This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
block
im not being blocked... NANANA BOOBOO BLOCK ME.....
I DARE YA
I can just restart my rotur and start again!
I WILL SUE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.242.16 (talk)
Good luck with the lawsuit. Not exactly sure what case it is you think you have, but feel free to name me if needed. --Onorem♠Dil 15:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh!
He is not only doing it to your page. I will not revert your page again but I think its considered vandalism. He's done it about 20 times in the last 10 minutes. OtisJimmyOne 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ahh! my bad. OtisJimmyOne 15:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with the TV lawsuit. --Onorem♠Dil 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Superjail/"Edit War"
I did have a source: the ENTIRE FIRST SEASON OF SUPERJAIL! That's what the citation I added was for. 5150pacer (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS. Just saying that the first season is your source doesn't cut it. --Onorem♠Dil 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you make a citation for it then, because there's really no other way to put it. I'm all ears here. Just because it never specifically mentions that they're Scandinavian, monotone and rarely speak to other people, all three observations can be made simply by watching the show. It's something that occurs in every episode and it's more than a little strange because none of it is explained. 5150pacer (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well it's original thought then. Caveat though: it's original thought that's not an opinion. Anyone can draw those conclusions from watching the show...and I must say I owe you a thank-you for being so frictionless on your reasons why my edits don't belong there; it's refreshing to deal with someone who doesn't act like brick wall. I promise I'm going to keep editing it though. sorry. 5150pacer (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
What i'm saying is that there is no source that comments on it, so there can't be a citation can there? 5150pacer (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand that logic, but it's just too enigmatic to leave out of the article. I'm ending the war, but the edits will continue. No disrespect, but it is what it is. 5150pacer (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for getting involved. I've been trying to be civil in this, but I was about to take it to AN/I; now I don't have to. ThuranX (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I'm assuming you're looking forward to being blocked.
You know what happens when you assume, don't you? Wrong. It just makes an ass out of you, not both of us. Actually, I'm kind of shocked at considering that you must think I take Wikipedia as seriously as you do. My life doesn't come crashing down in flames from being blocked, but you seem to think it would end the world of any sane person. In any case though, I'll leave the Superjail page alone if ironclad rules get you off that much. Please do not reply to me as I consider this matter closed. 5150pacer (talk) 8:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Excused
I have a big penis. Will that change your mind?--86.45.130.30 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It won't, but good for you... --Onorem♠Dil 21:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll stop vandalizing now. It's very boring being in an Australian secondary school you now. The internet is the only place to do anything and the first port of call is Wikipedia and what do you know, you think of something funny and you add it to an article and before long you've got four messages telling you to stop vandalizing. Ah well, I'll find something else to do now.
And sorry for wasting your time.--86.45.130.30 (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
Sure, blanking a talk is not vandalism. But I think blanking with warnings are. This is a vandal, getting rid of their warnings. See AIV. AndrewrpTally-ho! 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your comment on AIV. Our friend is operating from a /9. The largest that I can do is a /16, so unfortunately, there's not much to do other than whack-a-mole. J.delanoygabsadds 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Than revert my edits. Come on, you can't vandalize the sandbox catch vandals who vandalize REAL ARTICLES. piss off --The professor with the tinted glasses (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
A friendly note from 166.205.130.139
boo fucking hoo. I'll just find another ip. Get a job you loser and stop living off of my tax money — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.130.139 (talk)
New Zealand readers
"Please stop. I'm sure our New Zealand readers will be able to figure it out for themselves."
Doubt it all you want. Your edits are not helpful. --Onorem♠Dil 06:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm merely attempting to help our somewhat less capable cousins across the pond.
