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.
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. MikeWazowski 14:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe YOU should be listening to your own rules. How many times have you claimed bad faith or agenda against me, while COMPLETELY ignoring my points and challenges for evidence? Anyone can
see for themselves what's really going on.
JimRaynor55
14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe YOU should be listening to your opponents! You are so ingrained that your way is absolutely and unshakably right, that there is not one iota which is wrong, that everyone who disagrees with you is a helpless moron, etc. You are entitled to your views, I am entitled to mine, but you have to have some respect here because not everyone believes the same things you do. That's what Wikipedia's civility, etc. policies are all about. 74.38.34.192 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Your edits to Star Wars canon
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa 15:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The REAL vandalism is what users like YOU, and MikeWazowski are doing: repetitively reverting an article and NEVER bothering to justify your edits. As I keep saying, it's all out in the open for everyone to see. 23:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TheRealFennShysa 00:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- On what basis? That I'm actually backing up my claims while you're not? JimRaynor55 01:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
- Again, on what grounds? Crying "vandalism" isn't actual proof. Do you mind explaining the validity of this THREAT?
JimRaynor55
19:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's very simple - Wikipedia has series of warning templates for cases such as this, which should be used in sequence.
This warning was {{test2a}},
this warning was {{test3}}, and
this warning was {{test4}}. If a formal report on your pattern of abuse is filed, one of the things that will be looked at is whether you were warned or not.
TheRealFennShysa
20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Funny, I ask for your grounds for threatening me with bans; to show that I am indeed guilty of vandalism. Instead you resort to saying that you warned me before. I wonder, if *I* were to slap this series of warnings on you, without EVER actually proving my accusations, would you think they were justified? And are you SURE you want a formal look at what I've done? They'll see you for your repetitive, evasive, fallacious debater you are.
JimRaynor55
20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- *Sigh* Fine, I'll repost my reply to you from my talk page. ::From WP:VAND - Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ... Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with — if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others. - Your edits may have started out as a good faith effort. However, once you made this edit, you showed your true colors in that you were not interested in working with others to come to an acceptable compromise, when other editors tried to balance the representation. Your continued insistence in discounting any opinion other than your own, accusing other editors of acting dishonestly [1], and a history of personal attacks on others over this article [2] [3] lead me to believe that you're not interested in the integrity of the article, which lead to the warnings for vandalism. It's very simple. And as for that last line in your previous comment, keep it up, Raynor. You're very close to personal attack territory again. TheRealFennShysa 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Funny, I ask for your grounds for threatening me with bans; to show that I am indeed guilty of vandalism. Instead you resort to saying that you warned me before. I wonder, if *I* were to slap this series of warnings on you, without EVER actually proving my accusations, would you think they were justified? And are you SURE you want a formal look at what I've done? They'll see you for your repetitive, evasive, fallacious debater you are.
JimRaynor55
20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's very simple - Wikipedia has series of warning templates for cases such as this, which should be used in sequence.
This warning was {{test2a}},
this warning was {{test3}}, and
this warning was {{test4}}. If a formal report on your pattern of abuse is filed, one of the things that will be looked at is whether you were warned or not.
TheRealFennShysa
20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- AGAIN with your "opinions." STILL you fail to explain how my position, that that site is WRONG, is incorrect. You apparently didn't read about middle ground fallacies when I brought them up before. Here, let me link you to it again. You're going to have to come up with something A LOT better to actually prove vandalism on my part. Don't think you can INTIMIDATE me into keeping quiet. JimRaynor55 08:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- JimRaynor55, I have found your TALK page enlightening and informative especially with your contentious dealings with two other Wikpedia members; MikeWazowski and TheRealFennShysa. I would invite you to take a look at these pages to see more of their actions dealing with me and my entries over several weeks. These pages are [4], [5], [6], [7]. I welcome hearing from you. Netwriter 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yawn* I've already seen this same exact, baseless threat from you before. JimRaynor55 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.
- LOL. When you can't beat the guy with logic, become a stickler for the rules and all their little technicalities! Got any more canned "warnings" to lay on me? JimRaynor55 16:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Howdy. I followed from the argument/note at Wikipedia talk:Community Portal. I don't have any comments on the issue itself, I just wanted to quickly point out that ALL-CAPS and bold text are considered shouting within online forums (never a good idea, as shouting indicates that one has lost their calm). If I might, I recommend that instead you use italic type to emphasize your keywords. Thanks :) -- Quiddity 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In regards to your post at this message board, this idiot/retard/Rules and Golden Mean whore/Trektard/loser/fanboy/evasive, dishonest shithead/basic, low-level moron/fanwhore/utter dumbass/dishonest asshole would like to remind you that according to Wikipedia policy, it is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate... Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski 06:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Apparently, you didn't read this part of the post:
- But if you have a Wiki account, please joint in and help on this article by making regular edits.
