User talk:70.121.181.235/ - archives 2006

Thank you for experimenting with the page Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Regarding your edit summary on your edit to the article Wolverine (comics): please be civil towards other users. Calling them retards, even if they are wrong, is unacceptable. Picaroon9288 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing warnings on your talk page

Please do not change vandalism and other warnings on your talk page. Kukini 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I DID NOT CHANGE WARNINGS ON MY TALK PAGE, I ARCHIVED THEM

As anyone can see, I am merely backing up older comments on this page. You are the one who is VANDALISING the page by removing responses that have NOTHING to do with any warnings. I am free to back up all responses left on my page this way. Check with the rules if you are uncertain of this. And STOP THE VANDALISM. 70.121.181.235 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing warnings on your talk page

Please do not change vandalism and other warnings on your talk page. Kukini 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOR THE SECOND TIME, I DID NOT CHANGE WARNINGS ON MY TALK PAGE, I ARCHIVED THEM

I didn't change them. I backed them up. 70.121.181.235 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Happy editing. Kukini 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and while I am here...

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 70.121.181.235). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my Talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. Kukini 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life Model Decoy

I certainly don't know where you got your information on Wolverine being a SHIELD Life Model Decoy after being incinerated during Wolverine #43. As it turns out, it wasn't an LMD but the actual character. So, watch the retard references next time. Odin's Beard 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I DID NOT CALL YOU OR ANYONE ELSE A RETARD. THAT IS A LIE AND A GROSS DISTORTION OF WHAT I SAID. What I did say was "don't behave like one". 70.121.181.235 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) There is a difference between saying "you are a stupid person" and "please don't act like a stupid person".[reply]

Actually, I'm looking at the issue right now and I've read the story several times. An LMD isn't even mentioned anywhere. In Issue 44, Wolverine notices that Nitro's clothing and cell phone survived without the slightest bit of damage after he reformed himself. Wolverine notices that Nitro's clothes just, a flannel shirt, t-shirt, and a pair of jeans, aren't made of any special material and neither is his cell phone. It's because of this that Wolverine realizes that Nitro's powers are ineffective against on objects or people that are right next to him. During the fight, Wolverine notes that he would have been killed along with the team SHIELD sent in to kill Nitro if not for his mutant healing factor. Since Wolverine wasn't part of the team sent after Nitro, and was only picked up along the way by Iron Man, it's not likely that they'd bring along a LMD of Wolverine. I doubt that SHILED would just have one lying around in case of an emergency on one of their airships. If it was a LMD, they would have said so in Wolverine #44. Odin's Beard 02:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he was in the Shield vehicle. He jumped out of it. He was abreast of the SHIELD team. And Wolverine's observation about Nitro was one that referred to having known what Nitro was wearing during the explosion. An observation of what Nitro was wearing after it would be logically irrelevant as he could have simply changed his clothes after he used his power. If you honestly believe that the character can completely regenerate from a skeleton, I'm really through arguing with you. Even in comic book serial fiction there are objective principles that keep stories consistant enough to be entertaining. Writers generally don't ignore them, but fanboys who edit Wikipedia articles do. (and no you can't go complaining that I attacked you by calling you a fanboy because the comment I just made was in general and obviously not directed at you)

I also haven't vandalized anything. My edit may not have been to your liking but it didn't constitute a malign act of defacement. Yep, I'm criticizing you as a person. Its not an attack on you. Its an observation of your behavior, just like your distortion of mine. You just said I vandalized articles. I haven't. If you tried to prove I had you wouldn't be able to. You know why? Because it never happened. You just made the insinuation to paint a misleading picture. 70.121.181.235 06:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And don't you have anything better to do with your time anyway? In all the time you have spent bothering me I haven't even edited on Wikipedia. I just don't do it very often. You also need to understand that there are four people living in this house (six including nephews) and many of them use this computer. So whatever it is you "think" I did, be careful with your accusations.

No personal attacks please. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No lies please. I did not make any personal attacks. My only activity on this site (since the event that was misconstrued as a personal attack on the Wolverine page) has been responding to these inane comments. You are harassing me and breaking the regulations you pretend to be enforcing. 70.121.181.235 21:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking someone if they have something else better to do with their time is does not constitute a personal attack.
Criticizing someone civilly does not constitute a personal attack (such as pointing out that someone has lied in regard to vandalism).
Explaing my view on a subject matter EVEN IF GAWD FORBID it be different than than the majority does not constitute a personal attack.
Now, if I called you a Do-Do head that would be a personal attack. I didn't. Get it straight before you waste your time by bothering me on my talk page. 70.121.181.235 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I DON'T EVEN EDIT WIKIPEDIA ANYMORE. I COULD CARE LESS IF YOU BLOCKED ME, INJUSTLY OR NOT. I JUST DON'T LIKE SEEING "NEW MESSAGES" EVERY TIME I TRY TO READ AN ARTICLE.

AD NAUSEUM

Calling someone foolish is a personal attack, albeit a mild one. Laughing at a warning is considered, at best, incivil (we have rules against that too). Please avoid skirting the edges of our rules — we have them for very good reasons and you will be more likely stop getting messages here if you listen to them and keep well away from being rude.

