User talk:Atlantabravz/Archive 1

Your report to Administrator intervention against vandalism
Thank you for reporting the vandalism of to WP:AIV. I changed my mind and went ahead and blocked this IP for one week via an anonymous-only block that will still let registered editors on that address use Wikipedia. Thanks again for helping contain vandalism! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Emilio
Well, we've got a damn good start (to quote one of his songs) on Emilio. We still need a page on David Lee Garza, though. :-P Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WQA
No problem. I actually have a little polite template I usually used on those who forget, but I was too lazy this morning :-) Hope it helps ... I really think he was having a little fun with a real life buddy.  ►  BMW  ◄  20:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the part...
Where I tell you to get a life and not to get so easily offended and mind your own business. HP Jo ker  Leave me a message 21:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you two in a bloody civil union together? HP Jo ker  Leave me a message 22:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You really should think about getting a life you know. It's not too late!!! Go and meet some new people!!!! fucking loser, get off wikipedia!!!! 74.50.119.142 (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * fuck off cunt 74.50.119.142 (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the block you received for your behavior speaks for itself. Atlantabravz (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mate, that is not me. I'm in US Government during that time. I'm not stupid enough to comeback with insults after my account was blocked. By the way, I cannot edit at all from home because both of my computers (Dell XPS and the Laptop) have been logged on my account recently. 161.97.198.130 (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Ask Avruch, he set up my archives with a bot which now seems to be b0rked now because I made a 12 1/2 archive. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That should work, let me know if there are any problems. Avruch  T 18:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Roy L. Dennis
Thanks for the message on my talk page. What happened was that either this edit or this edit  by you - the second and third in the series - showed up in my anti-vandal tool. They looked like vandalism to me, so I hit the 'rollback' link. The rollback arrived after your fourth consecutive edit, and had the effect of reverting all four. I don't quite see why you chose to undo two edits that removed vandalism, thereby putting the vandalism back in. I'm happy to AGF of course, but perhaps you could explain?

Some anti-vandal tools whitelist all editors over a certain edit coount, or all admins, but mine just has a hard-coded list. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Archibaldsinclair.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Archibaldsinclair.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Archibaldsinclair.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Archibaldsinclair.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Archibaldsinclair.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:Archibaldsinclair.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable SEAL
Stop Removing Charles Hoelzel As a Notable SEAL He is a Navy Cross Recipient and has earned the right to be considered a Notable SEAL, He also is enshrined at the UDT/SEAL museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nec532x (talk • contribs) 19:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The-Expose-in-ator Replies
I have nothing against the Biden family except he was a Draft Dodger that let some other less eligible, less qualified and probably less educated individual go to Vietnam in his place. He did everything short of maiming himself to dodge the draft and, if he hadn't been able to get a letter from his family physician "discovering" a disqualifying "illness" and made a big enough issue of it to get his induction cancelled, he might have tried maiming but I doubt he had the guts. As a draftee from Scranton, PA, I have a little experience with how the draft worked and how physicals were conducted. Joe would have had to have made quite a stink to beat it. I took Joe's place in Vietnam and ended up serving an extended tour to make up for him not going! As for Beau, the entry on his page is INCORRECT but I notice you did not comment about that. Here is the truth: Beau Biden's unit did not arrive in Iraq in Nov 08, they arrive on 22 Dec 08, according to the Delaware National Guard official website (http://www.delawarenationalguard.com/home/new/content/dngnews/2008/Dec/261st/2008decDJvolume2.pdf ). He did come back TDY on 13 Jan 09, 22 days later according to Lt. Col. Len Gratteri, a Delaware Army National Guard spokesman. He said "CPT Beau Biden began a temporary assignment at the Pentagon on Thursday,15 Jan. Details about the assignment or how long it will last weren't immediately available" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSHFhLebRKfuSV_xdz1v...cY2sQD9 ). Without Dad's help, he (and any other soldier) would not have been eligible for leave until midpoint of his tour. In Vietnam when someone had only been in Country 22 days we used to say he was "still pissing Stateside water!" Regardless, he did NOT come back on leave, he returned TDY which meant he flew back on "duty status" so had priority and bumped a soldier returning on R&R who would have been in-country between 6 and 7 months. Nice move Beau! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Expose-inator (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable SEAL
I know Charles Hoelzel personally, he and I graduated from BUD/S class 117 together (not true), that article you refer too from the USA Today was wrong, the reporter never interviewed Chuck face to face he only interviewed John Andretti, My name is Bob McMeans (not true) and Chuck and I served together with ST2,ST6 then onto DEVGRU (not true). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nec532x (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You are a complete idiot, you are trying to ruin the reputation of a man who served his country faithfully for over 20 years, it is apparent that that THE AUTHENTICATOR IS WRONG, Charles graduated with me (not true) you peanut headed ass, and class 117 did graduate in September of 82, it is apparent you believe everything you read, That article which was written on him was not only quoted as he said this or that, he did not, as a matter of fact do some fact checking, he sued the paper for misrepresentation, because he refused to speak with them on any subject, so they spoke with Jon Andretti who said a load of bullshit. The sad part is Chuck does not no anything about any of your antics or even being on Wikipedia and now you because of you he is on a phonies board. That is disgraceful and so are you. Get your facts right, you fucking idiot.

NOTE: This was not written by Bob McMeans. His name was used without his permission and if you check the facts in this you will find they are not correct. This was written by someone who used a name he found (Bob McMeans) on the internet to try to give false creditbilty to to a fake named Charles Hoelzel. Grow up and live your own life, not others.

My Edit
The edit ":" sets the response apart from the original post. I'm sorry, your quite right, I shouldn't have touched it. I have reverted my edit. Proxy User (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Francisco Rodriguez
sorry for the lack of edit summary on the K-Rod article. The reasoning behind those edits is that information seemed very inconsequential and not notable, being a finalist for a not so well known award but not winning it, and winning reliever of the month one year really don't seem worth mentioning, particularly since so many sports articles are bogged down with recent crap that doesn't mean much in the big picture. Tjrover (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)tjrover

Craig Morgan
Yeah, that should work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)