User talk:Kevin j

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

{{User WikiProject Films}}

Hello, Kevin j, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Powers 23:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Doc 23:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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. Powers ^T 02:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Monday Night Wars 2 The Simpsons 3 Lincoln edits 4 Regarding edits to National Wrestling Alliance 5 Regarding edits to Jim Crockett Promotions 6 Your edits to Hulk Hogan 7 Breach of three-revert rule 8 April 2007 9 Your edit to TNA Lockdown 10 President pro tempore of the United States Senate 11 Please cite sources 12 Paramount bankruptcy 13 Max Fleischer 14 Walt Disney 15 Edit summaries 16 September 2007 17 Ultimate Warrior's hatred of Gays 18 October 2007 19 Re: Mickey Mouse 20 References 21 What is prolific? 22 November 2007 23 Classic TV Links 24 Please use edit summaries 25 In response 26 Changes to Jack Warner 27 Award 28 Jack Warner FAC 29 Valentino 30 Please use the 'Show preview' button when you edit 31 Edit warring at Rudolph Valentino 32 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard 33 in re: User:Thegingerone 34 White supremacy 35 Last warning 36 March 2008 37 edit war 38 Blocked 39 The block was based with Bias Accusations 40 Valentino 41 WP:Films Welcome 42 Valentino 43 Amber Lee Ettinger

[edit] Monday Night Wars

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. One Night In Hackney 23:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons

Hi. You need a better ref for the information you added to the Simpsons. It has to hold exactly the same information you are writing. --Maitch 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln edits

Thanks for your Lincoln edits to the Ku Klux Klan article.[1] Because this is such a contentious article (for obvious reasons), can you provide the references for your added material. This will help us maintain the already high standards of the article, which is at featured article level. If you need help formatting the references, just let me know. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to National Wrestling Alliance

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Kevin j! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Jim Crockett Promotions

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Kevin j! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule proboards\d{1,3}\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Hulk Hogan

Please stop re-adding your content to Hulk Hogan. Numerous editors have reverted your edits. Unless you have anything to add to the article that will improve its quality, please do not alter it. Your edits have not been very encyclopedic, and read more like a fan site. Thanks Gretnagod 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breach of three-revert rule

WP:AN/3RR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gretnagod (talk • contribs) 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid64 01:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to The Maltese Falcon (1941 film), is not consistent with our policy on attribution and verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ronbo76 21:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to The Maltese Falcon (1941 film), is considered vandalism and may result in a block. --PhantomS 21:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to TNA Lockdown

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. TJ Spyke 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. . There are TWO warnings on the page that say not to add stuff until they are announced on TV or TNA's website. TJ Spyke 00:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] President pro tempore of the United States Senate

Your edit to President pro tempore of the United States Senate was incorrect. It is not the oldest Senator who is traditionally the President pro tempore, it is the Senator in the majority with the most seniority. Cheers, JCO312 03:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please cite sources

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Walt Disney, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

More of your edits have been removed because of a lack of proper sources and/or it contained trivia information which did not add value to the article as a whole. Some of the information may be better suited in their own pages, with simply links. Details about the Mickey Mouse Club, for example, should be on its own page. There is no need for specific details, especially trivia, on Walt Disney page. Thank you. Tiggerjay 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paramount bankruptcy

(Cross-posted on Talk:Fleischer Studios.)

I originally removed the mention of Paramount bankruptcy because I had not heard of it before and no reference was cited. It was added again, this time with a reference. OK, I believe you, but what is the point of mentioning it here? What impact did it have on the Fleischers?

I also removed it because it was placed as an interruption between two related sentences.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. Please show me how the brief bankruptcy and reorganization of Paramount is relevant here. Make it pertinent, and it'll stay. --Bigscarymike 20:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max Fleischer

Kevin j, I've invited you previously to make a case for your additions to this article. Please be aware that Wikipedia articles should be readable, not just random jumblings of facts. I removed your recent additions to Max Fleischer because they did not flow well, and unnecessarily emphasized points that had already been made.

Although I appreciate your enthusiasm, please consider whether your contributions enhance the articles in question, or simply clutter them. --Bigscarymike 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Disney

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content of marginal relevance (unnecessary trivia) to articles, as you did to Walt Disney, is not considered productive. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Tiggerjay 20:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. -- Doctormatt 21:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Onorem. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru 21:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Warrior's hatred of Gays

"This is Kevin J telling you I do have a source of his controversies against gays, his own words from his website: his website was the source I listed. If you are a Warrior ass-kisser, I suggest you quit doing it and accept reality."

