User talk:Ikilled007

Duke Lacrosse Articles
ikilled007, Both articles - Duke Lacrosse team scandal and Crystal Gail Mangum, show an obvious lack of neutrality. I'm happy that the falsely accused defendants have been vindicated but there is a need for encyclopedic articles to reflect a balanced point of view and avoid taking sides, ad hominem attacks on any parties involved etc. I hope you take the time to read through my edits and see that they're actually quite balanced and fair. Gomez3000adams 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you feel that the article is POV and needs changes, can you please bring it to the talk pages first? You're making massive overhauls when many of the issues you feel are POV were already discussed on the talk pages. Explain on the talk pages what edits you are making and why. Please don't just do a massive delete and overhaul of content which was reached by consensus without first going to the talk page. That's all. :) Ikilled007 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre phrasing
Hi. You reverted the phrasing of the introduction's death toll from an active tone to a passive one. I originally changed it to active because of Logophile's arguments on the talk page, section "Accuracy in summarizing the event." Would you mind explaining either here or there why you prefer passive? --Kizor 13:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm the one who changed it to passive. I merely tried to clean it up some. If you look at this edit, you can see it was already passive before I tweaked it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Tech_massacre&diff=next&oldid=123794748 "It left at least 33 people..." -- that's passive voice and that's what was there before I made the next edit. I agree that it should be an active voice, but I just tried to clean up what was there already. I hope this helps. Ikilled007 13:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Did I mention that I suck? --Kizor 13:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on. It's a pain in the ass hunting through so many edits. Don't worry about it. Anyway, I changed it to an active voice and edited for fluidity. Ikilled007 13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Students for Organ Donation
You didn't set up the AfD page correctly; I've corrected it, but you might want to check to make sure that you approve. (For future reference, you shopuld use ~ as given on the AfD notice itself). I've also added it to the AfD page (again, you need to follow the instructions on the AfD notice). --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for cleaning that up. I appreciate it. Ikilled007 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified Blanket Reverts
If you feel you must remove information from an article, please first discuss it on the article's talk page. If you continue with your vandalism you may be blocked from editing. 41.240.70.151 10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverting your vandalism does not constitute vandalism. If you want to call Crystal Gail Mangum a nappy-headed ho, do it somewhere other than wikipedia. I suspect you'll be blocked shortly anyway, so it's no-doubt moot. Ikilled007 10:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR
Please note that you are in violation of the 3 Revert Rule. If you continue to violate 3RR you may find yourself blocked from editing. 41.240.70.151 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cute. Reverting vandalism is excepted. Ikilled007 10:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
You're doing good work reverting the vandalism on Crystal Gail Mangum, but you should save yourself the trouble and warn the vandal (using Wp:warnings). If he continues after having received a final warning, the vandal should be reported to WP:AIV so he can be blocked. / Pax:Vobiscum 11:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I kept the Interdictor Blog during Hurricane Katrina.
Man, I just noticed this factoid about you. I was addicted to the Interdictor Blog while the whole thing was unfolding; I have often wondered what became of you, I lost track when you were moving away from NOLA (to Florida?). You are one tough guy, no way could I have done what you did.

p.s. I initially came to this page tonight only to say that I agree with your assessment of the actions of a couple editors yesterday in re the Crystal Gail Mangum and Duke lacrosse hoax articles. Duke53 | Talk 06:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very kind words. By the way, now look what that rogue editor is doing:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Divine_Brown_%28sex_worker%29 Ikilled007 06:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk page
There are different "namespaces" in Wikipedia, and pages of each type should stay in their proper space. Therefore I've moved your user talk page back into the user talk page space. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where was it before? Ikilled007 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd moved this page and your user page into the article namespace. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's part of the mop and bucket chores. I hope User:70.23.167.160 follows your good advice. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an attack?
What, pray tell, is the "good point" being expressed by saying that an editor may be worse than the Prince of Darkness? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he makes some good points about how that editor is rogue. Ikilled007 15:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are not the right forum for complaining about editors. And one can say that an editor isn't following policy without resorting to name-calling. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I like how you edited the comment to remove the attack part but to keep the criticism. I think it's appropriate now. Ikilled007 14:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Article talk pages are not the right forum for complaining about editors. And one can say that an editor isn't following policy without resorting to name-calling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)"

