User talk:Batman2005

Archives
Archive 1 (December 17 2005 to March 5 2006) Archive 2 (March 6 2006 to June 30 2006)

Arena

I understand that. The way it's worded now is much better. Lasallefan 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The crap on your user page

I'm asking for thoughts and advice. I don't see the point of my informing everyone who breaches wikipedia guidelines / policies that it's being looked into. If it upset you, I am truly sorry. Didn't even occur to me that I'd need to inform you. Proto///type 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's much better. Thank you for listening to reason ... there's plenty of people who would have thrown a hissy fit over someone daring to question content on "their" page. And to respond to one point you made - yes, Wikipedia is uncensored. But it's an uncensored encyclopedia. Not MySpace, not a forum, not a Big Pulpit O' Hate. Removing unencyclopedic junk isn't censorship. Best, Proto///type 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

hey

hey that's nice sorry for your money... I liked your userpage, the french thing kinda bothered me but I have to agree, I agreed with most of what you said... and i thought it was pretty funny! take careAbdelkweli 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) hope you'll accept the barnstar. Btw i was roting for the US, this last pk was freakin bullshit!!

user page

hey i was editing the usa national team page and clicked your name and read your userpage, i think its kind of funny, I don't agree with a lot of what you say (i love john kerry!), but i do think its funny. FordTuffinIt 18:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR block

Please note: Everything written below, aside from my well thought out comment, is utter bullsh*t. Apparently, when you're reverting vandalism from pages, regardless of what the 3RR clearly says about it, you get blocked. Not only was the stuff I was deleting from the pages bullsh*t, but so was the block. Thus, i'm waging my personal battle now to let everyone know that it's apparently ok to add bullsh*t to wikipedia articles, because when well meaning editors remove it, they'll just get blocked.

The three revert policy requires that all parties in a mutual 3RR violation be treated equally. Accordingly I have blocked you for 12 hours in reference to your part in the Lukas Podolski edit war. --CBD 10:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Welp, then I think that's bullshit and from now on when I see clear vandalism on pages i'll just leave it. You people are the reason well meaning editors leave this website. Batman2005 17:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}} - CBDunkerson, at the time, to the best of my knowledge, I was following the vandalism policy for reverting what I saw as simple vandalism under the "inserting misinformation" into articles. Several others before me edited the Lukas Podolski page to remove the information, and provided proof that it was false (i.e. he never sings the national anthem before games), that I kept removing that ultimately got me blocked. After several requests for sources the other two users kept inserting the dubious information without sources, blatantly disregarding the requests. That in my opinion is blatant vandalism and after looking at the simple vandalism page, I deemed that it was misinformation. If you actually feel that blocking me for 12 hours is the correct course of action that's fine, obviously theres nothing I can do but strongly disagree with it. I do think, however, that William M. Connoelly was correct in only issuing a warning with my promise that I don't intend to get sucked into this type of nonsense again. I'll await your response and ask that you assume I was acting in good faith an reverting only what I saw as vandalism under WP:VAND. Batman2005 14:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because opinions as to what is 'nonsense' differ widely only changes which any reader can see were clearly intended to damage the encyclopedia are considered 'vandalism'. Anything short of that should be dealt with without resorting to edit warring. See the dispute resolution procedures for info on how to proceed in such cases. --CBD 00:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what you say, repeatedly inserting dubious information is vandalism. I think your blocking of me was unfair. You call it edit warring, but I call it removing bullshit from pages, had an admin done something about my report in a timely fasion, then none of this would have happened, as it is though, I do the right thing and end up getting blocked. see bullshit. Batman2005 02:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw your edits on the Lukas Podolski page and totally agree with you. All you did was removing vandalism. --Splette ^Talk 03:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For your words of support on WP:ANI. On seeing your talk page, it is apparent you have had a few scuffles and bumps adjusting to the Wikipedia way of doing things, so it is especially nice to know that I have not added to your diffculties. - KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ronaldo

Just a heads-up on the Ronaldo article. You're close to violating the WP:3RR rule in regards to the Birgit Prinz additions to the article. Make sure you work to build a consensus on the talk page as is being done (currently it's too early to say there's a consensus either way). Metros232 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

To make you aware, I have reported you [1] for violating the 3RR on Ronaldo. You were warned and your 5 reverts in 24 hours (and 6 in 28 hours) warrants reporting. Metros232 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Pirates name

Just saw that, thanks. I'd only looked at the PotC3 page a couple of days ago and it wasn't there; it will help other editors if you include in the edit summary something like "link to source on that page" or words to that effect. Thanks again! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Pirate Name 3

OK Look i'm not saying that USA Today is not a reputable source. The reason I changed it is because until Disney releases an official name for the movie, it is not "At World's End" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.230.150 (talk • contribs)

2006 FIFA World Cup crime concerns

I think this article needs the "conclusion" or maybe we don't even need the entire article - I think it could be deleted because nothing of this information is relevant for the future or worth remembering, because nothing happend which is special. I think it is very sad that there is no article about the culture events of the World Cup but about sinister things "over-emphasised by the media" that could have happend - but never happened. I as a German feel even a little bit offended or at least sad that you will find in the English Wikipedia always such unimportant (things never happened are unimportend) "facts" about Germany in the context of rasism. The only reason why this is in the media all the time is the remembrance of World War II, am I right? In the current years for example you will find even more problems wiht rasism in Italy but you can be sure that there is no article about it in the article about the Olympic Winter Games in Turin 2006. If you make article which tells extensivly about speculations which crimes could have happend than you have at least also to tell (and not only in one sentense) how it was in reality - all in all (for sure there are always special bad cases) the total opposite. If the article stays like it is today I will put in the BBC- quote again. --Knarf-bz 06:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC) - By the way - all English and American people I meet in Germany in the time of the World Cup have been filled wiht enthusiasm about the open, multicultural and peaceful World Cup, but if the informations the English Wikipedia have about it will stay like they are future readers will definitly have a wrong idea albout how the World Cup was. If you have articles like this you should at least also make a article ablout the culture events of the World Cup (there is plenty of stuff in the German Wikipedia) to paint a more objektiv picture of the World Cup. I would like to do it but my English skills are not so good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knarf-bz (talk • contribs)