You have a source for his opinions about gays. You did not provide a source for any controversy. I'm definitely no "Warrior ass-kisser" either. I just prefer that we follow guidelines and policies. Here's a couple for you to look over. (WP:AGF & WP:BLP) --Onorem♠Dil 10:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Mickey Mouse, you will be blocked from editing. Oda Mari (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mickey Mouse

Sorry. Please forgive me. I reverted my mistake. BTW, for external links, just enclose it in single brackets like this [URL]. Oda Mari (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted, however, that your edits to that article are frequently ungrammatical. "Also" does not intensify "too"; use one or the other. --Orange Mike 18:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

About references.

1) They come after punctuation. The ref goes OUTSIDE the punctuation. And, don't double-punctuation the tag:

Text.^[1].

Text^[2].

Text.^[3]

2) Learn to format your references, adding author if available, title, original source, date, publication, hosting site if applicable, etc.

Please read:

Wikipedia:Citing sources and also Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style

See also: Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:ISBN, and Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes

IP4240207xx 22:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is prolific?

Just out curiosity, I want you to reply to me what the word "prolific" mean, even though the dictionary is little help to me. Call me an idiot but that's just life. Help me what that word is and maybe I'll be your friend. You want to find me "Yahoo Messenger" "johnnyauau2000@yahoo.com.au" "Chatroom" "Gameroom". If you're not a Yahoo, then what's the point of being friends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyauau2000 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Your Show of Shows do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classic TV Links

I have finished removing your addition of ratings from this site to a multitude of articles, that were not already removed by other editors. As I explained in the edit summaries and on my talk page, Classic TV is not considered a WP:Reliable Source. A list of Nielsen ratings do not have any place in TV articles and go against the TV article MOS. Reaction to a show, including viewership, should be written as prose and, of course, must use reliable sources. In some of your edits, you also seemed to be interpreting the numbers in ways that was not done in your sources, which goes against the no original research guidelines. Sources must be cited accurated, without adding your own intepretations and views to the statements.

In addition to encouraging you to thoroughly review the reliable source guideline and the WP:V policy, I strongly suggest you take some time to learn how to properly cite and reference sources. In your many edits today, you did make some good edits, but did not properly cite your source using the <ref></ref> tags. I see other editors have already asked you to do this, and I hope this time you will do so. You may also want to study the MOS to see why such sections are neither desired nor appropriate in TV articles. Thanks. Collectonian (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be nonexistent:

Edit summary usage for Kevin j: 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 10 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Extreme Championship Wrestling worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Illnab1024 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In response

Just word them better and I have no problem... seemed rather `crude` from my view on it. -Illnab1024 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Jack Warner

I appreciate your contributions to Jack Warner. At this point, however, the article is an FA candidate, and the changes you made could injure its chances of being promoted by the FAC. The FAC requested that I remove all citations referring to Web sites when the material in question could be obtained through printed sources. At least one reviewer went further and suggested that I avoid using material drawn from Web sites when this material was not supported by printed sources. Personally, I liked the image of Jack Warner being chased and threatened by his brother, Harry. Sadly, I haven't discovered a single reference to this incident in the books, magazine articles, and newspaper stories I consulted. Meanwhile, your references to Warner as a 'womanizer' seemed redundant. The article leaves no doubt that Jack Warner was sexually promiscuous, and its emphasis on his private life has led some reviewers to characterize the piece as "tabloid-ish." References to Warner as a 'womanizer' will deepen this impression and discourage reviewers from treating the article seriously. On the other hand, if you're able to locate a reliable printed source for the anecdote about Harry's attack on Jack, the inclusion of this episode would enhance the article. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kevinj, This is good news! If the story is mentioned in Hollywood Be Thy Name, it's probably credible. Do you have the book on hand? If so, just insert the information in the "References" section at the bottom. Please include the page number, if you have it. I can handle the inline citation, if you prefer. Material from a Web site isn't usually a big problem, but a growing number of FAC reviewers prefer print references. One reviewer made the removal of Web references a virtual precondition for promotion. A print reference to support this story would be great. Thanks! -- twelsht (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed the quote in the following paragraph (where you originally had it) and reformatted the inline citation according to Wikipedia style. This will work nicely. Thanks for finding a print reference! -- twelsht (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for locating additional source material for the current featured article candidate, Jack Warner. Best, twelsht (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Warner FAC

No problem! Thanks for finding the printed source. It definitely enhanced the article. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valentino

