User talk:GundamsRus

Dedicated to having accurate sources
You are correct it is flamebaiting and has been rephrased.GundamsRus 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to cut out part of what I said to create another intention from my wordings, you should just delete the whole thing; I've taken the liberty of doing it for you. At any rate, much as I find the header laughable, I'll be more than content to stop these hostilities if you'd quit trawling my contributions page. It's damn annoying. MalikCarr 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Example of 'not In Universe'
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile_Suit_Gundam_MS_IGLOO&oldid=157632047 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.222.133 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Since you seem hard pressed at keeping up this POINT campaign, I should note you're out of reverts for today. Revert my edits again and you will be reported accordingly. MalikCarr 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:GUNDAM
I would suggest you to present the problems you find in Gundam related articles in the WP:Gundam talk page, so more people concerned about the articles can work on them. It will save you more time than tagging most of the articles and engaging in edit wars. I personally did not watch all of the pages so I guess a lot of people who are willing to edit the articles to a more wiki standard have the same problem of not being able to know what artciles need to be improved. MythSearchertalk 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing images
Hey, buddy, that's not the way you're supposed to deal with nonfree images. If an image doesn't have a fair use rationale, you're supposed to tag it as such, and it will be deleted in 7 days if a rationale is not provided. You are NOT supposed to remove it from the article; a bot automatically does so if the image is deleted. See WP:NFURG, but you already knew that, right? MalikCarr 02:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Block rationale
User talk:Maxim assigned a 48 hour block in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:GundamsRus_reported_by_User:MalikCarr_.28Result:48_hours_.29. As I understand "Please remember that the 3RR ... does not include ... reverts to deal with simple vandalism." While I did not flag them as such, each of my reverts that is subject of this block was dealing with vandalism - the removal of a {di} tag without addressing the copyright issues named in the tag. The tag and nearly every revert history that I did (as well as the talk page for the image) clearly included the reason for the {di} tag - namely that the copyright image had been used in a number of articles in violation of fair use rationale WP:NFCC which states that a copyright image cannot be used in a situation where text can provide the same information. In each of the identified articles the image appears in the same context (see Courtney Heironimus). The image appears in an infobox that has a line for the fictional character which looks like Allegiance: [Disputed Image of ZAFT LOGO] ZAFT In the context the image is used, the use of the copyright logo only serves to identify which faction the ficitonal character belongs to - information which is also conveyed by the text which follows the image which is the name of the faction. It is clear to me that under WP:NFCC the image cannot be used under 'fair use' rationale in this situation. I do not see how the repeated removal of the {di} tag without addressing this copyright vio issue can be construed as anything other vandalism, especially since I attempted to make as clear as possible in every revert that I did why the {di} tag was being returned to the article. And as reversions of vandalism, I do not feel a block under the 3RR is appropriate. Thank you for your time and please let me know where I am misunderstanding WP policies. If I had named each revision as vandalism, would that have been sufficient? GundamsRus 23:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What would be sufficient is you not reverting more than three times in 24 hours, as per policy. Jtrainor 05:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. I will of course take all advise from an editor with such repute as yours with all due consideration.

Blocked
I have blocked you for 72 hours for engaging in edit wars with User:Jtrainor, User:MalikCarr, and User:A Man In Black on multiple articles for an extended period of time. You have also used misleading edit summaries, calling content dispute reverts vandalism. Mr.  Z- man  03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Logging in
To help to avoid confusion, can you try to remember to log in (and stay logged in) when you edit? When other editors look at an article's history, it's helpful to be able to see all of your contributions under one name, rather than under GundamsRus as well as a spate of Earthlink IP addresses.

I'm trying to tease out at the moment exactly what's going on in your conflict with Jtrainor, MalikCarr, and others, and I think it would help out a lot if you took care to stay logged in. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be able to find some helpful suggestions at Help:Logging in; there may be a problem with your cookie settings. Can you log in using the secure server link?  Shooting in the dark, you may need to upgrade to the most recent version of IE, or try a different browser altogether.  If it's a technical problem, though, then I'll encourage others to be tolerant as much as possible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALK
Cease doing it to me immediately. Jtrainor (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability
Dear GundamsRus, the notability section that that tag refers to is for books. The material that has been tagged is gaming material not a book as such in the sense that the notability section is written for. Hence a mismatch. Leaving a simple unsourced tag, or better still hunting down some refs is a more productive endeavour.

If you are familiar with gaming material then helping get sources would be good. If not, then I am concerned about the tagging of material which you are unfamiliar with. There's plenty of issues I have found on material I have an aversion to but am not familiar enough with it to start tagging or nomming it for AfD.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my bad. I had even placed and unreferenced tag or two about the place. However, they are not books in the sense of the word. Are you interested in writing articles? If an area of WP is becoming acrimonious there's plenty of stuff around to do. Having a go at article writing often engenders good will. :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you hate bad citations and so forth so much then here's something you can make yourself useful on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States

Jtrainor (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:RfC
I will support you in a User:RfC. Would you be willing to file one? I do not think that such behavior should be tolerated. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to follow me around the wiki I will report you for harrassment
Stop it immediately. Jtrainor (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is harassment, indeed you should report it. GundamsЯus (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

sunscreen
What does it mean: "Although some sunscreen ingredients do not penetrate the skin surface or the uppermost layers of the stratum corneum." It sounds as if the penetration is wanted. That is pure desinformation. The sunscreen ingredients are supposed to stay on the surface or in the sc. Absorption into the viable layers of skin is undesirable.Gerriet42 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Aphorisms exemplified
Every conversation on the internet eventually degenerates into calling people Hitler.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)