NOWHERE was I calling for the creation of meat puppet accounts. I was asking people to join in if they had EXISTING accounts. Once again, READ before talking. Don't act all pissy and post these vulgar words here on Wikipedia (LOL, you're not such an angel after all, I'm SHOCKED). At least I saved those curse words for some other message board. :) But keep on tossing around those canned warnings. You know as well as I do that I don't need these people to "strengthen" my side, since YOUR side is nothing but evasion and repetitive whining about neutrality. I was simply asking EXISTING Wiki users to come on in and help call you on your dishonest debating. JimRaynor55 07:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
MikeWazowski, you seem mighty upset that I said those things about you. Don't like them? Then clean up your act. Once again, another one of your baseless accusations (this time that I was calling for meatpuppets) has been shot down. JimRaynor55 07:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you look at the quote again, a little more closely. It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. You were trying to get people to come edit the article who had not been a part of the debate prior to this. You were trying to influence the outcome by bringing in editors who would be new to the article in question, if not to Wikipedia. Hence the warning about policy. And I'm not upset about anything - if anything, I'm amused by your continual attempts to belittle and denigrate the opinions and character of those who disagree with you, which is why I reposted your list of descriptions for your "opponents". MikeWazowski 07:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, you got me on the TECHNICALITY (you guys love this, rather than the spirit of things or the TRUTH). I was asking for existing users with "known views." However, I wasn't calling for BIASED people, since that would mean they were prejudiced and not basing their view on the facts. Really, this is pure LEGALISM, and if taken literally, this rule means that you can't ask anybody to come contribute something, unless you're a complete stranger to their views on the subject. I guess I can't ask a scientist who believes in the theory of evolution to post in the Evolution/Creationism articles, or a historian to post his views in a disputed article about a certain event. People who resort to technicalities/legalism are desperate. As for you not being upset about all this...you keep telling yourself that.
JimRaynor55
07:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just looked more closely at the policy, and it prohibits the attraction of people with "known views" and "bias," not just either one. So no, you don't even have THAT technicality! JimRaynor55 07:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I notice you've really taken exception to the names I called you at that other message board, and have tossed warnings at me about advertising. But the thing you're not doing is addressing or disputing the truthfulness of what I said there. Is it because you can't? What's it like to have all your logical fallacies and broken record behavior summarized and laid out for hundreds of others to see? JimRaynor55 07:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
... For violating the 3RR rule (under your account and as IP # 24.158.198.135) on Star Wars canon, and, to a lesser extent, for somewhat out of hand incivility on the associated talk pages. Firstly, I have no opinion as to the merits of whatever arguments you've got about the article: you just need to chill out a bit with respect to dealing with other users, no matter how wrong you feel they are. Clearly your proposed changes are controversial, so when the block lifts, calmly discuss these changes before making them and get an actual concensus first. And just don't violate 3RR or try to be sneaky with IPs or Socks: you'll just get blocked again. Thanks. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm NOT 24.158.198.135, and I'd like to see one of you prove it. I also don't see how my changes are "controversial" or lacking consensus, there is a whopping total of THREE people actively editing on that article (one of them is me). I would also like to point out the hypocrisy of blocking me for "incivility," I think one of the most uncivil things is to put up a broken record routine and ignore what others say, as the other two guys at that article have done. You say you have no opinion on my arguments, and that's clear. You obviously didn't read them, or the repetitive non-arguments of the other two guys. But whatever. This uneven and illogical administration is something I've come to expect from Wikipedia, which values "neutrality" over truth.
JimRaynor55
14:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- My IP # is 72.88.206.20, which means I'm in New Jersey. 24.158.198.135 is in Tenessee. Yeah, I really flew half way across the country to make a few edits, before flying all the way back home to edit some more. A brief search on the internet would have revealed this. But of course, you didn't bother looking into things before handing out the temporary block. JimRaynor55 14:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Although the editing pattern is highly suspicious, I assume good faith, and unblock you. However, that does not change the fact that you have been, and continue to be incivil. Everybody involved needs to chill out (especially you), and the article could really use more eyes than just yours and those with whom you are disagreeing. You should calmly ask for assistance from other knowledgable editors without spamming, and start to be more civil in your discussions with other users, and stop treating every edit like a holy crusade that must be fought tooth and nail - because, frankly, at the rate you're going its only a matter of time before someone else blocks you. Also, please do not reply to me, as I have no desire to get involved in your content dispute. Thanks, and good luck. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:59, 8 November 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.
