Talk:Interdictor (blog)

Untitled
"69.203.74.32" obviously has some kind of personal vendetta against Barnett and continuously vandalizes the article. I will continue to undo his/her modifications as needed.

Okay, it's official -- this article is of questionable notibility, but I won't nominate it for deletion. Until it cites its sources, however, I think the tag added should remain. 69.203.74.32 15:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC) anon

How very professional of you, 69.203.74.32; do you have an explanation for your vandalism? Ikilled007 16:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

At first, I thought this was a silly, non-notable article with too much resemblance to a vanity article from a publicity seeker.

The previous edits were not mature. The current call for citation is justified. There are points of fact that should be verified from external sources. 69.203.74.32 18:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)anon

So you surf Wikipedia looking for "silly, non-notable articles" to deface? Ikilled007 21:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's cute that you are so hepped up over your personal bragging page on WP. How about just locating the media sources to satisfy citation standards for an article? 69.203.74.32 22:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)anon

I didn't create the article, and I made very few edits to it. Honestly, I couldn't care less if you nominate the article for deletion and it disappears. What I do not like is your childish behavior toward me and my fiancee -- your vandalism. I'd rather not have the article exist at all than have it become a tool for you to insult me. I could easily expand the article and add all sorts of cool facts -- verifiable in many media publications -- about how awesome I am, but instead, I've chosen simply to delete your nasty comments; so calling this my personal bragging page is absurd. Quite frankly, I don't want to do any work on this page at all. I don't want to link you to the Wired articles or MSNBC articles or CNN articles or any of the interviews. If you want to do it, feel free. Just stop vandalizing the page. Is that too much to ask? Ikilled007 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not too much to ask.

Currently, however, the article is not being vandalized. It is being tagged as not meeting Wikipedia citation standards so that somebody, presumably someone who wrote or contributed to the original, will make it an encyclopedia article rather than an unreferenced advertisement for a blog. Without the links to those materials you say you don't want to link to, that is all that this is. I will periodically continue to make certain that the reference and citation tags stand. 69.203.74.32 14:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)anon


 * I agree completely. You are no longer vandalizing it and the current tags are proper - I certainly won't touch them. Let's hope the article finds someone who wants to do the leg work or gets deleted before the next prankster shows up. Ikilled007 03:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I have addressed most of the sourcing issues. DickClarkMises 16:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interdictor (blog). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627052019/http://interdictor.livejournal.com/profile to http://interdictor.livejournal.com/profile
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627052121/http://interdictor.livejournal.com/ to http://interdictor.livejournal.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)