Oh, and that's Onorim for New Zealanders. You may want to add that to your page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.44.15 (talk)
I'll consider the suggestion, and once again suggest you stop. --Onorem♠Dil 06:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Michael Jackson
Why do they against adding information about Michael Jackson ? I wanted to add the information about Michael Jackson's conversion to Islam in 2008. I also gave 2 relevant sources. Also, Jermaine Jackson, whose brother also witness of conversion cerenomy. Why do they against adding information he recently died as together lie of consensus ? I am sensible to their biased behavior. Please, they stop refuging to consensus lie.--Cemsentin1 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2009
June 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Billy Mays. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Onorem♠Dil 13:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No it does not. You were at three...which also does not violate 3RR. The warning is supposed to prevent you from breaking the rule. --Onorem♠Dil 23:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You are spamming templates to regulars with is only insulting, plus original edits are not reverts and 3RR is 24 hours. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Re:
Is there a user warning available for disruptive editing that does not technically qualify as vandalism? I will begin using that instead, if so. But calling this a "content dispute" gives it an intellectual legitimacy that it is far from possessing; this is one of several dozen anonymous edits that will happen this week by teenagers fighting over the genres of their favorite or least favorite band. I look forward to this page being semi-protected again in a few days. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if he has a history of doing this, because he is anonymous, and dynamic IPs are common. Regardless, I don't see why an anonymous editor who repeatedly removes information from a page without providing a reason, and who ignores requests to take it to the talk page, should ever be taken seriously, and I have no plans to do so. Chubbles (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It is an absolute fact that Black surrounded himself with jews, married a jewess, bought assets in Israel, bought Israeli gov't bonds, and was a jew-ophile. I don't have a problem with that guy rearranging the discussion in a different way, but to just blank out the entire discussion of Black's obsession with jews and things jewish is out of line. I put it back in so that it can be re-arranged in a constructive way. But to blank it out - without that discussion in there, there is nothing - absolutely nothing - absolutely nothing at all - in either the bio of Black or on his Discussion page about his obessesion with jews and judaism for the past 40 years - it's laughable to leave something like that out - somebody who didn't know anythign about Black would read that Wiki bio of him and would miss an entire side of the man - a very large side of the man. It's an example of an extreme bias at Wikipedia - you cannot mention jews. It's like the entries of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors - there is no notation made that the majority of the governors of the Federal Reserve have been jewish for the past 15 years (go down the list: Chairman Alan Greenspan (replaced by Ben Bernanke), Vice-Chairman Donald Kohn, members Frederic Mishkin, Ronald Krozner, and the kid - the 35-year-old kid Kevin Warsh - now he claims he isn't jewish . . . . . but a rabbi officiated at his wedding (he married Jane Lauder, daughter of Ronald Lauder of the jewish Estee Lauder Cosmetics fortune) - yet nowhere is it noted that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has been jewish for years now. Oh well, let's hide the fact that Conrad Black is in love with everything jewish (well, he WAS until they turned on him). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.175 (talk)
Have reliable sources commented on the issue? --Onorem♠Dil 20:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Depends on how you look at it. Reliable sources certainly document that the people he put on his board are majority jewish (when one would normally expect only about 1 in 75 to be jewish), and he married a jew, and he bought newspapers, and he bought the Jerusalem Post, and he was a big supporter of Israel. Certainly those things can be said - but it verboten to put all that together in one place in a mainstream newspaper. But it might be in "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy":
I'm sure it's mentioned in websites from muslim countries, but America and Europe are slanted towards judeo-christianity - surely you must know this. This stuff is openly talked about in Japan, but how do you put a Japanese newspaper link up??? A big problem with Wikipedia is that it is restricted to mostly North American and UK, Australian, South African sources. It also gets talked about a LOT in Switzerland, Austria, Germany and Scandinavia - but can we put a German-language link up??? In Switzerland, for example, these days you can say ANYTHING about the jews - you can call them "dirty jews" - ANYTHING - because of what Edgar Bronfman did, but it's all in German (or French or Italian) (Bronfman did a great job of turning an entire country against the jews - and what did he get out of it??? - almost nothing). But I think it can certainly be said that "Conrad Black stacked his board of directors with jews" - because it is fact, and just name them (in fact, they were named, and that is part of what that guy blanked/deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.175 (talk)
Foreign language sources are allowed, just not preferred. Reliable sources may document that the majority of people he put on his board were jewish, but do they make an issue of it, or simply document it?
"Bronfman did a great job of turning an entire country against the jews - and what did he get out of it??? - almost nothing" - If that's phrased the way you meant it to be, I don't believe I have any interest in discussing the issue with you further. --Onorem♠Dil 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not get it. This editor in question has reverted for the eighth time so far today on this article. That is more than twice the violation of the 3-Revert rule. However, he is still allowed to edit back to the same controversial unsource information. Lets face it. This editor is not going to back down in his unreasonable ways no matter how much sense you talk into him. I have tried to be patient and be civil about this. But what I seen so far between you and him, it's not going to work. Editors including myself have been block in the past for the 3RR rule on Biographies of Living People articles, no matter whose fault it is. No offense, what's even worse is that you are allowing this nonese to go on for as long as it has. You want me to be appropriate, I am willing. But this is a two-way street, and nobody like this editor in question should be allowed a free pass like you are giving him now, more or less. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Stop saying useless stuff to me.