Maybe you are right, but nevertheless the article like it is now is also only based on some media news articles and has no practical relevance (at least not for the World Cup). It is all about speculations. And in the end about speculations which never came true. Why do you think that this [2] article (which is quoted- Maybe it is interesting but in the end it has nothing to do with the reality of the World Cup 2006) is more verifiable than claimes of the German interior minister. () There are much sorces in the internet, you will find hundreds, if you want statistics about crimes compared to other events, informations about how tourists experienced the World Cup. I myself are not able to chance it because I have problems with my English skills, but my English is good enough to recognize that this is more a selction of negativ sources and no one in the English Wikipedia cares for the positiv about the World Cup (I have recognized this in many articles related to Germany or German people). In my opinion this is a very useless article and sould be deleted. If such articles stay in the Englsih Wikipedia I not wonder why it has so much articles. 4 or 5 sentences in the main article is more than enough in an Enzyclopedia - Wikipedia is still a Enzyclopedia? A selction of one kind of sources (even if these ar verifiable) is not a neutral POV. --Knarf-bz 15:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking pages..

I wont warn you with a boiler plate; However please dont blank content from pages in the future, if you have any grivences with the content use the talk page. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to propose removals from The O.C. page please propose it on that talk page, thanks/But as the info is cited it is unlikely it will be removed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, thus why you were not given a boiler plate, i also could of used me revert (vandal) button. I did not however as i did assume good faith. You however are failing to assume good faith in my messages. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not obey orders, Good bye. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

^^ That Guy. He says that "blanking pages" is moving information from one place in the article to another, in a move discussed before he ever edited the page in the first place. Wow. Some people. Batman2005 21:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Meanie!

You just despies ZAc Efroon and Freddy Adu and Raven-Symone because they arrre actually up to date, unlike you. What is hell? Isn't that the place where .... God damn lives? i AM FROM cROATIA! I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW TO SPEAK GOOD INGLISH AND HOVV VVIKIPEDIA VVORKS!--User:Lindsay1980

Fan sites

Nonetheless, at one point, there were multiple fan sites listing there. Notability of the site should be remarked upon at its side so people don't think its just another random fan site from the Internet; it should be noted that that is the primary one. In my experience, I've been told that its best looked upon if fan sites are only included if they are directly endorsed by the person the article is about (Katharine McPhee has one such listing for example), else they are just viewed as excessive vanity. Just saying "(fan site)" next to the link isn't enough. I could go out and find fifty right now if I wanted to; just be sure to note that site's particular relevance. Unless it's noted, the site just looks like another random fan site. Do you understand? Michael 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: this comment

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

John Wayne Troll

I contacted Levid37 about the troll a month ago, but I just thought you might want to know (since you have been doing battle with him most recently) that the John Wayne troll was vandalizing the Tom Atkins (actor) page in much the same way that he is now vandalizing the Wayne page.

About two months ago, he was completely obsessed with stating that Tom Atkins is gay and had a male lover who died fairly recently, despite the fact that there is no evidence supporting either assertion. He uses the same MO every time. He never cites anything credible and hysterically accuses anyone who reverts his edits of racism/fascism/homophobia/whatever. He has just shifted his focus to Wayne.

Sullenspice 12:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. Even by troll standards, he stands out as an enormous asshole. I had it out with him on the Atkins article talk page, and afterwards more people joined in to revert him. Eventually, he gave up when Will BeBack and another admin locked it down to prevent him from vandalizing. Thus far it seems to have worked for the Atkins page. Unfortunately, he just goes somewhere else.

Also, his choice of targets suggests he has unresolved daddy issues.

Sullenspice 16:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again with this fuckwit.

Sullenspice 20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Musicians Article guidelines

Because of you interest in th past, you input is welcome here.--Esprit15d 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigma Phi

Dude, the comment about Sigma Phi necessitating a change is speculative and conjecture and should not be included. This may or may not have been the case. There are two Kappa Alphas currently in existence, and obviously one was founded before the other. Just because another one already existed doesn't mean a change would have had to occur. The reason for the change was the stealing of the ritual, and that's all that should be listed.

Exactly! One has become known as Kappa Alpha Order and the other Kappa Alpha Fraternity. But they both use the letters KA. Sigma Phi is officially known as Sigma Phi Society. Sigma Phi founded by the seven who eventully changed the name to Sigma Chi could have continued on as the Sigma Phi Order or Sigma Phi Fraternity. The assumption that the name would have changed if the theft of the ritual had not occurred is erroneous and unfounded. It could be up for philosophical debate, but has no place in an encyclopedia.

Thanks for taking care of Sigma Chi

I'm really glad to see that things are cooking along on that page. I'm glad that we can have a very Wiki-friendly article that maintains the integrity of the fraternity while closely adhering to the policies here. Cheers man, good luck Firedancer414 20:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, I posted a lot of the stuff you cleaned up for me. Thanks and IHSV. ASigIAm213

In Hoc; I made a Sigma Chi userbox; feel free to use it: {{User Sigma Chi}} Scoutersig 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Editing reader

An admin you trust ;-)? I've permablocked the user as vandalism-only account. Next time, please use WP:PAIN; also, a warning template like {{NPA}} should have been given. Happy editing. Btw, would you like to have the protection of your user-page lifted? Lectonar 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny

"it wasn't courageous, he didn't do it while charging into a burning hosue to save orphaned prematurely delivered babies"

That was the funniest thing on Wikipedia I ever seen. LOL License2Kill 04:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if my edit comment sounded a little harsh on article Crips

Sorry I didnt mean to sound so harsh on my edit comment for the Crips, I just thought that was your opinion on the matter, when I read what wrote I thought it might have come off unfriendly. Anyways Stanley Williams is considered co-founder to the Crips. I added a citation: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/13/williams.execution/. Person can still be considered a co-founder even if he was not there at the very beginning. For example if a person joins early on and contributes a great deal to the structure and foundation of an organization, as is the case with Stanley Williams. Cheers. Valoem ^talk 07:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Stanley Tookie Williams was viewed as a co-founder because of his leadership skills. He was the primary force that spread the Crips across the state which in turn spread across the nation. Also my article does back the fact that he is a co-founder. Right under the title it says "Crips gang co-founder put to death for 4 murders". Valoem ^talk 01:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh ok, I understand, however I did write he is "generally acknowledged" which is true, even though he may not actually be a co-founder. I think that fits both purposes. Cheers :) Valoem ^talk 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Gregg Berhalter