There's a perfect Will Beback misrepresentation, for you. He deletes my reference to someone else's suggestion that the WP admin who unjustifiably deleted the entry on Crystal Gail Mangum (apparently because the other admin doesn't want readers to see what the Duke Rape Hoaxer looks like), and who was already notorious for his abuses is worse than the Prince of Darkness, and writes as though I had so described the notorious admin. Heck, I'd never even heard of the devil before that, and had kindly suggested that it isn't even possible to be worse than Lucifer. You just can't do right by some people.

"Article talk pages are not the right forum for complaining about editors."

Well, that's just some "I'm going to make up an ad hoc rule to justify my stalking of an editor" nonsense. 70.23.167.160 05:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, but I am afraid that a ban is unavoidable. The editor in question is an administrator who dedicated himself months ago to getting me banned, and to which end he and some like-minded comrades have for six months stalked me from article to article, immediately censoring every single edit I make. When I complained about the abuse – which violates every WP rule in the book – they got me blocked, which they have so far done four times (I believe he has personally blocked me at least twice). He has given me the implicit alternative of becoming pc (i.e., a racist liar), going silent, or being permanently silenced at Antipedia by a ban. Meanwhile, he has sought for months to get me permanently banned.


 * The problem with WP rules is that they are only rules in the sense that the Soviet constitution was a constitution. The Soviet constitution promised citizens equality and all manner of rights. In practice, however, over 90 percent of the citizenry was disenfranchised, and demanding one's rights resulted in either being executed, sent to a gulag, or later on, to a psychiatric hospital. Meanwhile, Party members lived above the law.


 * Granted, at WP, things are much less dramatic. The cadrists don’t have the power to shoot the non-pc in the head, work them to death in the gulag, or give them electroshock or drugs. The operation sucks in volunteers with a passion for scholarship who find themselves stymied by racist Marxists (or as they call themselves, "anti-racists") who censor sourced, factual work, replacing it with emptiness and/or lies. And while the Marxists violate every rule in the book with impunity, they lie about the same rules, in order to rationalize their stalking and intimidation of non-Marxists and anti-communists.


 * The stalker in question has now upped the ante, and is violating WP:VAN, in deleting entries on discussion pages. I fail to see how, under such circumstances, I can spread the truth.
 * 70.23.167.160 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Houston A. Baker Jr.
The article is certainly not NPOV. Go read the policy page, specifically where it talks about WP:NPOV. "Undue weight" is when an article places too much empahsis on a particular issue to the exclusion of others. Even when the material in question is factual and netural, the fact that it overwhelms the article makes the article as a whole POV. In the Baker article, too much empahsis is placed upon his opinions and almost none on his scholarly contributions, which is why he is important, why he has an encyclopedia article, and why anyone should care what he thinks about the case. I placed the NPOV tag on there and it will remain there until the article is in compliance with Wikipedia policies. It is improper to remove such tags during an ongoing content dispute. I would prefer the low-key method of simply tagging it until I have time to improve the article, so please do not persist in removing this tag. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What I have read on Baker is that his “scholarly contributions” are nugatory, and consist of race-baiting and hyperbole. His career is based on his being an “activist,” which is a euphemism for a faculty member who racially harasses white students. The high points of his career have so far been his 1993 organizing of a racist campaign against an innocent, white University of Pennsylvania student, Eden Jacobowitz, and his leadership role in 2006, in organizing the racist and sexist hate campaign against the victims of the Duke University Rape Hoax.
 * 70.23.167.160 00:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter
Don't spam the spoiler on the talk page. As has been noted several times on the talk page, the plot summary will be put up once the book is officially released.-Wafulz 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Houston A. Baker Jr.. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Flubeca Talk 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You identified that change as vandalism?? I was restoring content that the previous editor removed and I didn't see the NPOV tag at the top would get removed in the revert. You're the one who ended up removing content in your follow-up edit. Ikilled007 16:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Lyndon Baines Johnson
Hi. You reverted my removal of the fake story on this page. I am rather surprised by this. Is there any particular reason you thought I was incorrect to do this? If you check the discussion page you will find someone floated this particular conspiracy theory a while ago and got no support for its inclusion in the main page. I do hope you'll reconsider your edit. Thanks Galloglass 10:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please take note that you are in violation of the 3 Revert Rule on this article. If you continue to violate WP:3RR you may find yourself blocked from editing. Galloglass 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

