbered unfairly. Well, here we go:

First, you really need to stop the cussing. Most of us are adults here, and have heard this sort of language before, but when it's used against us, even the most even-handed person feels like they are being attacked. Attacked people get defensive, Laugh, and you can't get people to work with you if they are thinking you're about to call them a rotten so-and-so (or have called them something already).

The second thing to do is to read the following: Cite, Reliable Sources, Attribution, civility and No Personal Attacks. I suggest these in particular because people seem to think you aren't as clear on these as you might want to be. I know it seems like homework, but working in Wikipedia is like learning to drive a car. Anyone can get behind the wheel and drive, but without being very familiar with the rules of the road, and without practicing things like parallel parking, they are going to end up with a stack of tickets. WP is the same way. Anyone can edit, but if you don't take the time to know what makes a reliable source and the difference between a primary and secondary source, you are going to end up getting blocked or reverted a lot. Know the rules and there will come a time when you can pass on those rules to someone else who has something good to contribute but doesn't know how to do so within the rules.

The next thing: - and this is hard, I will admit - is to make no more than one revert in an article, and explain why you are doing so in the edit summary. The reason I say to do only one is that it forces you to avoid anything that could be considered an edit war. If someone reverts your edit, read why they did in their edit summary. If you don't understand, send a message to that person in their Talk Page. Be nice. They may look at the message from you and realize they made a mistake. They may not, and explain why they did what they did. If this happens, two things will then occur; either you will learn something new, or you will not be convinced, and explain your point of view. If they don't respond to you within a day, take your question about the edit to the Discussion page for the article. Post a question about the edit there, and explain your position. Again, make no more than one revert a day. If you explain why you think it should be another way in Discussion, chances are that other people will see it the same way as you and revert it to a better edit.

A point of order is called for here, Laugh - don't post in the Discussion area something along the lines of 'this editor reverted my edit and is a rotten s.o.b. and so I am going to revert it back now.' That never works. I'll repeat that: that sort of argumentative post NEVER works. All you've done is piss off the editor (who may have been out of town or had a power outtage is being attacked by velociraptors), and made everyone else not willing to work with you in the chance you are going to get all snippy with them, too. The Discussion page is named that so people will know that they should discuss the article there, and avoid edit wars and misunderstandings. Some articles get very heated and the smart folk tend to keep the heat in the Discussion area until consensus is found. Look on my User page near the bottom, where there is a consensus flow chart. It shows how new edits usually happen in Wikipedia.

A lot of folk in Wikipedia respond in one of three ways to rudeness. The first way is to fight fire with fire. This tends not to work, since your words, by themselves are not enough to make the other person burst into flames or explode. It may make you feel good for the moment to tell the snotty creep that they are a snotty creep, but all it is going to do is to escalate the matter, not calm things down. The second way that folk deal with rudeness is to ignore the rudeness and the post. They will just pretend it was never posted and just move on as if nothing was ever posted at all. This helps people to maintain their cool by not interacting with someone who is going to be harsh.

The third way that folk respond to rude or uncivil posts is to respond politely to it, and tell the offender that they are not being polite. This is really hard, and is not guaranteed to work, bc when someone is upset, they are thinking with their gut and not their head. If the person is really rude or is making personal attacks (a HUGE no-no is WP), they will usually just report the person for it, who often gets blocked. By the way, don't report someone for vandalism unless they are adding something along the lines of 'hello' or everyone's favorite 'this is gay' (I personally laugh at the latter, bc someone wrote a wiki-ism just for it, called WP:GAY; check it out - it's kinda funny). Someone who adds something intelligent is not a vandal.

I think the best way for you to deal with someone treating you poorly is to simply ignore it, or try to be polite. I lose my cool often enough, and so does Erik, but we don't stay pissed off for long. I think the big part of being a better editor here is to realize that while we might know some stuff about some other stuff, there are a lot of folk here who can add to that knowledge. Actually, that's why I edit here. I am always learning something new (not about grammar, though - at that, I friggin' rule - lol), and it is always cool to meet folk who likes the same stuff I do. Maybe you have already found that, and if not, you will.

The last important thing to remember is that you are not always going to be right, and it is perfectly okay to say 'I don't know.' Some people will take advantage of that, but most will respect you for admitting you don't know something. You can always ask the person on their Talk page, if they seem to know. Ty to keep the article discussion page about the the article, though.

So there it is, Laugh. Stop the hatin' and learn to love The Crazy. There are people in WP that are complete tools, just like the internet, and some people who are cool. Try to be the latter and not the former, and people will have your back without you offering to have theirs. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

...

What? Lord Sesshomaru

You must be talking about the fact that I wanted to place you in the sockpuppet category, correct? I was only following sock policy, Chaser will be watching your page anyways as I was told by Chaser. Lord Sesshomaru

Watching your back

You made a comment on my page about how no one watches your back, so I am going to step in a little bit and try to do that for you. The first rule in having someone watch your back is that you try very hard not do anything that makes someone have to watch your back. I am going to offer you some suggestions on how to avoid needing your back watched. The idea is that if you try and follow them, folk will come to your defense if you get clobbered unfairly. Well, here we go:

First, you really need to stop the cussing. Most of us are adults here, and have heard this sort of language before, but when it's used against us, even the most even-handed person feels like they are being attacked. Attacked people get defensive, Laugh, and you can't get people to work with you if they are thinking you're about to call them a rotten so-and-so (or have called them something already).