Most of your edits are just rehashing of what was already said. Valentino does not have a 'official site'. Its ironic you tell me this isnt a fan site when you are CITING a fan site. Dont start an edit war; seems by your talk page your good at that. My other problem was a lot was not sourced, a lot that was removed WAS sourced by better sources (Emily Leider's book is better then a website) and you threw in personal 'facts' such as his voice wouldnt work in talkies. I think you need to pick up a book dear. --Thegingerone (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a history of fighting trolls and vandals yes. I guess you want to insult me and be part of that list. Grow up, get a life, and learn to cite properly. If you read it in a book then CITE the book! --Thegingerone (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me. Consider that a warning. And on that note please quit reverting perfectly fine edits. I made your edits more readable and encyclopediac without changing the info. You however apparently want to enagege in an edit war which I will not take part of. You need some GOOD sources for this story and unfortanitly with Valentino he has quite a few bad ones out there mixed with a lot of urban legends. Have you even picked up a copy of Emily Leider's 'Dark Lover'? Have you ever heard Valentino's recordings? If not I think you need to stop putting 3rd rate celeberity biographies as sources about something major like talkie transitions as whatever book you read must not have been accurate. --Thegingerone (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Im tired of saying it. You use bad sources. Valentino was never a petty theif; the evidence does not add up. He did not have a squeaky voice; and I put not speculation in there about transitioning talkies as it is something that can not really be proven as it never happened (like I've told you several times). I did not 'write it like a fan page'. The problems between the Fairbanks and Valentino images were very real. Go watch a Fairbanks movie and tell me how much of it is focused on romance. I can cite this with several sources. The 'war' between the two images was a big thing during the early 20s. Thats not a 'fan' thing.

I dont want to edit war with you but I will keep reverting your edits until you use reliable sources and quit putting questionable info in the article. And unless you have anything of worth to say quit leaving comments on my page that make no sense --Thegingerone (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You are abouslutely insane and do as you like; because any admin will block you before they block me. Im done speaking with you after this as you clearly have no clue what your talking about. 1) Thats not opinion and 2) He wasnt the 'first' superstar (Mary Pickford, Fairbanks, Hayakawa, Chaplin would all get a similar title) but he was one of them. Several sources again back that up. Get off your high horse and quit reading trash magazines to write an encyclopediac article. I apparently dont take enough crazy pills to understand what your talking about. Im tired of you. Im done. But I will revert every bad edit you make until someone does something about you. --Thegingerone (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not the name of the book; its the fact that the book itself does not show sources or citations and makes up a lot of things. Why you would think its the name of the book is beyond me but a lot of things you do is beyond me (apparently your not supposed to be commenting to me but here you are). As for your claim hes like Jim Nabors is again wrong. Several sources cite that Valentino by personal accounts had a voice similar to his singing one (deep but heavily accented). Im sure people who were actually alive back then would know better then some 3rd rate buisness book.

And that complaint doesnt answer the rest of mine. You stuck in a bunch of gossip garbage which you got from that uncited book. Why you would want to make bad edits is beyond me. Please reply to me on the Valentino talkpage; Im tired of personal comments from you--Thegingerone (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please use the 'Show preview' button when you edit

Hello Kevin j. In your recent edits at Rudolph Valentino you have done a large number of small edits that fill up the page history. You can make your edits fewer, and more meaningful, if you press 'Show preview' after each small change, and only hit 'Save page' after a large change. If you are willing to do this it would be a big help to the other editors. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring at Rudolph Valentino

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, either way, block or no block, the page has been fully protected. Also, I suggest you look at WP:VAND, especially the section on what vandalism is not. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you don't have to start a new section for each comment. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Kevin, you have now voiced your concern three times in one hour at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Your voice has been heard. Continuing to post the same thing in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard will be seen as harassment or vandalism. Please stay cool when the editing gets hot and don't panic. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] in re: User:Thegingerone

At this point, the content of the dispute is less important than the fact that the dispute is ongoing - it might not be a bad idea to take a step back for a while. Edits such as this one and these don't really help anyone, nor do they solve any dispute at all. I'd recommend backing off and leaving this dispute for another day. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've come to second that request. Please stop posting on Thegingerone's talk page for a bit until you calm down. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have to ask: What resolution are you seeking, exactly? What do you want administrators to do? If it's an acknowledgement that the other user was wrong to edit war as well, you have it - they were warned at the same time as you were. So long as you are civil and do not continue to revert each other, no further administrator action is necessary - so continuing to agitate for such action - or against the other user - may be less than productive, and - in extreme cases - could be viewed as disruptive. With all due respect, I'm not clear on what you hope to gain in pressing the issue. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with you on your dealings with thegingerone (AKA Hala Kuromi) (http://www.MySpace.com/HalaKitty) (http://popstressbabble.blogspot.com/) She has NASTY habits of writing fan articles at very best that are littered with spelling and grammar errors. I have dealt with her MANY times on here. Her writings aren't even remotely encyclopedic and crap at best. Good luck with her. If I were you, I'd refer admins and readers to her talk page where she has been constantly reprimanded for the aforementioned issues since she started writing here. Then have other contributors help you clean up any article she may be destroying. Check out the links above for further verification of her writing "styles." Skyler Morgan (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