Stop sending me offensive messages.Stop sending me dumb messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.185.75 (talk)
Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married
Undisputed in Quick’s Wikipedia entry is that she is “currently married to a Squawk producer.” The source is Gawker.com, dated Jan. 19, 2009, which mentions Quick “recently married” the producer. Gawker.com’s likely source for this information is Richard Johnson’s column of the same date in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/gossip/pagesix/squawking_season_at_cnbc_150882.htm). Johnson writes that Quick married the producer a few months ago. AND that Quick was previously married to a computer programmer.
The Wikipedia entry also cites a 2006 profile on Quick in The New York Times. In that report, the Times writes that she was married at that time to a computer programmer.
Is the above good enough now to note in Quick’s Wikipedia entry that she was previously married?
Welcome to Wikipedia
Point taken. Clarification did seem important, considering what a banned user had been through today.
As Quick as that
You've been a most righteous dude throughout everything. Thanks!
It is vandalism when the same 2 trolls are the only ones that keep removing information that is relevant to the article. Heck one of them even talks with another person in their discussion section on how to make right wing people look better.
Also your own edit was removed as they did not like the negative mark it left on Beck.
Look at my edits and you will see that I have removed left and right wing trolls BS and try to make the articles less biased and more truthful.
--Marlin1975 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Doug Church aka Shaun Wilson censors own wiki page?
Hi, I very rarely edit wikipedia (save to revert obvious vandalism when I see it) but thought it worth mentioning to you that a recent blanking of a talk page you reverted was perpetrated by someone going by the name Doug Church. Why this is interesting is that Doug Church is a know alias of Shaun Wilson, the very guy the article is about. Evidence that this is a known alias can be found here: http://www.pica.org.au/downloads/37/Australian_Gothic_Roomsheet.pdf (second page last line before references)
More interestingly the information he/she tried to remove was suggesting that the article read like a resume and was in need of trimming… how interesting is that? :¬) If that was Shaun he's obviously trying to suppress allegations that the article reads like he wrote it… which suggests he definitely wrote it. ;¬)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Wilson
I'm bringing this to your attention because I lack the experience to know what action (if any) would be most appropriate. While I respect him as an artist I do not believe a person has the right to 'own' their wikipedia page and to manipulate in order to more effectively self-promote. Wikipedia was founded on more noble ideas than that!
For your information Mr. Onorem, get your facts straight.....Taiwan IS a democratic island country officially known as the Republic of China (Taiwan) that for simplicity's sake is known as simply "Taiwan". It appears you have either never read about Taiwan or pretend that Taiwan doesn't exist as country in order to push your Pro-People's Republic of China lies. Stop it! We can also block you as well!
If you want sources of info that confirm that Taiwan is a country please visit the following websites:
1.) www.president.gov.tw Official website of the Republic of China (Taiwan) Presidential Office
2.) www.gio.gov.tw Official website of Taiwan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.221.59 (talk)
I don't appreciate people putting crap on my page when I simply write the truth that Taiwan is a country officially known as the Republic of China (Taiwan), you write crap accusations on my page accussing me of violating some stupid 3 reverts rule when you and your pro-PRC accomlices gang up on outsiders who try to write the truth about Taiwan.
If you truly do not care about the polical status of the country of Taiwan, then quit editing nonsense. The site..Wikipedia is not about corrupted consensus which essentially what is happening here on this....a bunch of pro-PRC supporters constantly monitering this page 24 hours a day, 7 days a week trying to push your pro-PRC lies that Taiwan is some kind of "province" or "territory" of the communist People's Republic of China.
Are you a Communist Chinese agent working for the People's Republic of China conducting media war? If so..then you better quit!
Everyone on wikipedia will see this and all the things you have written and done here!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.221.59 (talk)
I. Don't. Care. --Onorem♠Dil 02:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This IP editor has been blatantly making WP:POV edits, personal attacks and other bad-faith nonsense. Just ignore him for the time being, he should be taking a nap soon, it's past his bed time. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail 03:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Apology.
Sorry about that. I thought he was trying to blame it on BenliSquare so he wouldn't get in trouble. That's from my point of view, though. - Zhang He (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
That's very likely the case. I'm assuming once an admin gets around to reviewing the issue, they'll be able to decide for themselves what has actually happened. --Onorem♠Dil 04:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
indentation
I just did that because it is much easier to read with continued indentation.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 14:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not easier to read when you expect indented comments to be replies to the last comment with one less level of indentation. He wasn't replying to you, so his post shouldn't be indented in a way that makes it look like a reply to you. --Onorem♠Dil 14:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
(late message) Sorry about that. Is this better?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I see now that it was true, but the source you used before didn't mention his death...so it wasn't appropriate to add at that time. --Onorem♠Dil 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That's one way to go. I find it easier to collaborate when people are willing to discuss their edits rather than do blanket reverts that cover several months without bringing their issues to the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
you are the cancer in the system
and i hate you for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.83.252 (talk)
I didn't realize that I was cancer. I hate myself a little bit too now that I know. --Onorem♠Dil 10:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You Think You Can Block Me?