I understand you might be frustrated that this won't go away. I would suggest that you leave it in the past yourself and stop trying to get in the last word, and you might find that it will recede into the past more quickly. Remember that when you give in to temptation to respond, you're giving yourself the chance to be incivil and drag this out further. If you really must respond, consider what you write carefull and perhaps throw away what you might like to say on first impulse and write it a second time with a cooler head. Thanks. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just responding because I'm bored. 70.121.181.235 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. I disagree with you. Even if I'm not allowed to disagree with you I'm still going to disagree with you. I think I'm allowed though. Its academic anyway because I haven't edited to anything on Wikipedia in quite some time now and all you are doing is complaining about my responses to trouble that has been stirred up here by parties other than myself who apparently doing like being shown up so they resort to threats and harassment.70.121.181.235 03:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Read this. I was just reading your archived page and some of your contribs. If you don't consider some of what you've said to be personal attacks (especially comments such as "don't act like a retard"), then I don't think you know what a personal attack is. "Don't act like a retard" is saying someone is acting like a retard. To say otherwise is to twist words and to game the system. You say you don't edit Wikipedia anymore. Fine. Then stop using ALL CAPS and screaming at people and stop the personal attacks or else your talk page will be protected. And, accusing me of harrassment is a personal attack. It's also assuming bad faith. You don't know me. And yet you are assuming that I am not doing my job and that I didn't read your edits or talk page. I did. See below. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, this is an example of changing a warning. You changed the header from "Civility" to "People Who Whine". We also have this, which is when you "archived" a warning about the Michael Jackson page. The problem is that it's not in the archives. You basically just removed the warning. And in that same post, you called Kukini a vandal. Again, that's an attack. Here is a second removal of the Jackson warning. And again, it's not in the archives. Do you want more examples of policy violations? These are just from your talk page. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Those are more or less typographical errors that resulted when I was TRYING to make an archive and someone kept constantly reverting the material from the archive back to the original page.[reply]

RESPONSE (PLEASE WHAT?)

The only act that could be remotely construed as a policy violation was the "retard incident" which I still disagree with you about (although admittedly I should have chosen more mature words). Now that I see how the policy is interpreted by "people" like you I won't do that IF ever edit on this site again. Everything else you site is your questionable personal opinion of what consitutes a personal attack or a typographical mistake on my part.

You (or one of your sockpuppets or buddies or whatever) come on my talk page every single day (when I am not even editing on this site) merely to harass me and antaganize me in a lame attempt to bate me into calling you a jack a$$ or something (because that is what you would really need to get me banned isn't it?). This is really sad and you need to just go away.

If in my opinion someone is vandalizing my page and I state that they are doing it, that is not a personal attack its an observation. Just like I'm going to state this: what you are doing is blatant antagonism and a misuse of your power of an administrator. Regardless of what minor wrong doing you think I committed, its already been rectified there is purpose for your continued attempts to bate me.

So let's get this straight. I haven't edited on Wikipedia for awhile now. I just come on hear to read and occasionally I respond to your pointless accusations. And another sad thing (on my part) is that I'm only doing it because I'm bored. You think you are seriously disrupting my life or something. Seriously, if you got me banned I wouldn't even bother getting a new IP address (which would be as simple as pulling a plug). The only reason I haven't done that is because its honestly not worth my time. I don't edit anything on this site anymore anyway. If you banned me I would stop getting these silly messages everytime I go to wikipedia to read about barn-owls or Tylenol. 70.121.181.235 03:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AND AGAIN

For your convenience, I've removed the antagonistic message you left on this page after you archived the rest. You can remove this one without archiving it once you've read it. Assuming you don't bother answering, this is the last you'll hear from me. Just think how simple that would be: stop responding, stop getting responses. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an antagonistic message. It keeps people from repeatedly reverting the page. Its also interesting that you or your friend repeatedly threaten me about changing the comments on here (which I did accidentally because someone was disrupting my archival process) and yet you hypocritically erase comments yourself and claim to be doing it to "help me out". 70.121.181.235 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what he was talking about: Are you one of the administrators or other users who has been threatening to block me from editing Wikipedia because of a statement I made in the edit summary of the Wolverine article a few months ago?70.121.181.235

No I'm not. I'm concerned that you're so over-wrought that you feel the need to attack others to make them go away. Be clear that this is a failing strategy and will only encourage more and more unrelated users (such as myself) to come here and try to educate you about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour while using Wikipedia's facilities. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonism

Please stop (as you have put it) "freaking out". — Saxifrage ✎ 03:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for leaving that little gem. This will really help you out in your effort to ban me from this site.70.121.181.235 04:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you and Lizard King are not the same person. That would be a violation of our policy against undeclared sockpuppets, especially since you edit the same pages. Of course, if you are then you can avoid the hypothetical policy violation by simply declaring that you are the same person before it is independently verified. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks. You are really accomplishing alot here. 70.121.181.235 04:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]