At last, the real user comes out from behind his IP address. I think that your rant in what is supposed to be a Neutral summary of your position is indicative of your failure to follow Wikipedia policy. Again, your stubborn refusal to offer any concrete alternative is a demonstration of your bad faith. Alansohn 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User Page

Like your user page found you by reading the discussion page of John Wayne. Glad you dished it out to that troll. After reading your page and hearing from others off site. Ive come to find this eutopia of wiki has a very dark side I didn't know was there. Doing what they ask can get you in trouble (that 3rr thing). As they say no good deed goes unpunished. Apparently that really holds true here. I'd like to ask you some wiki questions Ive used it for a couple years but just recently got a username and participated. Is the only way to do that on this page? Keep up the good work --Xiahou 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your user page is tight! 74.132.172.179 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Columbus divisive because of genocide?

Hi, Batman2005. You have again taken the "divisiveness because of genocide" sentence out of Christopher Columbus due to a supposed lack of evidence. But I've already noted nine different references on the talk page. Have you seen them? It is really easy to find evidence that Columbus is divisive. Joshua Davis 20:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted that just as you were reverting your edit. No problem. Cheers. Joshua Davis 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 23:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Red link removal

When I am creating articles, I sometimes wikilink a word or name to remind myself that I want to create an article for that item or person or concept or group, etc. eventually also. If they become "un-redded" then I lose my reminder. Cool user page otherwise. Sorry about your unfortunate experiences with over-zealous administrators.Markisgreen 12:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Naptown

It appears that they reached a consensus on including Naptown on the Indianapolis, Indiana page about a year ago. It's been in that article since then, and there's a lengthy discussion on the talk page. I invite you, again, to take part in that discussion.

Ad hominem attacks on people who use the name "Naptown" are not relevant to including it in the article--it doesn't really matter that only fools use the name "Naptown" to refer to Indianapolis, the world is so full of fools that we should fear that "Naptown" would become the official name of the town if it were put to a vote. Gruber76 13:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Adu

Despite your insistance that I was uncivil, every post made by me was civil and on the topic of hand. You meanwhile made several ad hominem attacks and were the definition of uncivil in your argument. Your discussion page shows that this is FAR from the first time you have been accused of being insulting. It also isn't the first time you've been accused of hiding behind an IP address.

As for your embarrassment, it comes from your blindness, you were convinced you were having an argument with me when you in fact weren't. I reverted your initial edits because you made them from a POV standpoint "(i think it's safe to say that Adu has fallen from the pedestal which everyone put him on)" I was the first person in the discussion to propose radically changing the article to it's current form. You wanted to change the wording. I was the first to propose preferably removing all opinion based statements regardless of who it's by, to fit with other articles on athletes.

You continued to embarrass yourself with the comments on European teams. I said Adu played well against Real Madrid you said that he didn't play "THAT well" all I said was that he played well, which he did. You then said no one else was impressed by his play against Celtic. I then linked to a Celtic supporters page, where they were so impressed by Adu they thought he was too good to play for their team. You then said that there's a huge difference between a supporter and a coach. Where the coach part came from i don't know (though the Celtic coach did say that D.C. United blew them off the field with their energy) you said no one was impressed by Adu against Celtic, I proved you wrong, and then you prtended you were arguing something else. That's embarrassing. Equally embarassing was your attempt to call me uncivil during the discussion. The irony is huge, it is also very clear that I was being completely civil during the discussion, and have been (unlike you) consistently civil on Wikipedia.

The page is not a message board for your insults and trolling Drsmoo 04:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHA, THIS GUY IS COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL! HE LOSES AN ARGUMENT OVER HIS FAVORITE SOCCER PLAYER AND HE TRIES TO SHIFT BLAME... WOW! Drsmoo, that's one of the, if not the funniest thing i've ever read on wikipedia.Batman2005 04:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You see what's massively ironic is there wasn't an argument to begin with. I was the who proposed changing the article to its present state. And I did it. There also wasn't an article about whether the line was POV, which is why I changed it. What there was an argument about was (off topic by you) whether Celtic fans were impressed by Adu. You were proven wrong there. Like a characteristic delusional you imagined what my point of view was, or what I was saying, even though your view was completely at odds with what I actually wrote. Just as you continue ad-hominem attacks. Drsmoo 04:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Drsmoo, I am bored with you and the nonsense that flows from your fingers on these pages. If it helps you to sleep at night to think that you weren't completely and totally overwhelmed and proven wrong by every single other person who posted on that page...then so be it. Batman2005 05:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, you did see that the other users were congratulating me at the end of the discussion right? Enjoy your view?Drsmoo 05:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah for FINALLY getting it through your obviously thick skull that the sentence you were fighting so hard to leave in...was in-fact pov....even after you argued that it was not. I think they were congratulating you on actually understanding the simplest of concepts.Batman2005 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Had you actually read the discussion you would see that I agreed that it was POV from the start. However, you were to busy gearing up for a fight to see that there was no argument other than the ones you desperately tried to create.Drsmoo 05:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Drsmoo, I would like to refer you to your "report" against me, and my response therein. This discussion is over. Batman2005 05:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Isaac M. Jordan

I noticed you took off the placement of his real name (Isaac Alfred Jordan) on his page. I do have a source for it, but it is not on the internet. I don't know if you would be able to find it but the older version of the Norman Shield (1967 edition) has it. Acidskater 19:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

John Wayne vandal

He's back. See WP:ANI#homophobia and vandalism ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Zac Efron

