User talk:74.195.3.199

This IP address resolved to r74-195-3-199.alexcmta01.alxnla.by.dh.suddenlink.net as of 12 June 2007, 13:19 (UTC)

Re:Wrong Turn 2

I wished you'd actually read all of Wikipedia's policies about writing about fiction, and trivia sections, and plots, and plagarism, and citing sources (and the lists goes on). I wouldn't have to do the things I do if you read the rules. Bignole 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read em and its inappropiate that you deleted the things you did.74.195.3.199 03:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. If you think it was inappropriate then take it up with an Admin. I'm sure they'll tell you what I did, that those things are not trivia, and that you need citations to back up what you say. Bignole 03:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that serious but there were many a things there that you deleted and then replaced with nonsense.74.195.3.199 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and that would be? Bignole

I'm saying don't lie.74.195.3.199 20:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't lied to you or anyone. I haven't posted anything on that page. I have cleaned up things on it, but nothing I could have done could be construde as a lie. Bignole 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. But tone down a little.74.195.3.199 00:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's nothing to tone down. But you know what, I'm really tired of arguing about this. The page is all yours. I'm taking it off my watchlist. You can run it as you see fit. I've got more important pages to worry about than making sure people provide sources for a movie that's going straight to DVD. Bignole 01:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what you do, sir, that's up to you.74.195.3.199 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thinking that, you idiot.74.195.3.199 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, including:

The use of a username of your choice, provided that it is appropriate.
The use of your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed.
The ability to create new pages.
The ability to rename pages.
The ability to edit semi-protected pages.
The ability to upload images.
The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website.
Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Participate in a respectful and civil way.

Regarding this edit to User talk:All in:

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the civility policy if you would like to learn more about interacting with others. However, unconstructive accusations are considered not very nice and immediately disregarded. If you continue in this manner you may be ignored without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

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 may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Keep in mind, this is not the first time you have violated WP:CIV, and furthered disruptions could lead to you being temporarily blocked. Thank you. Floria L 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Road Rules cast

If you look at the page history and the differences between revisions, you can see that I have not changed the cast listing for the new Road Rules season; those changes have been made by other users. --ALL IN 16:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I checked and it mainly showed you as the most recent one, if I got it wrong which im sure I didn't, then i apologize.74.195.3.199 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: KIDS INC

I didn't. The original category was poorly named and thus deleted here: [1]. All I did was replace the deleted category with the correct one. Powers ^T 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks.74.195.3.199 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse Club

I didn't delete anything you posted, although your addition certainly needs an edit. What you wrote today is still there. The last six edits to the article are all yours, and the last two edits to the talk page are both yours. All I've done (last night) was add back someone's old listing of how many episodes were in a season. Even if you disagree with it, even if it's totally wrong, it should not be removed from the talk page except to be archived with other older Talk stuff.

I understand your frustration about the 1994 vs. 1996 thing. One of those dates has to be wrong, and I personally don't know which, which is why I didn't change it back when someone else changed it earlier in the week. The problem is that we need a reliable source that gives the dates. Your records of what used to be on the Disney web site don't help much, because it's not verifiable by anyone else. We need a good, professional web site (not a wiki or IMDB or a fan site), or a book, or a magazine, or a special feature on a DVD, or something like that. If you can track down something like that and add a citation to the bit that shows the air dates, I'll be very grateful!

On your edit about the Racial Unity Day, I don't quite understand what you wrote,which is why I say it needs an edit. It seems to say that there were (at least) 200 episodes called Racial Unity Day, and that the 200th one had Jesse Jackson on it. Did you mean to say that the 200th episode of the show was a special Racial Unity Day episode? Again, it needs a citation, something to back up the claim that no other TV show ever had anything like this. (Or you can delete the claim, and just say that this show did have it, not that no other shows ever had it.) And what does "a none-show importance" mean? I can't begin to figure that one out. Anyway, I've gone on too long here. I just want to say that I admire your passion, and I share your desire to make the article more accurate; but there are Wikipedia rules about reliable sources and so on that we need to follow. If we can find the right source, the dates should stabilize, and if someone changes it again we can point to the source and say, "No, it's this date. See? This verifies it!" Regards.... Karen | Talk | contribs 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Karen, if you have yahoo email/messenger I can provide you the source about the MMC thing. And I understand completly but you also deleted the schedule days that the other series had which i don't understand.74.195.3.199 01:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HYeah I meant 200th episode. I must've left it out.

