User talk:BIG Daddy M

Hello, BIG Daddy M! Welcome to Wikipedia! You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! The Hyb rid 20:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Superboy-Prime

Use the articles talk page to explain why you feel the addition of these two quotes are relevant and important to the article. There are at least two of us who disagree with you. Content disputes ARE NOT VANDALISM, so stop using that word. Oh, and..

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 which gains a consensus among editors. Pairadox 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism. You are both in the wrong here. You are deleting sourced information relevant to the story. That is vandalism. Look it up.BIG Daddy M 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Pairadox 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you keep deleting my messages show me that you know that im right and your wrong. I hope this is the end of this crap.BIG Daddy M 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I keep moving them here and responding here shows you that I'm serious about the blurb on my talk page that says "If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page. If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there." And please, remain civil. Pairadox 15:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing sourced information. That is vandalism. Im not out of line here. Quit vandalising this page and we will have no problem. You're not gonna bully me into this. Good day.BIG Daddy M 02:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Undertaker

We understand and acknowledge that Undertaker is scheduled to return at the Unforgiven pay-per-view. What you do not seem to understand is that, because his return has not already happened, stating his return is an "annoucement" which is considered by Wikipedia to be "news" and Wikipedia is not a news site or crystal ball. Again, while his return is planned or scheduled, many things could happen in the next 3 weeks delaying or canceling his return - these include, but are not limited to re-injuring himself or death. For these reasons, the information should not be added to the article until he actually returns. Thank you, -- KBW1 22:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me and a lot of other users in the Wikipedia community. -- KBW1 22:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification see WP:PW. They are the "we" of which we talk. Darrenhusted 13:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such match has been announced, please revert your change or someone else will. Rumors/speculation/spoilers are not allowed. TJ Spyke 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Repeatedly accusing people of vandalism when you have had vandalism explained is a form of personal attacks, so you hereby win this nifty warning!

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. Pairadox 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not good so far

I've kept an eye on you lately and you haven't been help Wikipedia much. Please "GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER". Not trying to be mean, but unless you want to get blocked, I suggest you get on top of your game. I'm free if you need ANY help. Thank You.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. -- KBW1 06:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not harassing you, you just tend to make a lot of bad faith edits. I was just trying to help you, but so far you've been caught on 3RR, Personal Attacks, Not assuming Good Faith, Not citing Sources, and making unconstructive edits. You need a mentor, apply and get one. -- KBW1 16:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another warning

You have violated the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Pairadox 05:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Superboy-Prime. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Haemo 06:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Those two guys are vandalising that page and i get blocked for stopping them?

Decline reason:

Looks like a content dispute here. Changes need to be discussed on talk pages before reverting numerous times. — Navou ^banter 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Superboy-Prime, again.

A suggestion since this seems to be getting to be a sore point for you that may wind up netting you an extended block: take it to the talk page and civilly argue your case that the two appearances should be included in the article.

As it stands, your actions, your very first edit after the block lifted being to level the same bad faith accusation and revert to your last edit, can be taken back to the 3RR board as evidence that you have no intention of stopping the behaviour that netted you the 24 hour block.

Please, do what you should have done during the block, step back, cool down, and actually review Wikipedia policies and guidelines on civility, edit warring, assuming good faith, not making personal attacks, writing about fiction, and the comics and animation projects [[guidelines. Please, try working with other editors instead of just steamrolling over them.

Also, so you are aware, you're full range of actions has been brought to the attention of the Admins in general and there was an open thread at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and currently archived here, as well as the 3RR report which is currently still on the active list here, though it is likely to be archived shortly.

- J Greb 17:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think you understand what you're doing wrong here. If you persist in this behavior you will be blocked again, and for an increasingly long time. Remember -- the three revert rule does not entitle you to three reverts a day; since you seem to be intent on edit warring over this issue, you can be blocked for disruption without breaking it. This is a friendly reminder, but a serious one. --Haemo 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Superboy-Prime. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Haemo 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently don't listen; don't violate the three-revert rule. Your blocks will only escalate until you exhaust the community's patience — then you will be indefinitely blocked. --Haemo 19:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I am not vandalising this page. I am standing up for it from vandals. They are removing sourced valid information. I want to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Clear violation of WP:3RR. This edit, for example, is not sourced information and is certainly not reverting simple vandalism. — Yamla 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I put that because I was trying to provide a truce. They are vandalising the page as we speak. Please unblock me or stop them.

Decline reason:

Clear cut 3RR violation, per Yamla. This is a content dispute. — -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You don't seem to get it. They're not vandalizing anything -- you're engaged in a content dispute with a number of other users, and aren't discussing it with them. Labelling their edits as vandalism is not only a personal attack but also does not give you carte blanche to edit war and break the three revert rule. --Haemo 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't cease this edit war, and start discussing on the talk page, you're looking at a long block until you understand what the problem is with edit warring. I'm serious. You seem to be ignoring your behavior, and don't think it's a problem. Three blocks in a row for edit warring is not something you want. --Haemo 05:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 month

Your inability to stop edit warring has earned you a month-long block. I'll consider shortening it if you show some understanding of why your behavior was inappropriate, and promise to stop edit warring. Until then, your behavior has been nothing but disruptive and less than civil. The next block for this kind of behavior will probably be indefinite. --Haemo 18:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't uncivil. They are deleting sourced information pertaining to his continuing story. I am unfairly blocked here. Block the vandals not the people trying to help wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Engaging in continued edit warring while refusing to discuss your changes is not "trying to help wikipedia". — Yamla 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Actually I tried to discuss it but they said i was wrong when clearly im not unblock me

Decline reason:

That request sounds very much like "unblock me so that I can resume edit warring on that article." No thanks. As for your claim that you are not incivil, I think you're forgetting about this, and a quick look at your history of contributions shows many examples of rude edit summaries. — Pascal.Tesson 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Ok then I'll put it like this, Unblock me now or I will go on the biggest vandalism party wikipedia has ever seen. I don't want to vandalise, But I will be forced to. Don't make me.

Decline reason:

This is, to put it mildly, not persuasive. We are not open to extortion and we do not negotiate with vandals. Your block duration has been extended to indefinite. — Sandstein 12:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.