As the person who added that quote from Adam Shankman - I just wanted to demonstrate Efron's status as more or less the leading teen idol in America at the moment, and that was the most neutral way I could think of. I have no particular attachment to that quote by Shankman otherwise (can't speak for User:Malevious), but I do want to have something in the lead (something sourced) that would attest to the fact that he is a major teen idol, since that seems to be fairly important to his notability. Can you think of a good replacement? Mad Jack 17:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I generally agree with what you said, but the point I was trying to get across is that the article should convey Efron's status as big teen star and the like, since this is a critical part of his notability. The "Adam Shankman quote" is one way of doing it, and evidently, not the best way. Mad Jack 04:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ for some of your examples. For instance, Jack Nicholson's opening states: "A household name across the globe, he is considered to be one of the greatest actors of all time" (considered by who?). Clooney's states ""A-List" movie star in contemporary American cinema". Cruise's notes "Counted as one of the most successful movie stars in Hollywood" (counted by who?). I'm not talking about the quality of Efron's acting, anyway, that is a whole different matter, I'm talking about the fact that is he is so popular in a certain demographic, something that is very critical to his notability and thus should go in the opening - in some form - explicitly. Mad Jack 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if a person doesn't know anything about Jack Nicholson, it's probably very crucial to include his status as such a major actor in the opening. But anyway, getting to specifics, like I said, I don't know about Malevious, but I'm not too attached to that Adam Shankman quote in the Efron article. But how would you adjust the Efron opening to indicate his "status"? Mad Jack 17:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know that "we" don't make the conclusion, but you can source a Nicholson- or Clooney-type line like that to a multitude of reliable media publications. Mad Jack 05:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is - how would you write the Efron opening to "show" rather than "state" his particular line of notability? Mad Jack 06:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you said "Cruises page could easily SHOW that he's one of the most successful in hollywood by presenting facts (seven straight $100 million earning films)", so how would Efron's page show the same (in his opening paragraph, specifically)? I think we should come up with something along those lines and replace the current opening with this. Mad Jack 17:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 07:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sam Hewson

I've reinstated the text on this page, but flagged it with db-copyvio and the relevant URL - I may be wrong, but speedy delete would be a better way of getting rid of the offending article than just blanking it? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 10:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability wouldn't be criteria for a speedy though - db-bio could fit, but the article does at least claim notability, so it would probably fail. I'm not sure about the necessity of removing copyvio text pending deletion, as I generally haven't bothered in the past. Leaving the text there makes it easier for an administrator to see the violation, rather than having to trawl through the history of the page to find and compare the original and the borrowed, and I don't think that there would necessarily be any legal implications in leaving the text there so long as it has been flagged as a copy vio. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 10:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation to John Paul II

Perhaps you didn't realize it, but you have violated the 3RR rule in Pope John Paul II. The edit conflict seems to have begun with your deletion of the titles. An editor reverted, as did I on other occassions, disagreeing with the deletion. Not to get into the content dispute, but it is clearly not vandalism you are reverting, but rather other editors' disagreements with your edit. I would like to give you the opportunity to undo your last revert before someone reports your 3RR violation. Then maybe we can resolve the issue in the talk page. --Anietor 03:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

LA Galaxy

The LA Galaxy will never, so far as I am aware, play in the 'old' kit again, so I feel the change was appropriate. Also, on the shopadidas.com website, the David Beckham Home Jersey item, clearly includes the name Beckham with the number 23. Highly unlikely that the Galaxy would allow this if they planned to give another number. I've reverted your reverts, based on these arguments. Please don't change them back, I don't want an edit war over this. mpbx 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

^^^ This is a new one people. A guy actually trying to justify violating wikipedia policy and being a crystal ball.Batman2005 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

infact you were correct. the website i posted was their "beta" page, it isn't the official site. i don't think. sorry bout the shouting. Squadoosh 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

lol, looks like i don't know what i'm talking about. i think I was right, they seem to be tinkering with their website as we speak, we can give it some time i'll leave it up to you to decide what to do. sorry again. Squadoosh 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Landon Donovan

Yeah, when you changed it, I was thinking that I probably made a mistake, but I had to check to see, and he's listed as a forward on their site. Makes sense, really, because I feel like he doesn't play as a midfielder for the national team any more. Che84 01:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. players

I would prefer it if, in your edit summaries, you wouldn't make it seem like I've committed some cardinal sin. The description of the category says it is for "footballers who have played for Manchester United". To me, that sounds like it means that the player must have played a match for the club before they can be included in the category. I have already had this discussion with ArtVandelay13, so I'd prefer it if you would remain civil please. - PeeJay 14:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Glen Johnson (footballer)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Glen Johnson (footballer). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Please note that just because you haven't made more than 3 reverts in any one 24 hour period, it does not mean your actions do not violate 3RR. Adambro 22:22, 9 August 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).

Batman2005 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Uh, because it's a bullshit block. Adambro never took his reasoning to the 3RR page, he never posted on that page for discussion. He simply got pissed off and blocked the both of us. I NEVER reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Nor is my behavior "clearly disruptive" as states on the 3RR page. The other user and I are discussing on the talk page, and I was merely pointing out that WP:BRD states that questionable material should be kept out until consensus is reached. Adambro has SERIOULY misused his perceived power as an administrator to try and play parent to myself and the other user. We were COMPLETELY denied ANY opportunity (i.e. posting on 3RR discussion page) to discuss with a neutral party the edits we were making. This entire thing is clearly bullshit and should be removed from both of our pages. Clearly, Adambro is unfit to be an administrator.ADDITIONALLY since Adambro felt the need to block me, I am unable to report the vile personal attacks [3] of another user, so whichever administrator reviews this, should also block PeeJay for continuously posting personal attacks on my page. Batman2005 23:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have obviously been involved in an edit war. Additionally, upon your return from your block, please read WP:CIV. — IrishGuy ^talk 00:10, 10 August 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.

By the way, point me to the fucking page where it says that admins can go around the process and just issue blocks whenever they want without warning. The 3RR page is there for a fucking reason Adambro, it's to be used, not gone around like you think. That's bullshit on a stick, and I'll CERTAINLY expect a reply from somebody, but not Adambro, i'll delete EVERY post he ever puts on my page again, because I think he has abused whatever power he thinks he has and I will not recognize him as an Admin any longer.