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. MikeWazowski 14:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe YOU should be listening to your own rules. How many times have you claimed bad faith or agenda against me, while COMPLETELY ignoring my points and challenges for evidence? Anyone can
see for themselves what's really going on.
JimRaynor55
14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe YOU should be listening to your opponents! You are so ingrained that your way is absolutely and unshakably right, that there is not one iota which is wrong, that everyone who disagrees with you is a helpless moron, etc. You are entitled to your views, I am entitled to mine, but you have to have some respect here because not everyone believes the same things you do. That's what Wikipedia's civility, etc. policies are all about. 74.38.34.192 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Your edits to Star Wars canon
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa 15:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The REAL vandalism is what users like YOU, and MikeWazowski are doing: repetitively reverting an article and NEVER bothering to justify your edits. As I keep saying, it's all out in the open for everyone to see. 23:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TheRealFennShysa 00:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- On what basis? That I'm actually backing up my claims while you're not? JimRaynor55 01:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
- Again, on what grounds? Crying "vandalism" isn't actual proof. Do you mind explaining the validity of this THREAT?
JimRaynor55
19:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's very simple - Wikipedia has series of warning templates for cases such as this, which should be used in sequence.
This warning was {{test2a}},
this warning was {{test3}}, and
this warning was {{test4}}. If a formal report on your pattern of abuse is filed, one of the things that will be looked at is whether you were warned or not.
TheRealFennShysa
20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Funny, I ask for your grounds for threatening me with bans; to show that I am indeed guilty of vandalism. Instead you resort to saying that you warned me before. I wonder, if *I* were to slap this series of warnings on you, without EVER actually proving my accusations, would you think they were justified? And are you SURE you want a formal look at what I've done? They'll see you for your repetitive, evasive, fallacious debater you are.
JimRaynor55
20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- *Sigh* Fine, I'll repost my reply to you from my talk page. ::From WP:VAND - Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ... Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with — if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others. - Your edits may have started out as a good faith effort. However, once you made this edit, you showed your true colors in that you were not interested in working with others to come to an acceptable compromise, when other editors tried to balance the representation. Your continued insistence in discounting any opinion other than your own, accusing other editors of acting dishonestly [1], and a history of personal attacks on others over this article [2] [3] lead me to believe that you're not interested in the integrity of the article, which lead to the warnings for vandalism. It's very simple. And as for that last line in your previous comment, keep it up, Raynor. You're very close to personal attack territory again. TheRealFennShysa 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Funny, I ask for your grounds for threatening me with bans; to show that I am indeed guilty of vandalism. Instead you resort to saying that you warned me before. I wonder, if *I* were to slap this series of warnings on you, without EVER actually proving my accusations, would you think they were justified? And are you SURE you want a formal look at what I've done? They'll see you for your repetitive, evasive, fallacious debater you are.
JimRaynor55
20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's very simple - Wikipedia has series of warning templates for cases such as this, which should be used in sequence.
This warning was {{test2a}},
this warning was {{test3}}, and
this warning was {{test4}}. If a formal report on your pattern of abuse is filed, one of the things that will be looked at is whether you were warned or not.
TheRealFennShysa
20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- AGAIN with your "opinions." STILL you fail to explain how my position, that that site is WRONG, is incorrect. You apparently didn't read about middle ground fallacies when I brought them up before. Here, let me link you to it again. You're going to have to come up with something A LOT better to actually prove vandalism on my part. Don't think you can INTIMIDATE me into keeping quiet. JimRaynor55 08:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- JimRaynor55, I have found your TALK page enlightening and informative especially with your contentious dealings with two other Wikpedia members; MikeWazowski and TheRealFennShysa. I would invite you to take a look at these pages to see more of their actions dealing with me and my entries over several weeks. These pages are [4], [5], [6], [7]. I welcome hearing from you. Netwriter 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yawn* I've already seen this same exact, baseless threat from you before. JimRaynor55 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.
- LOL. When you can't beat the guy with logic, become a stickler for the rules and all their little technicalities! Got any more canned "warnings" to lay on me? JimRaynor55 16:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Howdy. I followed from the argument/note at Wikipedia talk:Community Portal. I don't have any comments on the issue itself, I just wanted to quickly point out that ALL-CAPS and bold text are considered shouting within online forums (never a good idea, as shouting indicates that one has lost their calm). If I might, I recommend that instead you use italic type to emphasize your keywords. Thanks :) -- Quiddity 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In regards to your post at this message board, this idiot/retard/Rules and Golden Mean whore/Trektard/loser/fanboy/evasive, dishonest shithead/basic, low-level moron/fanwhore/utter dumbass/dishonest asshole would like to remind you that according to Wikipedia policy, it is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate... Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski 06:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Apparently, you didn't read this part of the post:
- But if you have a Wiki account, please joint in and help on this article by making regular edits.