Your Edits to the Discussion Page of the Flavorette

Please don't add comments like these because they violate WP:CRYSTAL. Thank you. Real96 10:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. How do they "violate".74.195.3.199 00:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They violate WP:CRYSTAL. The entire show hasn't been shown, yet, and speculation that you have made in regards to the show are unverifiable. They also conflict with "no original research as well." Also, please keep a civil tone in responding. Thank you. Real96 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you high or something? And what does it have to do with "original reasearch" dude?74.195.3.199 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:no original research for the answer to your questions. Again, please be civil with your tone in answering conflict questions. Thank you. Real96 01:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am civil and that page doesn't even answer my question nor explain anything.01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask an administrator or an experienced user if you have any questions regarding policy. This issue is closed with me. Real96 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiiiiiiight. I'll just repost it whenever.74.195.3.199 02:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PROO in a nutshell

Wikipedia needs verifiable and reliably sourced information. Kyl and BurgundyRanger fall under the part of the reliable sources guideline that concerns Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet.

Since people such as ourselves are not privy to the information that Kyl and Burg get via their jobs affiliated with the Disney Company, the information they provide cannot be reliably sourced to anyone but themselves, and Wikipedia cannot use that information.

Additionally, since most of the information cannot be sources, it is removed because Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That article had way too many spoilers for a series that will not air for another month. And unlike information at Jyuken Sentai Gekiranger, we cannot source the spoilers to magazine scans yet. All that we know is what is on Disney's website and what comes out in the preview commercials.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw this on the other page. Thanks.74.195.3.199 01:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for disruptive behavior. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the fuck was I disruptive, all I did was post information that was true and the JPG kept deleting, lying and saying it was violation. I was one step from deleting his page before i got this message.74.195.3.199 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot accept that information because it is an extreme form of copyright violation. No one is jealous, and we are not saying that you guys are incredibly wrong with the information. We need verifiable proof that what has been released is true. If the Wikipedia surfer can see where the information comes from originally, then we can say, "Oh, the first episode is Lorem ipsum," or, "John Doe plays the part of the Green Ranger." However, Kyl, Burg, and yourself cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia's guidelines on such. We can never really use primary sources on Wikipedia. Even in the rare case of autobiographies, we should really use other forms of information.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting the full text of a long post on another website is a copyright violation. By the way, your threat to vandalise my userpage isn't appreciated. jgp T C 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I realise that but thats just retarted to eve sit down and explain bit by bit. Its obvious it comes from California where they have releases EVERY fucking year. How is it violation if you think its fake? Thats very contradictory dude.74.195.3.199 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We only have your word and your community reliance to work off of. If there's a print source that states the same information, we can use that as a reference. However, information coming from an industry insider is another issue entirely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And like I said, you can ask Kyle and Burgundy (Jim) as well. They don't hate you at least thats what Kyle told me.74.195.3.199 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, but een if I am given access to the same sources, I still can't really use them. I'd still be a primary source, like Kyle and Jim. And they might get in trouble with their employers if it was discovered that they did release this information (unless they are meant to be leaks).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're the latter. Sorry for cursing at you. I'm like Clay covering Kelly's face this afternoon. LOL. And all you have to do is register at that site and contribute and you can get info too. I dont see why Wiki trip like they do but sources like MTV, CNN are given lee-way.74.195.3.199 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLOCKAGE APPEAL

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).

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

Request reason:

IT WAS FUCKING UNFAIR

Decline reason:

WP:CIVIL. -- Yamla 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Why is it declined? That's not fair.74.195.3.199 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

With regards to your comments on Talk:Anna Nicole Smith: 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 may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack anyone.74.195.3.199 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Talk:Two-A-Days

Please keep Wikipedia nice and clean. You may repost your comment without swearing and yelling. Yelling = SPEAKING IN CAPS. Otherwise, I argee with your sentiments - everyone should identify themselves when they post. Thanks for pointing that out, though I hope you do it in a more reasonable fashion. Thanks. --.ιΙ Inhuman14 Ιι.^{( talk | contrib)} 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, cutey.74.195.3.199 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gekiranger

You are on your last legs with the incivil commentary. But I will answer your questions, anyway.

We know the title of one episode of Gekiranger because it is on the Gekiranger website. You can see "Niki-niki! Fierce Beast-Fist" (「ニキニキ！激獣拳」, Nikiniki! Gekijūken) on that page. We do not have the same for PROO yet.

The discussion is about the transliteration of the kanji for Beast-Fist (獣拳, jūken) for the title of the article, and how it is either transliterated by any of the following:

tv asahi
Bandai of Japan
Terebi Magazine
TV-Nihon

Because we do not have a DVD box to compare against, such as Magiranger's or Boukenger's. You can clearly see there that they say "Mahou Sentai Magiranger" and "GoGo Sentai Boukenger" on the boxes, and that is the transliteration we will be using for Wikipedia, as it is as official as we can get.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why getting angry, its just a simple comment. I'm telling the truth. The show still hasn't aired so how is that the title? And who gives a f*ck we always knew it was Magiranger.74.195.3.199 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about "Magiranger" or "Boukenger". This is about the kanji part.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit.