That's fucking bullshit and i don't give a flying fuck about WP:CIV if some fucking guy can come on here, call me a "bitter cunt" and say I was "abused as a child," civility goes out the fucking window. Why wasn't that guy fucking blocked? I'll tell you why, cause fucking admins don't give a shit about that, all they care is blocking people for no fucking reason. I'll be civil when that fucking PeeJay character gets the block that he deserves for his personal attacks, until then, fuck civility. Batman2005 05:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User page

I removed a bunch of crap from your user page a year ago (see up the top of your talk page), and it's "somehow" sneaked back on there. I have removed it again. Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for soapboxing, nor is it the place for you to label users as "dead to you", to insinuate that Freddy Adu is gay, and so on. You've been around long enough to know that by now. Neil ム 09:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks. No soapboxing. Put it on again, and you're blocked. Neil ム 09:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Although your response on Neil's talk page (which i have watched) was very cordial and well constructed - Neil has a very good point. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Last warning. You're now wilfully breaching WP:OWN, WP:NPA and WP:NOT. These guidelines and policies are in place for good reasons. Neil ム 09:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for three hours. I have asked for input on WP:AN. Neil ム 09:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't say this and that user is "dead to you" and that you won't listen to them, that crosses the line. El_C 09:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The page should have been protected, restricting access to only that one page, rather than blocking thereby restricting access to all of em. El_C 09:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But then it would need to protected indefinitely - the hope is that a short block will make the user understand what is and is not acceptable. Neil ム 09:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I had one user page protected for weeks before the user agreed not to restore the objectionable material, and throughout that time the user was free to edit elsewhere. I almost always prefer protection to blocks when it comes to a user that isn't a disruption or disrepute emergency. El_C 11:03, 16 August 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).

Batman2005 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My page, which has been the subject of debate before, was ajudged to violate NO wikipedia policy. NPA refers to editors, not subjects. I advised Neil of this countless times, yet was met with the same rogue attitude each time. My history of being cordial is not strong, however in this case I was nothing but cordial and civil, even in the face of yet another rogue administrator seeking to impose HIS feelings and HIS morality on my page. I would also like to point out that Neil only posted on ANI AFTER blocking me, so as to prevent me from defending my page there. Neil has NOT acted as an adminstrator in this instance, instead he has acted as an editor who doesn't like what I have to say, and abused his position in order to force compliance. There is a process for the issuance of blocks, and it's certainly not "whenever neil feels like it." This block is entirely unwarranted and his edits to my user page are entirely against the previously determined consensus. Additionally, The "dead to me" section was discussed and it was determined that it was ALSO not a violation of policy.

Decline reason:

The content is not acceptable and you need to realise that it does not matter if specific policies are violated or not. It's offensive and divisive and should therefore not appear on here. It's only a short block and I hope you take the time to think about how such content does not aid the project in any way, quite the contrary. violet/riga (t) 09:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I should note that my offer to unblock the user and protect the page so as to facilitate participation on the noticeboard (one of the complaints directed by the user in the unblock request) was already declined at this point. El_C 10:41, 16 August 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.