So you think you can block me? I can just restart my router/renew my IP address and then I will be able to edit again. It's very easy to outsmart Wikipedia! --219.79.68.187 (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Congrats! You're the first to figure it out. Wikipedia will now fall because there's a pov pusher out there that knows how to renew an IP address. It's too bad there's not a way to block a range of IPs, or semi-protect articles, in case of persistent block evaders. --Onorem♠Dil 13:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry things aren't going well for you over there. It may not be fair, but all you can control is how you react to the editors your working with. Try to stay patient and understand that it can be very difficult to parse your comments...and that many of the people who aren't aware of the situation will simply see your statements as gibberish. Hope things get better for you. --Onorem♠Dil 12:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Just for information purposes: What you are saying is that everything on Wikipedia has to be referenced?
I can thus remove anything that is not referenced?
Is that correct?Antihase (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I mean some things are generally accepted and thus do not have to be referenced, is that not so?
I mean, if someone stays in school till 21 it is generally accepted that the person has the characteristic of completing what he or she has started, is that not so?
---
I am not sure if I am supposed to interject here, but since antihase has brought up a point that I myself has had trouble with, I hope you will indulge me.
I believe that Wikipedia is USA-centric in the sense that admins here are not aware that obtaining references is much more difficult in countries where there is not lot of material posted to the web. When I joined Wikipedia not too long ago I was given a hard time by an admin who just could not perceive that a candidate in a general election in Canada does not have any notable web references. The (American) admins at Wikipedia were intent on removing the article of this political candidate altogether, while anyone living in Canada would have laughed at their ignorance. Candidate names were all well-known in Canada even though it was extremely difficult to prove notability for Wikipedia purposes.
This may explain the reason Wikipedia is not as popular in Canada (let alone other countries where web access is very limited) – it is simply less relevant to Canadians, possibly because of its US-centric policies?
Ottawahitech (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt that finding notable web references can be more difficult in some places, and about some subjects. References don't need to be online, but they do need to exist. Drawing conclusions that aren't supported by references is original research, no matter what country you're in. --Onorem♠Dil 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Onorem:
I understand the dilemma. All I am saying is that it is quite difficult to provide references acceptable to Wikipedia without being able to cite a "respectable" web source. I believe Wikipedia should provide more guidance to wannabe contributors who lack this resource on how to go about substantiating their contributions.
Ottawahitech (talk)
RE: November 2009
I tryed to talk with him, but nothing. For this reason i contacted Realist2. SJ (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning Onorem. We are in th process of discussing it now. Sometimes these kings get heated and everybody thinks there right. A Star Is Here (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
SORRY ABOUT THAT
I HAVE A FRIEND AND SHE VANDALISED YOUR JACQUELINE WILSON SITE. SHE TOLD ME TO TELL YOU: sorry she did not know what she was doing and she is usally very good.
SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITALS I NEEDED TO GET YOUR ATTENTION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.133.142 (talk)
Message from L sample
"I have also removed the history sections for both Pocomo and Douglas from the article, United Rugby Club. These sections were also direct copies http://www.unitedrugby.ca/jm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=31. If you have used copyright material in any of your other recent edits, please help by trying to find and remove them yourself. --Onorem 12:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)"
I have not logged on for some time but just to let you know, at the time I was on the club executive and I WROTE THE CLUB HISTORY!!! so in other words I have the copywrite and they have borrowed my content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L sample (talk • contribs)
Just saying you own the copyright is not enough. Please read WP:IOWN. --Onorem♠Dil 13:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect minor edit!!
You want to talk about proper edits, you can't mark an edit minor when it is not. So get off your high horse and stop telling me what to do when you break the rules too. 128.104.truth (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC) (p.s. Adding a reference does fix the problem people have with it.)