Talk:Mika (singer)

Please do not make personal attacks on Wikipedia (diff). Or, if you were referring to the artist himself, these kinds of comments are not constructive either. ConDem^Talk 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal attack how?74.195.3.199 13:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were calling the editor who made the comment a "dumb fuck", then that's a personal attack. If you were referring to Mika, then that's equally unconstructive. ConDem^Talk 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the person above me in that post. User:74.195.3.199|74.195.3.199]] 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

These kind of comments are not allowed. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and remember to be civil. ConDem^Talk 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack. People just need to stop acting like wimps when someone says something they don't like.74.195.3.199 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was civilly expressing his opinion. Uncivil omments like yours are unacceptable on Wikipedia. ConDem^Talk 14:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I expressed mine's. And he's not an editor.74.195.3.199

You have made another personal attack here (diff), after my warning. If you continue making personal attacks, you will be blocked. ConDem^Talk 14:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with you? You're not a moderator or administrator. And if he's an idiot, he's an idiot. He's not posting here so how is that a "personal attack.", Also, if you were smart, you'd know I posted that WAY BEFORE I even met you74.195.3.199 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The attack here (diff) was made at 13:07, February 15, 2007. My warning was at 02:47, 15 February 2007. ConDem^Talk 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted that last night, BEFORE your warning. I don't see why it says 2/15.74.195.3.199

Either way, please do not make this kind of comment. You clearly make useful and constructive edits to articles, so there is no need to risk a block by making personal attacks. ConDem^Talk 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, thanks.74.195.3.199 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Talk Page comment

Cursing on someone's Talk Page is considered a personal attack under Wiki policy, and may lead to a block. WP:CIVIL.

Also, in reference to your KI edits, what is appropriate for an independent webpage is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. It's not a collection of minutae. Copying from another site isn't cool either. If you don't like Wiki policies, I suggest you start your own page where you can do things your way. We work by Wiki's rules here, not yours. DanielEng 19:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that? And I didn't intend to curse, I just got fed up. I'm recommending for that page to be deleted anyways. Its not up to par and is really shitty.74.195.3.199 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea why I'm going to attempt to reason with you here, but hey, I figure I should take the high road, even though you're really trying my patience with your constant incivility.

Please have another read of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and remember to be civil. You can't go around insulting and swearing at other people here, even if you're "fed up." It doesn't matter what you do IRL, on Wiki these are the rules. This isn't your personal site to do as you wish.

This is not an insult, but an observation: Do you understand that every time you swear, refuse to listen to others and ignore the rules of the community, you just make yourself look foolish? You aren't hurting anyone's feelings or upsetting anyone; you're just making others here respect you and your edits less and less, and you're setting yourself up to be blocked again. And again.

Also, in reference to the KI page, if the page is not up to par, it's largely because of the junk like the irrelevant triva you keep adding; and the fact that editors have to spend time removing it instead of finding other ways to improve the article. If you'd have read the WP references (which have been referred to you several times by many people), you'd understand why your changes keep getting deleted. Triva needs to be notable and sourced. I've been through the KI.us page, and I can't find a single reference to the trivia point you insist on keeping in the article. If it's in the Forums or on the tagboards, that does not count. Also, if it's on the KI.us page, which is readily available as a link (and is NOT official, despite your belief), it doesn't need to be repeated here. As I've told you before, and others have told you, Wiki's not a fan site. The page is about the show, not every random actor in the country. If the triva truly belongs there, you will be able to come up with a valid and plausible reason why it's essential for readers to know, and why that actress deserves a mention for a show she wasn't even on. Otherwise, it doesn't belong there. And if I don't delete it, I can almost guarantee that someone else will. DanielEng 11:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? And you had to say ALL THIS? WHats up with that? Why are you even running the page when you know crap about it?74.195.3.199 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* you really aren't going to understand anything anyone says to you, are you? Even when editors try to tell you nicely what you're doing wrong, you just don't listen. Hey, though, if you really enjoy being blocked and having every edit on every page you make deleted, that's your choice, I guess. Seems like a waste of time, though.

I'm not "running" anything; I'm simply trying to keep the page from becoming the cesspool it was before. And I'm not going to justify what I know or don't know about the show. It's obvious I'm familiar with it, and with the performers. If you really liked the page better the way it was when it was an unedited, unorganized mess, whatever. DanielEng 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Reference to Kids Incorporated edit summary 2/15 23:54; UserTalk page of Daniel Eng

Your posting at Talk:Hatchet (film)

I have removed the commentary on the film that you posted on this talk page. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - they should make it clear that talk pages are to discuss improving articles only. Anyone who has seen this or other movies, or has read a book or seen a play, probably has an opinion about it. Such opinions are not welcome here at Wikipedia. You can post your opinions at places like the Internet Movie Database or on facebook.com or on your personal blog or website, but not at Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, not a chat site. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no fucking sense, just about EVERY talk page here discusses stuff other than IMPROVING articles and its not really fair.74.195.3.199 00:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've read a great deal more talk pages than you have, so I'll be blunt: you're wrong. Most comments on most talk pages are about the article; some are arguments about other editors (generally inappropriate); and very few are of the type "George Bush is a great president" or "George Bush sucks". And the last type is often removed, as I did with your comment.