Not acceptable by the standards of...? It DOES NOT VIOLATE POLICY! This has been pointed out TIME and TIME again. Just because Neil doesn't like what it says, does NOT mean it HAS to be removed. Offensive and divisive ARE NOT policies on wikipedia. It's not incivil, does not attack contributors and does not violate and Libel policies. Your reason is completely devoid of ANY logical, policy backed reasoning. Simply saying "it's offensive and divisive" is your POINT OF VIEW, it is NOT the point of view of the consenus which was reached over a year ago. Do you have any sort of a policy backed reason for declining my unblock? Also, I notice how you ignore the fact that Neil engaged me in an edit war....did you block him for his violation of policy? I didn't think so. Batman2005 10:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's a violation of policy, there's no doubt about that. El_C 09:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you rather I protected the page and I unblocked you so you could participate in the AN thread? El_C 09:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ADDITIONALLY Neil claims, in his ANI post, that my 3 reverts was justification for a block, presumably under "edit war." However, he turns a blind eye to his own incessant reverting of HIS version my my page. Being an admin doesn't excuse his behavior. If i'm blocked for reverting 3 times, he should also be blocked for edit warring. But...I know THAT isn't going to happen. NPA refers to CONTRIBUTORS....not article subjects. Batman2005 09:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the block was nothing to do with edit warring. It was because you were warned, twice, not to put the attacks back. That is what "final warning" means. You labelled CONTRIBUTORS as "dead to you". That's NPA. You described living people as "douches" and suggested they were gay. That's soapboxing. Also, read our WP:LIBEL policy. Neil ム 09:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No it is, then. El_C 10:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neil, you have made your position quite clear. The previous discussion confirmed that the "dead to me" section is nothing more than an emulation of The Colbert Report, and not a personal attack. Stating that somebody is dead to you and that you don't wish to associate with them is NOT a personal attack. Saying "i wish so and so would die" IS a personal attack. Soapboxing refers to article space, not userspace...this was also discussed in the previous discussion about the page. Once again, my page violates no wikipedia policy, and this was determined OVER a year ago. It is also not Libel as I do not implicitly SAY that any user is gay. Simply stating an opinion or thought is not libel. Wikipedia is not censored Neil. Batman2005 09:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not entitled to target users negatively on your user page in such a way, regardless of how you define, or preface, (personal, or otherwise) attack. El_C 10:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have targeted nobody. Are you insinuating that it's a hitlist? Simply stating that there are editors who I do not respect and do not work with is not targeting anyone. If somebody wants to put that i'm dead to them on their user page...so be it, it's not a personal attack. Batman2005 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not insinuating it, I am stating it, outright. El_C 10:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you're wrong, it was SPECIFICALLY judged not to be a hitlist, and when that topic was broached it was laughed down immediately. You're saying that I want those users dead? That's LAUGHABLE. El_C you appear to be quite astute and well-reasoned, but even you must see that calling it a hitlist is irresponsible and flat out dumb. Batman2005 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, my imprecision in hitting on the right definition shouldn't be read into so closely. Obviously, I realize it wasn't phrased in a mean-spirited way, but it was a "negative list," which isn't alowed. El_C 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) WP:LIBEL - a Wikipedia policy - says "any defamatory statement is to be removed on sight". Any. Your page violates a number of the most basic policies. You labelled Kevin Federline a douche, so it was removed. You insinuated Freddy Adu loved the cock, it was removed. I would very strongly urge you not to restore this stuff when your block expires; it would not be me blocking you, I'd ask a heretofore uninvolved admin to step in, and given you'd been warned, it would probably be a longer block. Please, take this time to read WP:LIBEL, WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox - for the most part you are an excellent editor who I would not want to see go, and this obsession with insulting others on your user page is bewildering. Neil ム 10:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neil, your thinly vieled compliments will not override the blatant abuse of "power" which you have pushed here. I never insinuated that Freddy Adu loved "cock," that is the way YOU chose to take it. Linking Kevin Federine as a douche isn't libel. It's an opinion. If I said "I have proof that Kevin Federline is a homosexual" and provided false proof...THAT IS LIBEL. Stating an opinion is not libel, plain and simple. Were that the case, hundreds of thousands of people would be in jail for their printed opinions on people. Soapbox applies to articles, not userpages. NPA refers to contributors, not article subjects. Civility doesn't apply here. You have NO basis for ANYTHING at this point. If I put on my user page "i think kevin federline is a douche" you can't do a thing about it, because it's NOT a violation of policy. Yet you'll probably block me and abuse your power yet again. Batman2005 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Batman2005, this is all very pointless. I understand the issue of your userpage has been raised before and again a user has expressed a concern about it. Now simply realise that the community doesn't feel the comments are acceptable and don't add such comments back in. They aren't constructive and don't do anything to further our ambitions of creating a free encyclopaedia. What is allowed on your userpage is very much what the community will accept. It is still part of Wikipedia. This all just distracts from the real business of writing articles. Stop being disruptive. Adambro 10:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Adambro, what is pointless is that you blocked me for nothing several days ago. What is further pointless is that the community spoke to my userpage a year ago and found it to be wholly within policy. It was stated that while some may find it offensive, it's NOT a violation of policy. I'm not being disruptive, your pointless block several days ago disrupted the community more than anything I do. My opinions don't do anything to HARM the ambitions of creating a free encyclopedia. The community clearly accepted my userpage a year ago, just because Neil happened upon it again AFTER consensus was reached on it doesn't mean he now gets to play god and ward over my page. Batman2005 10:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who reviewed it then (because you fail to link to this event despite bringing it up repeatedly), but, stating on your user page that you do not respect this or that user is clearly problematic. El_C 10:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:LIBEL is a policy that doesn't get quoted much, because it's so fundamental to Wikipedia; you seem to be confusing the legal definition of libel to what the policy states. WP:LIBEL states, in pretty straightfroward terms, "All contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory". If you don't like the policy, seek to get it changed. At this point, five different people have commented on here suggesting some of the content on your userpage was inappropriate. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are doing something wrong, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. I'd like to see this discussion that approved the "dead to me" section, too - could you provide a link? Neil ム 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You want the link you can find it yourself. You appear to be dead set on proving me wrong. I wish I could see your face when you see that the dead to me section was laughed down as simply my lighthearted way to say which editors I'll be avoiding. It doesn't matter what you call it, nothing on my page is libelous OR defamatory. I never said Kevin Federline was a douche, it was left open to interpretation. You just can't stomach my user page and are (pathetically) reaching for any reason to delete its content, you have provided NPA, LIBEL and Soapboxing only to be shot down on each. Is your personal war about over? Batman2005 10:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really care. But as an uninvolved admin who reviewed Neil's notice I am telling you that you are not allowed to have a list of users you (seriously) intend to avoid, even if it's done in a light-hearted way, the message remains problematic nonetheless. El_C 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You pipe-linked [[Kevin Federline|douche]] - how on God's green earth is that open to any kind of interpretation? And the onus is on you to provide the link to this purported discussion that gave you carte blanche to attack other editors. If you can't provide it, I think people will assume it doesn't exist. I also really do hope you don't ignore every editor who has commented on your user page and restore the material as soon as the block expires in 2 hours or so. Neil ム 10:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My block wasn't pointless, it was perfectly justified to try and resolve and issue of you disrupting Wikipedia by constantly reverting another user's changes to a page. You made an unblock request and this was reviewed by an independent administrator who deemed it to be acceptable. Regardless of the consensus you refer to, clearly any discussion suggests concerns have been raised about your userpage and this today illustrates these haven't gone away. Accept the community don't tolerate the contents of your userpage and concentrate on writing article instead of making pointless arguments about what nonsense you can have on your userpage. Adambro 10:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It was pointless, you abused your responsibility as an administrator and didn't afford either of us the due process of going through an ANI or any other sort of discussion. You're a rogue administrator who I will choose, from now on, not to associate with because all you do is piss me off. Batman2005 10:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here we go Neil, you unblock me (because your block was unfair and done without ANY sort of due process) and i'll spend a few minutes toning my user page down for you. I'm sick of poking fun at Kevin Federline anyway. However, saying "I think Freddy Adu sucks" IS NOT A VIOLATION OF ANY POLICY. Nor was any of the rest of it, but i'll make some changes to my page. Batman2005 10:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You can spend the next two hours thinking about how you'll tone it down. Neil ム 10:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Batty, I'd take a hint from DR step 2 and just let them be "dead to you" I mean, remove yourself from the mess for a while. The lack of a sense of humor here is stifling my creativity. And I fully expect they'll bitch about my userpage next. Kyaa the Catlord 10:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Gee Neil, do you want me to stand in a corner, maybe wear a dunce hat? Do I get any dessert mother? Give me a fucking break dude. I offer a solution and you go with "you can spend the next two hours thinking about how you will tone it down?" That's the most mature thing you can come up with? I offer a solution and you're so full of your misplaced pride that you can't accept it. Wow! You wanted a solution, I offered it to you, now you're so full of yourself that you won't unblock me to make us both happy? Batman2005 10:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You got off light with a 3 hour block in the first place. Most admins would have blocked you for 24 hours and moved on. I'm trying to engage with you here and explain why attacking people and so on isn't acceptable. The fact I even have to explain this obvious point, over and over, and your tone, bad sarcasm and general rudeness, make me think a little bit more cool of time (the rest of the block) is warranted. Neil ム 11:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Anyway, you do not get to have a negative, to-avoid user list (example). End of story. El_C 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, you were personally attacking the users. I was not. I simply listed their names as editors with whom I would not associate. That is not a personal attack, that is not against policy. Batman2005 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not attacking anyone. I was removing a negative list of users, period. Even if it was just names, it would have been removed just the same. El_C 10:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said YOU were attacking anyone. Orangemonster was. He was calling users rude, etc. I simply made a list of users with whom I would not associate. Tell me what poliy that violates. Show me where it explicitly says I can't do that. I didn't put that they're idiots, or morons or losers or gay or ANYTHING. And when that WAS on there, it was pointed out that it was a personal attack so I took it out. Simply making a list of users who I choose not to associate with....is NOT against policy, if you say it is..show me the policy which states that it is and i'll leave it off the page. Also, I NEVER declined your offer to unblock me, I never saw it because I was too busy staring in disbelief at the fact that Neil blocked me, THEN chose to start a discussion on it. Batman2005 10:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy is WP:NOT, which I, as a Wikipedia sysop, am mandated to interpret and enforce. If you wish, you may seek clarification from the Arbitration Committee about my interpretation of this policy. Thanks. El_C 10:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That policy does not say that I can't have a list of users with whome I do not associate. There is nothing in there which could be interpreted to say that in any reasonable way. I'll change it from "dead to me" to "users i don't associate with," there is absolutely NOTHING anti-policy about that...nothing whatsoever. Batman2005 10:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My interpetation of it does, however, say that. And, for better or worse, I get to enforce it. So you may appeal, or not. El_C 10:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot show me a single part of that policy which says that it's not ok for me to have a list of people I don't associate with. It's simply not there. You're basically saying that YOU have a problem with it, so you'll obfuscate a policy to fit your feelings. That's not what being an administrator is about, that's not your purpose and that's not how it works. Your job is to interpret policy, NOT change what a policy means to fit your viewpoint. Like I said you seem to be reasonable and you seem to be a well meaning guy, but you simply cannot say that I can't have a listing of users on my page with whom I do not associate...just because you disagree with it. Again, if you can point me to a part of policy which says that it's not allowed, i'll remove it. Again, I've offered a solution now to you, and to Neil, yet neither one of you are big enough to remove the block and allow all of us to get on with editing peacefully. Really says quite a bit about the character of wikipedia admins. Batman2005 11:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you may appeal this interpretation. Sorry, but I have no further comment beyond that at this time. El_C 11:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

