User talk:Antigone28

I do not want anyone to talk to me. Please do not leave a message. I will delete it. I don't like clutter and adding to the talk page is just clutter. Thank you Antigone28 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This page does not belong to you. Please see WP:OWN.  If you are unwilling to allow this page to be used for discussion from other users, please let me know so we can block you indefinitely.  --Yamla 02:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * please explain why I cannot erase a page that's called MY TALK and ask that there be no additions? I just want to be left alone and keep a page clean while a friend is on vacation.  I haven't talked to anyone and I've left everyone alone.  Why can't I just not have clutter on MY TALK or is it not really MY talk?Antigone28 02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not really your talk. See WP:OWN.  --Yamla 02:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for continued edit warring in violation of WP:3RR. --Yamla 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * what violation? I am confused.  Am I blocked because I undid an edit by a random IP address in violation of the neutrality policy?  This isn't me "warring?" it's me trying to maintain fact and neutrality.  The "paternity" on the EJ and Sami page is not determined and someone keeps changing it to say EJ IS the father and that is not so according to the show.  I was only trying to keep the accuracy.  Why is that wrong?Antigone28 02:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC
 * I'm having problems. I can go to history and see what you wrote but I'm still confused.  If I'm fixing the information to show the correct info why is it considered wrong?  The paternity is not verified and someone who doesn't have the nerve to sign in keeps changing the paternity.  And I've only been on the Sami Brady page once so I can't possibly be "warring" there.  I didn't realize reverting to the correct information was warring.  Antigone28 02:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about your edit warring on Sami Brady, E.J. Wells, and particularly on EJ Wells and Samantha Brady. You are permitted to remove outdated warnings from this page (though not your block message), though note that doing so will be considered an act of bad faith if you continue with the same violations. --Yamla 02:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not permitted to revert someone else's changes indefinitely. You must stop and discuss your changes.  See WP:3RR, which you have already been warned about.  --Yamla 03:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)
 * How do I talk with someone who doesn't log in. I've left repeated messages on the IP TALK PAGE of the person that keeps putting the incorrect information.  I only agreed to watch the page for RadiantButterfly while she's gone.  She told me to make sure to keep the page correct.  I didn't know that would cause me to get blocked.  Seems unfair since the correct information isn't getting through to the person who keeps changing it.  A unregistered person.Antigone28 03:08, 30 June
 * Leave the message on the article's discussion page, along with your reliable citation. --Yamla 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)*see belowAntigone28 03:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was never warned about only being allowed to revert three times. I only learned to revert two days ago.Antigone28 03:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not true. See this edit.  Now do you see why we discourage blanking of this page?  --Yamla 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If I didn't blank it out I'd still be fighting with that person. I didn't read anything from her, I just wanted her to go away.  It was my second day on WIKI I had no clue what she was talking about.  It says you may be blocked on the page you sent me to, not you will.  I was only trying to do what was right and you can go to the IP page and see I asked them to stop changing the page.  Would the synopsis of the day that says the "faked amnio test results" be enough to prove there is not proven paternity?Antigone28 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, wait, your claim is that you read the bit that said you may be blocked if you violate WP:3RR and you interpreted this to mean that you would not be blocked if you violated WP:3RR? That's rather strange but I suppose you are free to read it that way.  You'd be wrong.  As to your source, please note that the article did not have a link to this citation and this was required under WP:V.  It looks like you are correct but being correct is not sufficient (again, see WP:V).  --Yamla 14:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I claim nothing other than it says "may be blocked" and that's all I said and if it's written that way and it's WRONG, it should be changed. Regardless, I thought your job was to help new people you seem more interested in allowing wrong information and stifling those with the correct information.  Again, I don't even understand what you want.  I gave you the information and it seems not good enough. I give up.  I just wanted correct information and you are more content to send me to passages that only serve to further confuse.  You would rather INCORRECT INFORMATION be posted than work with me.  No wonder people use WIKI as reference and get their papers tossed out or get laughed at on other sites.  I tried.  I'm done trying.  I gave the correct information but from my interpretation of what you are saying, you just don't care who's right, you care about a three revert rule even if the informtion being put up is wrong and the revert is correct.Antigone28 14:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. So WP:3RR says you may be blocked if you violate it.  You violated it.  You were blocked.  And what I want from you is to adhere to WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:OWN.  It seems you have a reasonable handle on WP:RS but are so far ignoring WP:3RR and WP:V.  --Yamla 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I PLEASE finish a thought before you reply????? PLEASE.  I never reply on the first save. PLEASE.  let me finish "talking" before you reply.  Antigone28 14:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I obviously can't win or understand. Congratulations you brought me to tears, I'm done. Let the incorrect information stand.  I just wanted one article to be right, it's a lie that I reverted the Sami Brady page more than once, I just wanted to right information but you are unwilling to help.  YOu keep accusing me of lies so I'm done.  Just block me, fine.  I won't help and Wikipedia can stand with incorrect information.  I've gotten by for LIFE without ever editing, I can get by longer.  I'll just let PowerMouse deal with it and ream her for getting me involved in the first place.  YOu want incorrect info to stand, so be it.  I can't help you keep Wiki right.  Let incorrect information stand.  Not my headache any longer.

Edit Conflicts
Something happend and I got edit conflicts on the page. Please explain what is going on?


 * You and I were editing the page at the same time. --Yamla 02:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

EJ Wells / Baby Paternity
Here is the information: At the hospital, a tormented Nick hands Marlena the DNA results. Marlena is crestfallen to learn EJ is the father of both babies. Marlena delivers the devastating news to Sami and Lucas. A pained Lucas assures Sami she won't lose him.

At the DiMera Mansion, Kate informs EJ that Sami and Lucas have been taken to a safe house. Only Roman knows where they are. She also surprises EJ with the news that Sami is carrying twins. An upset Nick calls Kate and tells her he did what she wanted; the DNA test conveniently came out in EJ's favor. '''Nick reports he never even conducted a real test, so he has no idea who the true father is. Nick later decides he needs to perform the test after all.''' From: http://www.daysofourlives.com/updates/index.html ......is that good enough PROOF that there is no proof who the father is?Antigone28 03:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Time test Antigone28 00:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Permenantly blocked
it's gone from 24 hours to now whenever. When I log in it said the first now it says the 2nd. What the heck?

Permenantly blocked??
it's gone from 24 hours to now whenever. When I log in it said the first now it says the 2nd. What the heck?

Suspected sockpuppetry
This account has been added to a list at a sockpuppet investigation page, in case you would like to comment. --Elonka 11:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)