TragedyStriker You do know that admins can look at page histories? You too have been constantly repremanded on your own talk page but you wipe the warnings off. Stop stirring. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Please make sure you read it because I'm warning you this has to stop. Do not post on his talk page again, do not follow him to any more articles. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White supremacy

Please desist from making your disgusting racist allegations against Theresa Knott, she is not a racist and your labelling her as such is simply unacceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last warning

If you continue harassing users will false allegations, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit war on Jimbo's page talk page either. If someone has such a problem with the wording of your complaint, take a deep breath and try composing your thoughts in a more courteous manner. It appears you are close to exhausting the community's patience.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, we're not out to get you. We are all trying to work with you here. Edit wars are not going to get you anywhere. Relax. Breathe. Have some patience. Work with us, and we will work with you. Kingturtle (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Theresa knott. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kingturtle (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruption. You are spamming the talk pages of multiple editors with enflamed comments and accusations and your contrib's indicate that you want to carry your comments to as many places as possible. Such behvaiour is not at all acceptable.

What I would advise is that you take some time to sum up whatever is bothering you, write it down in one coherent statement (without needless accusations or offensive analogies), and post it after the block expires. Marskell (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The block was based with Bias Accusations

No, I did not call anybody a white supremacist, and no it is not okay for people to make these accusations.Kevin j (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record. I did accuse you af stalking and I should have used better language. For that I would like to apologise. Never the less I stand by my point about following a user to another page. You should never do this in order to continue a fight. I understand that you were feeling angry, but would like to suggest a way of dealing with that. When you feel truly angry on Wikipedia, take a break. Don't even look for a while (a couple of days or however long it takes you to calm down). As for the white supremacist quip, why on earth didn't you just rephrase your complaint? Since were not accusing me of being a racist why keep that analogy when it clearly offended so many people? Again for future note, when two people remove your post from a talk page then don't edit war over replacing it. That will not resolve the issue. Take note of their concerns and rewrite. Finally I would like to thank you for following my instructions not editing thegingerone's talk page again. It is appreciated. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As Chrislk02 warned you earlier, your abuse of the unblock template has now resulted in the protection of your talk page for the duration of the block. I suggest you use this time to think of less disruptive ways to get your point across. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valentino

Please address whatever issues or feelings you have about the Valentino article on that article's talk page. My personal talk page isn't the place. Also, you have been asked twice to please stop creating new sections on that talk page. It not only takes up too much room, it is also hard to read. Please read WP:TP and WP:INDENT before commenting again. Pinkadelica (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Films Welcome

[edit] Valentino

Whether you wanted to get involved or not in a war over this article, you did get involved. The problem is that leaving remarks like I am also disgusted with Thegingerone's remarks that I started this war does not end, but only perpetuates, the animosity. Essentially, what you need to do is get over the "me vs. her" mentality and either a) address the needs of the article or b) let it go. The truth is, how the article appears in the future will not be either "your" or "her" version, but something that encompasses the best points that can be validly supported by more than one source and written by more than one author. Frankly, I was worn out with the arguments the day they started. Please attempt to approach this in a mature and less aggressive manner and perhaps the article can forth. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amber Lee Ettinger

Your edits of Amber Lee Ettinger says that the press saw that she was not sick. That's not what they say. They say that she was seen, they make no comment about whether she looked sick or not. That's your conclusion. She could have been sick, yet still fulfilling an engagement. Your cite says she had "dragged herself out Tuesday night under duress" --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If CNN said it, then cite it. And it doesn't change my point. You can say what happened, but unless you have a cite that knows something about her health at the time, any conclusion about whether she was really sick or not is your speculation. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is "reliable controversy" about Amber Lee Ettinger then cite it. So far the only controversy we have is your inference from a fairly innocuous blog column. If it is "unlikely she was sick" then produce a cite that says this. Your opinion/conclusions on the matter don't count. State the facts and let the reader decide themselves without your prompting. If you have a reputable source that says "she was not ill/did not look ill" then please cite it and we can move on. Otherwise what you're adding is an uncited and controversial accusation that will be removed per WP:BLP.

My opinion only goes as far as;

• your edit is an unsupported speculation.
• you continue to question my good faith based on groundless speculation about my politics. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)