When I am unblocked I will post a different version which will not be a violation of policy. If it is removed i'll report you and allow someone else to tell you that you're wrong. I guess I was wrong about you being well meaning and reasonable. I'm quickly losing hope for all admins. Batman2005 11:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way. So long as this new version does not depict, or even merely lists, users in an, ultimately, negative light, it's fine. I am open to and welcome review at any time, of course. El_C 11:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then unblock me and let me get back to editing. Batman2005 11:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

An admins "job" (not a job, we're all volunteers) is to help make the encyclopaedia better. And we are interpreting policy. Policy says "don't have attacks on users, or attacks on people, on your user page". We remove them, you revert to reinclude them. I ask you not to revert and remove them again (again, interpreting policy to the best of my limited intellectual capabilities), and you revert. I flat out tell you, no, this is not the place, and you revert. What did you think was likely to happen? And I have pointed you towards numerous policies (WP:NPA, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOT, WP:CIVIL). Read them. Neil ム 11:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neil, you just continue to refuse to get it don't you. I never violated NPA, or LIBEL, or CIVIL. NPA REFERS TO EDITORS ONLY! How can you NOT get that? The only POLICY which was violated was edit warring, and YOU began it, and YOU continued it and only ONE person (ME) gets punished for it. That's bullshit Neil and you know it. You should have been blocked for the exact same period of time as me. However, since you're an "admin" you're apparently free from following the rules of the encyclopedia. You're no better than anyone else Neil, no matter how much satisfaction you (clearly) derive from trying to be. I'm sick to fucking death of Admins who think that they're above policy. You were engaged in an edit war and you blocked me for it, yet nothing happened to you. You should stand up and say what a cheap move that was, and admit that you were wrong for the betterment of all. Even now you can't admit that you were wrong and unblock me to allow all of us to continue editing. You were offered a solution, you chose revenge over compromise, you chose vindictiveness. You've shown your character in its true colors Neil. Batman2005 11:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) In list form:

• Referring to other Wikipedia editors as "dead to you" - violated WP:NPA
• Suggesting Freddy Adu as gay - violated WP:LIBEL
• Labelling Kevin Federline as a douche - WP:LIBEL
• Labelling a fraternity as gay - violated WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, WP:LIBEL
• Responding to warnings messages by swearing, complaining of admin abuse, and accusing others of being vindictive - violated WP:CIVIL

How is that difficult to understand? You weren't blocked for edit warring - you were blocked for reverting to keep including comments you were told, repeatedly, are not suitable for the user page of a Wikipedia user. I know WP:NPA refers to editors only. WP:LIBEL, however, which I have now linked for you about six or seven times, does not.

And frankly, given your recent block for incivility, a 3 hour block was very mild. If you have a problem with my actions, I suggest that upon the expiration of your block you file a complaint at WP:RFC. Otherwise, accept you were out of line, stop being rude, and move on. I would also still like to see this discussion that entitled you to put that "dead to me" list back up. Neil ム 11:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neil, you're stepping on your dick here. You say I wasn't blocked for edit warring, yet IT WAS IN YOUR FUCKING BLOCK SUMMARY. You screwed up Neil. You put, as part of your block justification, edit warring...which YOU were engaged in. Which YOU started and which YOU continued. Yet YOU didn't get blocked for. LIBEL DOES NOT APPLY TO OPINIONS...IF IT DID THEN ANY AND ALL OPINIONS AND UNSOURCED MATERIAL ON WIKIPEDIA WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED. Additionally, i'm not being rude, i'm being MORE than civil with you when anything BUT civility is warranted. You are a rogue administrator Neil, you're abusing your responsibility and you're wholly out of line. You want to see the discussion about my dead to me list you can find it your own fucking self, i'm through with you. ----

