User talk:Bigplankton

My warm welcome:

Please do not describe a legitimate dispute over content as vandalism. See Civility. There is no need for this dispute to be adversarial. Gamaliel 01:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you have entirely missed the point of my message. A disagreement over which section to place material in is a content dispute. It is not "vandalism" and it is quite rude of you to describe it as such. Please read our rules such as Civility. Editing Wikipedia articles is a collaborative process, not an adversarial one, and there is no reason for you to make such a simple dispute into an adversarial conflict. Gamaliel 02:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Abusive Admin
Heh Big, you should know that the above-user is also an admin, and frequently uses/abuses its admin powers to prevail in edit wars. Expect the next move to be stalking editing of your edits, deleting all of your changes, placing you on its "watch" page, and generally harassing you until it gets its way or moves on to another victim. Its hypocritcal use of Wikipedia rules is famous here, but rest assured that it is in fact violating Wikipedia when it makes its attack run, and eventually will be stripped of its admin powers once the rest of the admin community wakes up. I will be watching your interactions with this abuser, and will support you in your disputes with it, for which I will be punished. Morton devonshire 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support Morton. I'm done with it though, I'm not going to give anyone the satisfaction of getting me banned. Others (about 3 or 4 a week) will come along and keep trying to fix the article so it's more respectable. Let them bother with it!--Bigplankton 06:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point, it is clear that you're not going to listen to anything I say, but I urge you to be cautious before accepting advice about Wikipedia from someone who has run into as many conflicts as Morton devonshire has. Gamaliel 05:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The failure of administrators
I've been on wikipedia for about 2 weeks and I can see the problem already. "Administrators". With power comes abuse, it's human nature and can't be helped. Administrators have the elevated power to foist their POV onto articles, as I just experienced in the Michael Savage article. They have the power to block your user account, so you'll probably lose in a revert war as they'll hang that over your head. I'm sure there are hundreds of great administrators, but I happen to come across the one trouble maker. Just when you think something is cool, along come the annoying gnats that have to ruin it. It's obvious this one person can't see through their own narrow bias. They have trouble with other users as well. So, I've backed off wikipedia. I see it as an interesting curiosity; sometimes fun and informative, other times an embarrassing joke.--Bigplankton 23:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you return in time, you should chime in on the challenge to said admin at AN complaint. All is not lost, unless good men do nothing.  Cheers.  Morton devonshire 23:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're a good man Morton, I don't care what they say about you. "Liberals" by their very nature are more aggressive than "non-liberals". While wikipedia is surprisingly balanced considering, I've noticed the "liberals" have infested it's content. Said admin is a liberal, this can be gathered from a cursory glance at their talk page. You're right(I was reading your talk page), It doesn't seem right that admins are out there in editing wars when they have similar or less expertise yet more power. It's a wikipedia flaw. You made some suggestions to the admin that they should distance themselves somehow. He didn't really listen. You were also trying to explain to this admin why he gets into trouble with others. The word I would use is condescending.


 * The bottom line, the part of Savage's biography in contention is there to make him look silly by people who disagree with his politics or just don't like him. That's not "encyclopedic". There's at least a decent argument it doesn't belong there. But, I explained myself in the talk pages and nobody came to my aid or agreed with me, so maybe not enough people give a sh-t. If enough people felt strongly about it, it would be fixed. In the end, Michael Freakin Savage, the crazyman, is not worth all of this time and aggravation! Free Mumia!--Bigplankton 02:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you send me a link to what you were talking about -- couldn't follow what you were saying. Morton devonshire 20:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

World War One casualties
Hi Bigplankton! You made something of a barbed comment on the page World War I casualties. Whilst I agree that the opening paragraph could have been read as misleading (the original writer used "almost" when "about" would have been better), it's preferred to make alterations to the article or comment on the talk page. It's not good form to make comments in the article itself, where your comments can be seen by casual readers of our encyclopedia. Your actions could easily be mistaken for vandalism. Please comment on talk pages and make changes to articles rather than the other way around from now on. If you need any help or advice, please let me know on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. Thanks! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 19:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I hear ya. I couldn't resist. --Bigplankton 19:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A real welcome
I see you have never been warmly welcomed, so here.

Image:Diane lane publicity photo 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Diane lane publicity photo 1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Oden 01:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Lisette_melendez.jpeg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lisette_melendez.jpeg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bleh999 03:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)