User talk:Bobthehun2

Welcome!

Hello, Bobthehun2, 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:

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! Hús ö nd 04:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flood

I was aware of the edit, no need to flood a talk page.--Hús ö nd 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who owns the copyright. I just revert material that is inserted on Wikipedia after being copied from elsewhere. Once again, WP:COPYVIO.--Hús ö nd 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will, thank you. :-) Regards.--Hús ö nd 04:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must recommend that you thread your messages (like I'm doing) instead of replacing the text as you add new ones. Well, since I can't verify if the content was mirrored from a previous version of the article, I shall not object if you reinsert it. If someone still deems it as copyright, it will be removed though.--Hús ö nd 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for copyvio suspicion.--Hús ö nd 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That information isn't copyright, it's an indiscriminate list of trivia and doesn't belong on the page. Feel free to maintain it on your userpage, but it will get removed from the article. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TRIVIA for why you will get reverted if you readd it. Trivia sections should be avoided, and I don't intend to let that ridiculous gaggle of original research remain on the page. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a flawed comparison and you know it. The focus of Eva is the Freudian references as it is part of the underlying theme. Trivia is just random fanservice thrown in for attentive people to find. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't belong. Period. There's no policy you can cite to defend the inclusion of that list, while I can give you exacting reasons to delete it. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say that all you want. It means nothing. Trivia is not interesting except to fans. Wikipedia is not written for fans. The trivia does not belong. This will not change. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to try harder than that. Wikipedia also requires material to be sourced, verifiable, and above all notable. A passing reference to some band is not notable, not verifiable through anything other than comparison, and has no source other than the source material, which is an unreliable primary source. Trust me on this, you won't win by citing random bits of policy. I've been doing this longer and know all the arguments. Wikipedia guidelines discourage trivia. On an article whose purpose is to list the episodes of a given series, you will never be able to justify the inclusion of random comparisons to other metal band when they have no relevance to the list of articles above it. Maintain it on your userpage, improve TV.com; hell, start your own website and write it up there, but it's not ging on an article whose purpose is to maintain a list too large for the main article. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert you on the main page, too. It does not belong on Wikipedia. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making it into an article makes it no less inappropriate. You've only created something that will get deleted for having no context. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo Energy Drink

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Mojo Energy Drink, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Mojo Energy Drink. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's being AfDed now. Go to the page to participate in the debate. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Eva movies

What new Eva movies? I only know of the live-action one. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metalocalypse trivia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to User talk:Someguy0830, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your behavior is getting increasingly disruptive. Stop acting like a child and let the AfD finish. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove warnings from your user talk page

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. ^{Power level (Dragon Ball)} 14:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice

You have been blocked for repetitive blanking and alteration of comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metalocalypse trivia for a period of five hundred minutes. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 15 December 2006 (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).

Bobthehun2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

this is because the post was a direct attack at me and unfounded there fore it can be characterized as vandalism and should be deleted also the post should have had no impact upon the decision on weather to keep or delete the page further making it vandalism also the post to get me blocked was very unilatteral and had many untrue things in it "After being called on attempted votestacking on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metalocalypse trivia, the user has gone a parade of trolling both on my talk page and the deletion page. " i did troll to find my support but it was valid "The user acts ignorant as to the meaning of votestacking, insisting the term doesn't exist despite being directed to WP:SPAM." i did know what vote stacking was and i defended myself against his attack i did not vote stack as the wiki definition gives i told him he had the wrong definition "user has instead turned to adding warning templates to my page for incorrect and often random reasons."

the warnings were valid he had made incorrect claims and made attacks against me "He's taken to blanking the discussion again to suppress the links that show he's been vote stacking." i deleted them because they were attacks at me i had already proved i had not vote stacked "The few discussion attempts he's made are non-sequitor arguments citing edits made an hour after I've called him on the vote-stacking." i posted proving this incorrect, my time stamp has 00:11 while his has 00:42 proving him wrong and even if i did send him a message after he posted it it does not change the fact that i did do it making his claims of vote stacking even more false then the already were(i sent a message to a few people not in mass)

Decline reason:

Blanking comments from discussion pages is usually frowned upon, except in some very specific circumstances, and I'm not convinced that these fit. Multiple users were reverting or otherwise disagreeing with you -- when faced with such controversial actions, edit warring usually isn't the best idea. Might consider discussion to build consensus, next time. The block is fairly short -- 500 minutes, by the look of things. Sorry. Luna Santin 11:00, 15 December 2006 (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.

Bobthehun2 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trivia reply

ok, i support the trivia. what now? Patrick (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no you didn't you need to go to the disscussion thanx for the support btw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobthehun2 (talk • contribs) Bobthehun2 (UTC)

also he could have edited the page

Someguy immediately went to delete instead of what wiki tells us to do which is revise —the preceding comment is by Bobthehun2 (talk • contribs) Bobthehun2: Please sign your posts!.

Username??!!

What are you talking about? Yuser31415 (Review me!) 04:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is rather too complicated to explain at this moment, but in a nutshell I have seen it used to refer to the Germans in WWI. Never mind. Please ignore my comment, wherever it was. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Review me!) 04:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during December 24 2006 (UTC) to User:Nwwaew

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia! Your test worked, and thank you for reverting or removing it yourself. The best way to do tests in the future would be to use the sandbox. You can look at these pages as well: how to edit a page, the tutorial, and how to write a great article. All of these pages are good places to start. Again, welcome, and I hope that you will like Wikipedia. ShakingSpirit ^talk 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the WikiDefcon

Thanks for reverting it- I didn't realize that you had done it until I looked at the edit history today! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]