This is not the way to express your grievances. You have avenues of appeal open to you. El_C 11:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No...I don't. I'm blocked remember. I know you haven't forgotten. So for now, all I can do is point out how unfair it is that I'm blocked for violating a policy I didn't violate and that the only real policy I violated was an edit war...and the other party wasn't blocked. Tell me El_C, how is that not bullshit? There's no way to express grievances right now, because you and Neil choose vindictiveness over a true honest solution to the problems which started this ridiculous exercise. Once most of the admins get the idea that their shit smells just like everyone elses this place might be a nice place to hang out again. Batman2005 11:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are being overly dramatic. You only have a few minutes left on the block. And I have not chosen vindictiveness, I offered you a conditional unblock, which you opted to reject. El_C 11:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, once again, if you could read, you would see that I NEVER rejected an unblock. I never SAW that an unblock was offered because I was so dumbfounded by Neil's bullshit block that I missed it. Had I ever seen an unblock offer, I would have taken it. I don't believe i'm being overly dramatic, I believe i'm being overly targeted for something that is absolutely retarded. You HAVE chosen vindictiveness El_C! I'm sorry you can't accept it. If you weren't choosing that path you would have unblocked me so I could make the changes that we have discussed, your lack of action on that front furthers my assertion that you're being vindictive. Batman2005 11:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean, if I could read minds? Well, yes, in that event I would have known you never seen it due to dumbfoundedness. El_C 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet you read my mind and determined that I rejected it? Interesting. I notice that I'm STILL blocked after offering solutions out the ass. How is it that you guys aren't being vindictive now? Batman2005 11:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who said no directly below it. As for your block still being active, I'm increasingly less inclined to help you with that, or anything for that matter. You can see that as frustration, vindictiveness, or whatever you wish. El_C 12:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I said no such thing below it. Neil started out a comment of his by saying "No," but I never responded and CERTAINLY never said no to an unblock offer, show me ONE instance where I did please. Batman2005 12:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I made the offer ^[4] and it looked like you've declined it. I'm busy and am not prepared to double or triple check you've read what I've written. You're on your own there. El_C 12:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

SOOOO....you were just making up that I said no? Or you were caught in a lie? Or you simply assumed? Or now you're back tracking to show that you were really flat-out, dead, wrong? Which one is it? I'll let you choose. This entire thing gets more and more comical watching Neil try to justify his BS block and side step answering as to why he wasn't also blocked for edit warring, and watching you try to roll back all your comments about me declining my unblock. Next time i'll be sure not to start a war of wits with unarmed men. Batman2005 12:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like I misread that and switched his comment with yours. El_C 12:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me also point out that as a part of his reasoning behind my block, Neil highlighted "edit warring." Not realizing that it takes TWO to edit war, Neil did not then block himself for ALSO engaging in an edit war. It's beginning to look more and more like I got screwed with my pants on yet again. Neil started and continued an edit war, and I got blocked for it. Somebody tell me how that works....anyone? Yeah I didn't think so. Batman2005 11:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

AH! I see, my mistake El_C. I thought that Orangemonster posted that on the page, not you. My bad. I meant that Orangemonster was personally attacking the users with what was on his page. Batman2005 10:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, one tilde too many, my bad. El_C 10:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate that. Batman2005 10:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The End

Welp, i'm sufficiently amused and astonished for the morning. But i'm going to bed now and when I arise, I won't be blocked and everything will be back to normal. I look forward to seeing all the stupid and ridiculous comments posted between now and then. Batman2005 12:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Dare to be stupidedia! *polkas* Kyaa the Catlord 12:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Our Admins think their shit smells like roses. Batman2005 12:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is possibly the biggest dick I've ever seen. Kyaa the Catlord 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon

He is probably my favorite user too. He works so hard here and no one gives him recognition. 216.104.34.66 06:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call

Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!

An automatic notification by BrownBot 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Orlando Anderson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Orlando Anderson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando Anderson. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Note

Since you remove anything Eusebeus says, I'll tell you. You are one revert away from a strict 3RR violation. I would suggest you desist revert warring. You have taken the correct steps in starting a discussion on the talk page, but do not revert again without consensus to do so. This edit was not helpful to anyone. — Soleil (formerly I) 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I misread Eusebeus's comment, I thought it was a warning. I have notified him as well. You did the right thing now by starting a discussion on the talk page. Hopefully you can reach a consensus there. — Soleil (formerly I) 00:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Nice work removing those stupid last&next game succession boxes on the national team pages. There are enough football related things to be kept up to date without someone pointlessly adding a load more. Regards, King of the NorthEast 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Panther (comics)

Thank you for a good edit and a pithy edit summary that said all there was to say. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing your password

You can do it under "my preferences" at the upper right hand corner of the page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the unblock has been declined, and in the response message Swatjester suggests using the email option to create your wife's account. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

isu

thanks for helping keep the ISU article from being tarnished

also I assume you go/went indiana state —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdooglede (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One name only people

In the end, I don't really care. I'm going to unwatchlist the AI page anyway because I spent all of last year patrolling the AI6 page. And in the end, it's very draining and not really worth it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My revert (sniper)

My revert was because you blatantly copy and pasted copyrighted material onto a wikipedia page; which is clearly against policy (not to mention the law). So yes...when you do that I can just revert your entire edit. Batman2005 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I didn't copy and paste, I was reverting some vandalism when I came across this 'Etymology' section that was just deleted altogether along with references. I quickly assumed it was the work of vandals and took the liberty of reverting it. You knew the reference that the text came from, so why didn't you put them on the text? What are references for? They are used to check up on the validity of the text, so you should have cited the text yourself without me having to do it. You can't just go and delete an entire 'Etymology' section because you knew where most of the text came from, and you would be stripping people of their knowledge by deleting that whole thing. I personally did not know where the term 'sniper' originated from, so just cite it if you think it's plagiarism. Thank you. WinterSpw (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lifting the entire text from a page, putting it on wikipedia, and then citing it to that page unchanged IS still against the "no copyright" policy. The common practice on this project, to avoid legal trouble, is to immediately delete potions (or all of pages) that are copyrighted material. That's what I did. I'm sorry it ruffled your feathers, but that's just the way it is. If you didn't originally put it there...fine, then I'm not sure why you're getting all hot and bothered by it. Batman2005 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. WinterSpw (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

3-187

I did not post any copy righted material. I am currently in that Battalion and Deployed to Iraq with them. This information I have is taken directly from all written historical documents that we have at the Battalion. That website you keep posting that it came from, was written by some one from our battalion. That is the exact history of our Battalion, it belongs on that website, so STOP DELETING IT! Also, the companies laid out before the history IS WHAT I WROTE! Not taken from any website. So, stop with your useless edits. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Eger (talk • contribs) 09:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Referred to copyvio page and alerted an independent admin to review.Batman2005 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)