NOWHERE was I calling for the creation of meat puppet accounts. I was asking people to join in if they had EXISTING accounts. Once again, READ before talking. Don't act all pissy and post these vulgar words here on Wikipedia (LOL, you're not such an angel after all, I'm SHOCKED). At least I saved those curse words for some other message board. :) But keep on tossing around those canned warnings. You know as well as I do that I don't need these people to "strengthen" my side, since YOUR side is nothing but evasion and repetitive whining about neutrality. I was simply asking EXISTING Wiki users to come on in and help call you on your dishonest debating. JimRaynor55 07:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
MikeWazowski, you seem mighty upset that I said those things about you. Don't like them? Then clean up your act. Once again, another one of your baseless accusations (this time that I was calling for meatpuppets) has been shot down. JimRaynor55 07:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you look at the quote again, a little more closely. It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. You were trying to get people to come edit the article who had not been a part of the debate prior to this. You were trying to influence the outcome by bringing in editors who would be new to the article in question, if not to Wikipedia. Hence the warning about policy. And I'm not upset about anything - if anything, I'm amused by your continual attempts to belittle and denigrate the opinions and character of those who disagree with you, which is why I reposted your list of descriptions for your "opponents". MikeWazowski 07:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, you got me on the TECHNICALITY (you guys love this, rather than the spirit of things or the TRUTH). I was asking for existing users with "known views." However, I wasn't calling for BIASED people, since that would mean they were prejudiced and not basing their view on the facts. Really, this is pure LEGALISM, and if taken literally, this rule means that you can't ask anybody to come contribute something, unless you're a complete stranger to their views on the subject. I guess I can't ask a scientist who believes in the theory of evolution to post in the Evolution/Creationism articles, or a historian to post his views in a disputed article about a certain event. People who resort to technicalities/legalism are desperate. As for you not being upset about all this...you keep telling yourself that.
JimRaynor55
07:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just looked more closely at the policy, and it prohibits the attraction of people with "known views" and "bias," not just either one. So no, you don't even have THAT technicality! JimRaynor55 07:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I notice you've really taken exception to the names I called you at that other message board, and have tossed warnings at me about advertising. But the thing you're not doing is addressing or disputing the truthfulness of what I said there. Is it because you can't? What's it like to have all your logical fallacies and broken record behavior summarized and laid out for hundreds of others to see? JimRaynor55 07:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
... For violating the 3RR rule (under your account and as IP # 24.158.198.135) on Star Wars canon, and, to a lesser extent, for somewhat out of hand incivility on the associated talk pages. Firstly, I have no opinion as to the merits of whatever arguments you've got about the article: you just need to chill out a bit with respect to dealing with other users, no matter how wrong you feel they are. Clearly your proposed changes are controversial, so when the block lifts, calmly discuss these changes before making them and get an actual concensus first. And just don't violate 3RR or try to be sneaky with IPs or Socks: you'll just get blocked again. Thanks. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm NOT 24.158.198.135, and I'd like to see one of you prove it. I also don't see how my changes are "controversial" or lacking consensus, there is a whopping total of THREE people actively editing on that article (one of them is me). I would also like to point out the hypocrisy of blocking me for "incivility," I think one of the most uncivil things is to put up a broken record routine and ignore what others say, as the other two guys at that article have done. You say you have no opinion on my arguments, and that's clear. You obviously didn't read them, or the repetitive non-arguments of the other two guys. But whatever. This uneven and illogical administration is something I've come to expect from Wikipedia, which values "neutrality" over truth.
JimRaynor55
14:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- My IP # is 72.88.206.20, which means I'm in New Jersey. 24.158.198.135 is in Tenessee. Yeah, I really flew half way across the country to make a few edits, before flying all the way back home to edit some more. A brief search on the internet would have revealed this. But of course, you didn't bother looking into things before handing out the temporary block. JimRaynor55 14:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Although the editing pattern is highly suspicious, I assume good faith, and unblock you. However, that does not change the fact that you have been, and continue to be incivil. Everybody involved needs to chill out (especially you), and the article could really use more eyes than just yours and those with whom you are disagreeing. You should calmly ask for assistance from other knowledgable editors without spamming, and start to be more civil in your discussions with other users, and stop treating every edit like a holy crusade that must be fought tooth and nail - because, frankly, at the rate you're going its only a matter of time before someone else blocks you. Also, please do not reply to me, as I have no desire to get involved in your content dispute. Thanks, and good luck. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)