User talk:79times

September 2008

 * Comment: Please note that, according to the note just below the edit box, "[y]ou irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL"... meaning, once you type it, it's no longer "yours," per se. Anyone (including you) has the privilege (not the "right") of editing it... but anyone (including you) needs to talk it out and provide a valid reason to remove it just the same. Please keep this in mind in the future and use the talk page for that purpose. -- Kinu t /c  04:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

cousins
I think you misdirected your comment. The only edit I made to Cousins was this when I was undoing revisions made by a vandal IP. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize.

Obama and Black people
The fact that Obama, as part of a joke concerning a dog for his daughters, referred to himself as a "mutt" really doesn't have anything to do with the subject of that paragraph: commentators questioning whether Obama is "black enough" and the fact that Obama self-identifies as black and African American. — Malik Shabazz 15:05, April 23, 2009


 * Perhaps the appropriate place for a discussion of Obama's views concerning his mixed heritage is Black people. You should look for a reliable source for any quotes. — Malik Shabazz 19:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I know all about the reliable sources and I'll do as you suggested...thanks for your time.

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kill Bill
Take your disagreements to the article's talk page and wait for a clear agreement before making the changes to the article. If you continue to edit war you will be blocked. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not waging an "edit war." I will report you if you continue to change what I am putting on there BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH!!! Why should I wait for an agreement when what I am saying is correct?!?
 * Report me for what? You have nothing to report. Do you think a threat to report when I have not violated a policy is supposed to make me go away? I repeat: TAKE THIS ISSUE TO THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE. Repeatedly reverting by one editor when more than one editor disagrees is edit warring, and that most definitely is something that can be "reported" and result in a block, especially now that you have been warned (twice). Read some of Wikipedia' policies before threatening to "report" someone. Start with WP:CON, WP:EW, and WP:OWN. This is the end of the discussion on my and your talk pages. If you have something to say, say it at Talk:Kill Bill and wait for other opinions. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What I would be "reporting" is your unfounded accusation that I am engaging in an "edit war" while I am merely typing the truth and your "threat" to block me. I have the right to type the truth on here. Are you saying that falsities and half-truths are more important than the truth when avoiding an "edit war"? I do not want you to go away...I want you to stick around and explain on the talk page how my edits are incorrect and irrelevant and how they constitute vandalism. This is not the end of the discussion on my and your talk pages. 79times (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You alone do not determine the "truth" on Wikipedia. You obviously do not wish to read the policies that are linked in blue here. For the third time: TAKE THIS MATTER TO THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE. This is not going to be settled by you threatening me on my talk page. If you message me again about this very same issue, I will not respond here. End of discussion on this talk page. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What a joke! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS!!! The truth is the truth, regardless of who says it! You are threatening me; I am defending myself! Is that understood? This is not the end of this discussion. 79times (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

More Kill Bill
Regarding your comment "as for no one supporting my position...there are many, and I am sending them to the article", this is a friendly reminder that any attempt at votestacking in a consensus discussion by canvassing (i.e., an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors with a certain point of view) is inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia. If that is not your intent, we don't have a problem and consider this a freindly reminder to help you avoid a problem. But if you begin notifying editors to enter a discussion with the purpose of affecting a particular outcome in a consensus discussion, you could be headed for trouble. Thanks. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I am confused about one thing, though...when I am outnumbered and it is thrown in my face as a basis for a decision, is it against Wikipedia policy to bring people in on an issue IF they agree to level the playing field? If so, why? Thanks for your time. 79times (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus has nothing to do with "leveling the playing field." Consensus is determined by the weight of opinions, although this is not always a majority vote. Please read WP:CON for details. The playing field does not have to be "leveled" (if by that you mean your seeking enough opinions to outweigh the other side). People's opinions are their opinions, and if a lot more people have one opinion, that's simply the way it is. Where you could get into trouble would be if you notify a select group of editors in such a way that it is likely only your side would be supported. That is inappropriate canvassing. It's a bit like adding 15-year-olds to the worst 10-year-old baseball team just so the playing field can be leveled and they can win more games. Now, if you have a completely unbiased way of notifying others about a discussion (for example, sending a message to the last 100 people who edited the page, excluding vandals, regardless of any opinions they expressed) that might be acceptable. But if you select primarily people you know are likely to support your opinion, that's against the rules. Your being "outnumbered" cannot be a basis for any action on your part except to express your own opinion. You may be outnumbered in one debate, but you may be in the overwhelming majority in another debate. That's simply the way the consensus process works. You can't always be in the group that achieves consensus. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll just keep on editing the way that I have been without breaking 3RR. A group should not achieve consensus just because there are more of them. 79times (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Careful with changing controversial subject matter without consensus, even if you haven't violated 3RR. Consensus isn't always majority rule, but more opinions on one side do count for something. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on a matter under discussion
Note that edit warring does not always require three reverts in 24 hours. This is especially true if you make changes that are currently under discussion without consensus. Read the warning below carefully, and read WP:CON. Please express your opinions on the talk page all you wish, but respect the consensus process. I will not hesitate to notify an admin if run roughshod over the consensus process again. You are skating on thin ice if you continue this pattern: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kill Bill. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not send me a message like this again. What makes your edits more important than mine? You have accused me of vandalism and edit warring. You are edit warring yourself by changing my edits. If I am edit warring, then so are you. I have already disclaimed your vandalism charge:

"Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also: Tendentious editing"

First, you scoff at administrators when I remind you of their power when you make false vandalism accusations and now you threaten me with them? 79times (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Final warning -- changes without consensus
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Kill Bill, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, it's been over 11 years, but: don't need a consensus, partner: It IS a black mamba, understood?

Let me back up a sec...I am not trying to be disrespectful, sir. I can accept this reprimand as punishment if I understood why a FACT needs consensus. 79times (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)