My mistake. I didn't realize that my twinkle setup was labeling rollbacks as minor. Thank you for pointing that out. I'll look into changing that setting. --Onorem♠Dil 16:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, if you revert my edit of Brittny Gastineauyou will be breaking the three revert rule. I will have only reverted it twice because my first edit today was adding new information. 128.104.truth (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Please spend more time learning the rules before you try to inform me about them. --Onorem♠Dil 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Not my fault that it should actually be called the four-revert rule instead of the three-revert rule. Three-revert rule makes it sound like three strikes and you're out. I'm not even a baseball guy and that analogy makes the naming sound perfectly bad. 128.104.truth (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't care to discuss 3RR with you. Go read a tabloid or something. --Onorem♠Dil 17:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I rarely bet, but I'd bet good money that of the two of us I have the higher education. So enjoy your daily snooze papers. 128.104.truth (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That very well may be, but I'm not quite sure what it has to do with anything. Enjoy your higher education. --Onorem♠Dil 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Poverty Userbox
Thanks for removing this box from the humour page. There was a talk page item on it at Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Wikipedia/humour#Poverty_userbox, and I have tied it up as a result of your edit. Basically you beat me to removing the box again! - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Oops. Wish I would've noticed the discussion, but was simply following the user's edits after I saw he'd made a few very questionable changes. Glad it's all going to work out anyway. --Onorem♠Dil 13:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem - your action was the right one, you were just being more bold than I was! - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think they were trolling. I do think it's obvious that they don't feel like answering your unrelated question. They have no obligation to answer to you...just like you have no obligation to aid with their query. From what I can see, this anon has a history of useful edits, and I don't think it's at all likely that this was intended to be trolling. --Onorem♠Dil 03:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It is unfair for him to bring up a fact and then refuse to discuss it. I conclude that he doesn't really want an answer to the question. That's trolling. And since it's an IP address, you can't draw any conclusions from other edits, because there could be any number of editors on that IP over time. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see where 'fair' comes into it...and while I don't feel like looking for the discussions about them, I am fairly sure that this is a static IP that has a history of being useful. If you think they're a troll, stop answering. There's no harm in ignoring them. If they aren't a troll, there is harm in removing their question without even using an edit summary. --Onorem♠Dil 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I ask him if he can find a youtube of the music he's looking for. He says "I don't do youtube". Then when I ask him to elaborate, he claims it's "off topic". He brought up the topic. He's basically saying "F.U." to someone trying to help him. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
So unless you object, I will again remove the section, this time with an edit summary. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
First, I do object. Please leave it alone and instead just ignore him. You think he's a troll. I don't. I'm not sure I can say anything that will convince you otherwise...and since it's really unimportant, I don't think I'm going to try. Who cares why he doesn't 'do internet video'... Any of your suggestions are possible. Maybe it's a bad connection. Maybe they're paranoid about potential viruses. In any case, the answer to your question has nothing to do with their question. Does it make it tougher to answer? Sure. Does it make the original question an attempt at trolling? Not necessarily. --Onorem♠Dil 03:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
And I object, here as in real life, when I make a good faith effort to help someone and their response to me is a bad faith, symbolic "F.U." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Message from 65.82.134.3
thansk for the info. I thought all articles and talk pages kept content as a history, I didn't realize we could delete from our own talk page. Won't happen again! didn't know, thanks--B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.134.3 (talk)
Not everyone knows
I hate to break it to you kid, but not everyone in society or world knows about S.W.A.T, Ninja, or Special Forces. Much less know about what they do and how they compare in relation to regular cops or regular military forces. The term "elite" when used with the above mentioned names serves to educate the less informed members of the public about what we do as soldiers and cops in Special Operations. Perhaps you might be annoyed by it, but we are not here to make you happy. We are here to create accurate articles that will educate uninformed people who are coming to Wikipedia as a free source of encyclopedic information.
You need to educate yourself so that you know what we Special Forces operators do and represent, so read the following article from
Dean Rostohar
Shihan Bujinkan Ninjutsu Croatia
Member of the Special Police forces "Alfa" /retired/
You don't know me. Please feel free to not call me 'kid' again. Your additions are obviously biased and, in almost every case, poorly sourced. I'm sorry if you don't like to hear it, but I'm also not here to make you happy. --Onorem♠Dil 22:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
apologies
I am very sorry for my vandalism. you have set me on the right path. on wikipedia and in life. Cheeselor19 (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
That's great news. I'm happy for you. --Onorem♠Dil 21:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Billy Mays. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Onorem♠Dil 13:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Republic of China (Taiwan) that for simplicity's sake is known as simply "Taiwan". It appears you have either never read about Taiwan or pretend that Taiwan doesn't exist as country in order to push your Pro-People's Republic of China lies. Stop it! We can also block you as well!