special force battalion ?
Since you served in SF can you tell me how many companies in each special force battalion ?...i know 1 company made of 83 men ...and is any difference in numbers between active duty and ANG ? ...thanks --Jonybond 19:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Invite
Jccort (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Biden article
Now that Biden is the VP we'll have to watch out for all the Obama supporters, they have created a stronghold on the Obama article (just check it out) and are going to do the same thing with Biden. I just wanted to say thanks for opposing biased editing. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is the whole issue of using vandalism, re: ikilled007's edits to the Controversies section of the Biden article, that should definitely be avoided as  a means of opposing biased editing. I'm sure you'll agree the snarky comments were inappropriate, uninformative, under-handed and carried there own biasNumskll (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama talk page comments
Please refrain from comments that can be potentially inflammatory and/or a violation of the article probation. The comments you posted regards little to Barack Obama and more to an off-topic controversy regarding two independent web-sites. Thanks, seicer &#x007C; talk  &#x007C; contribs  04:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. For comment "What are you, the Obama SS?" Implying that other users should be compared to Nazis is uncivil to the point that a block is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Being very frank, your editing habits for the past several months -- to wit, your complete and utter lack of recent editing aside from periodically dropping in on the talk page for some liberal politician's talk page to call various editors there "partisan hacks" -- do seem to indicate you're coming here in response to some cue from elsewhere, such as the recent WND article. You're complaining that you've been attacked, and I do see some tense words, but nowhere do I see other editors implying you're a nazi, as you've implied about others, nor anything of that sort. It's quite possible to complain about behavior without directly insulting another person; would you be able to do so, if unblocked? – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the block will expire in a few hours anyway. I don't see the least regret in Ik7's comments.  Apparently it is all my fault.  I have no idea what Natalee Holloway has to do with politics (note that both it and Jena Six are featured articles which hit the main page last fall, so I must be doing something right).  Given his attitude, suggest letting the block expire later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of harassment in the comment quoted above as a rationale for the block. Looks like a clear case of mop-and-bucket abuse to me. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You think this is mop and bucket? You should see the lock down on the Obama page -- even the talk page. No dissent allowed. It's a joke. They're over there white-washing the article, white-washing the talk page when people complain, insulting the people by calling them dittohead idiots and WND (World Net Daily) morons, etc., and then banning them. It's laughable. No credibility to these guys whatsoever. Ikilled007 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Identifying new candidates for the sock drawer
Cross-posted from my own talk page - I don't have any tools. I can just tell from the style and format of a comment. Sometimes it only takes a single post, but usually it takes 2 or 3. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Ikilled007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Dave Dial (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

 * I've been wrong before and will surly be wrong again. You contributions list mirrors that of a classic sock puppet. Add that to the 'whitewash' similarities, and the timing of the post on the Obama talk page, and I though it was obvious. Obviously I was wrong here, and I apologize. And I mean that. I've done some further checking and you are absolutely correct. You live in Sicily and nowhere near the anon ips. Dave Dial (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)