"Fairness" has nothing to do with this. You're required to follow the rules here. If you don't want to do that, you should leave. If you don't leave, and you don't follow rules, you'll be blocked. You're welcome to remove any film reviews or similar that you find on other talk pages; if someone objects, just let me know.

Please do not post your inappropriate comment a third time. You now clearly understand that it is against policy; posting it again would constitute vandalism. Given that you already have been blocked twice for incivility, I suggest that you consider yourself on probation and focus on improving articles and nothing else. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

Will you calm down? From what I see, the video is leaked onto YouTube, but calling us bastards is the last straw for me. If you continue to be disruptive in your comments, you will be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for 31 hours for ignoring these and all past warnings concerning your incivility on talk pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

guy got angry because he was wrong

Decline reason:

You've had numerous warnings. Please take them seriously. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, you've been caught using a sockpuppet to try and evade your block earlier. That should be reason enough to extend your block; it certainly won't result in you being unblocked. jgp T C 08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use no fucking sockpuppet dude. And I need an unblock, now!!74.195.3.199 08:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boukenger looks like it is clearly you, even without a need for a checkuser. Please refrain from attacking people in future. Comment on content, not on people. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's me. Got a problem with it? And I'll do so as I please, got that? If I see something thats wrong I'm going to comment on it, regardless of the rules. I'm not gonna let someone ruin something otherwise and then everyone else a bad rep. Thank you.74.195.3.199 05:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's your choice, but continuing to attack people rather than content may see you blocked blocked permanently from editing by an administrator from editing Wikipedia after continuing to ignore numerous civility warnings. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 09:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, then.

Strong Attacks?

He called me a flipping dick and went on and on and you dont say anything to Ryulong? That's totally unfair even for Wiki standards. I'm not gonna stand for that, especially when I make a point and are right.74.195.3.199 04:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Unnecessary blockage

Decline reason:

I don't think so. At this point, you've had several warnings, and even prior blocks, and show no signs of even considering a change in your behavior. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Actually I was Luna until what Ryu did to me so you can't put that all on me. No, I don't think so.

That was after what Ryu said so don't try to play me and erase what he said first by JPC. You guys' behavior is absolutely atrocious and very unfair and biased. I see why people leave here as often as they do 74.195.3.199 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, wait, so Ryulong happened to link m:DICK (a famous essay) once, so you're magically allowed to swear and insult as many people as you want, as viciously as you want? If I missed Ryulong actually saying anything more serious, by all means, drop a diff link, and I'll look into it. At present, though, the message isn't getting through. You'll always catch more flies with honey, remember. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DID I NOT JUST SAY, JPC reverted it back, my god. How's there gonna be a link when it was through History which is why I responded in the manner in which I did, iight. I have no problems with you so don't approach me as if I'm the only one in this now. Thank you. Also, regardless of "civility" its all about how you approach a person and the conversations going on. You can't talk to people like that in the real world especially when their correcting your mistake or know something better than another individual. If you did, you'd get hurt or cause conflicts.74.195.3.199 05:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked for a diff -- they can't be faked, funged, or altered as evidence. If you go to a page's history tab, there's a record of who made every change, when, and what they changed. Right now, I don't think I missed anything, but I have been wrong, before -- if there's a really nasty diff I need to see, it'd be helpful if you linked it for me. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that Luna. Didnt mean to come off as a brat.74.195.3.199 06:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out, that although I consider this user's behavuour uncivil, and while i fully support the numerous blocks, that here Ryulong did call the user a dick, which, as it says at the top of the m:DICK page (I know it's recent, but it's obvious), is not a good use of the essay. This behaviour is at worst uncivil, and at the best feeding the trolls. ConDem^Talk 12:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really "feeding" me as I'm not a troll, but I thought we settled our beef which is why I did what I did, and I still realize that its unacceptable so I'll just sit out my block.74.195.3.199 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're not a troll, then you will no longer intentionally disrupt Wikipedia in the way that you have when your block expires. ConDem^Talk 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not "intentional" and to answer you, thanks. If you would like to know the circumstances then thats fine with me but also Condem, you're making it seem like I get off flaming people, if that.74.195.3.199 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/74.195.3.199 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

DanielEng 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson v. State

Cool off on your comments at Wilson v. State. Talk pages are for discussing improving the article, not for discussing current events. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.