The second thing to do is to read the following: Cite, Reliable Sources, Attribution, civility and No Personal Attacks. I suggest these in particular because people seem to think you aren't as clear on these as you might want to be. I know it seems like homework, but working in Wikipedia is like learning to drive a car. Anyone can get behind the wheel and drive, but without being very familiar with the rules of the road, and without practicing things like parallel parking, they are going to end up with a stack of tickets. WP is the same way. Anyone can edit, but if you don't take the time to know what makes a reliable source and the difference between a primary and secondary source, you are going to end up getting blocked or reverted a lot. Know the rules and there will come a time when you can pass on those rules to someone else who has something good to contribute but doesn't know how to do so within the rules.

The next thing: - and this is hard, I will admit - is to make no more than one revert in an article, and explain why you are doing so in the edit summary. The reason I say to do only one is that it forces you to avoid anything that could be considered an edit war. If someone reverts your edit, read why they did in their edit summary. If you don't understand, send a message to that person in their Talk Page. Be nice. They may look at the message from you and realize they made a mistake. They may not, and explain why they did what they did. If this happens, two things will then occur; either you will learn something new, or you will not be convinced, and explain your point of view. If they don't respond to you within a day, take your question about the edit to the Discussion page for the article. Post a question about the edit there, and explain your position. Again, make no more than one revert a day. If you explain why you think it should be another way in Discussion, chances are that other people will see it the same way as you and revert it to a better edit.

A point of order is called for here, Laugh - don't post in the Discussion area something along the lines of 'this editor reverted my edit and is a rotten s.o.b. and so I am going to revert it back now.' That never works. I'll repeat that: that sort of argumentative post NEVER works. All you've done is piss off the editor (who may have been out of town or had a power outtage is being attacked by velociraptors), and made everyone else not willing to work with you in the chance you are going to get all snippy with them, too. The Discussion page is named that so people will know that they should discuss the article there, and avoid edit wars and misunderstandings. Some articles get very heated and the smart folk tend to keep the heat in the Discussion area until consensus is found. Look on my User page near the bottom, where there is a consensus flow chart. It shows how new edits usually happen in Wikipedia.

A lot of folk in Wikipedia respond in one of three ways to rudeness. The first way is to fight fire with fire. This tends not to work, since your words, by themselves are not enough to make the other person burst into flames or explode. It may make you feel good for the moment to tell the snotty creep that they are a snotty creep, but all it is going to do is to escalate the matter, not calm things down. The second way that folk deal with rudeness is to ignore the rudeness and the post. They will just pretend it was never posted and just move on as if nothing was ever posted at all. This helps people to maintain their cool by not interacting with someone who is going to be harsh.

The third way that folk respond to rude or uncivil posts is to respond politely to it, and tell the offender that they are not being polite. This is really hard, and is not guaranteed to work, bc when someone is upset, they are thinking with their gut and not their head. If the person is really rude or is making personal attacks (a HUGE no-no in WP), they will usually just report the person for it, who often gets blocked. By the way, don't report someone for vandalism unless they are adding something along the lines of 'hello' or everyone's favorite 'this is gay' (I personally laugh at the latter, bc someone wrote a wiki-ism just for it, called WP:GAY; check it out - it's kinda funny). Someone who adds something intelligent is not a vandal.

I think the best way for you to deal with someone treating you poorly is to simply ignore it, or try to be polite. I lose my cool often enough, and so does Erik, but we don't stay pissed off for long. I think the big part of being a better editor here is to realize that while we might know some stuff about some other stuff, there are a lot of folk here who can add to that knowledge. Actually, that's why I edit here. I am always learning something new (not about grammar, though - at that, I friggin' rule - lol), and it is always cool to meet folk who likes the same stuff I do. Maybe you have already found that, and if not, you will.

The last important thing to remember is that you are not always going to be right, and it is perfectly okay to say 'I don't know.' Some people will take advantage of that, but most will respect you for admitting you don't know something. You can always ask the person on their Talk page, if they seem to know. Ty to keep the article discussion page about the the article, though.

So there it is, Laugh. Stop the hatin' and learn to love The Crazy. There are people in WP that are complete tools, just like the internet, and some people who are cool. Try to be the latter and not the former, and people will have your back without you offering to have theirs. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A last thought, you shouldn't immediately archive stuff, even if folk post things that complain about something you do. If they are uncivil, you can remove them. Otherwise, keep them there for a while until you archive appropriately (once you hit something on the order of 40k or so). It's just criticism; use it constructively, try not to take it personally, and you will only benefit from it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:THREAT

Please do not post borderline threats, as seen here. Your continuity to leave almost harrassing messages at my talk page, such as this and this, has to end now. I have nothing against you, I would have done the same to any other sockpuppeteer. Stop your behaviour now. Lord Sesshomaru

Regarding revision as of 15:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru