User talk:Lbrad2001

Censorship
I normally use Wikipedia as reference for further research. However, I've been disturbed with whats taken place during the brief instance where I attempted to inject something into an article. It all started about 4 years ago, and without going into details, my contribution to an article about a sniper rifle amounted to this. "It's also known as James Bond's personal sniper rifle as seen in the film "The Living Daylights." Thats it, nothing of a disruptive nature, and nothing that wasn't true. After I posted that all hell broke loose. Normally I would have just let it go, but what I was saying was true and documented. I didn't see the reason why it wasn't allowed, other than the pride of the man who created the article. A man who obviously doesn't obey the "rules" set forth by Wikipedia, but blatantly shoves those rules back in everyone's face. It's like a man who enforces, with prejudice, the 1st of the 10 commandments but ignores the other 9 and the one hes enforcing when it suits his purpose.

For further reading I direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walther_WA_2000

This has made me rethink using Wikipedia as a source for anything. The article I attempted to edit was an article about a rifle, nothing more. The amount of censorship and ridicule I endured for attempting to input one sentence into that article is bad enough. But what happens to articles that are much more important. Articles on Julius Caesar, Christianity, Nuclear Weapons etc. I look on all the articles I see on Wikipedia with extreme skepticism because of all this. Wikipedia is now an all boys club where they protect their own and bully off anyone who hasn't edited 1000 pages. Information control is dangerous.

I do not give my consent for any of this to be edited. I reserve the right to delete any comments that are offensive. This is a page where I get to express my beliefs. If a certain someone wants to troll me go back to the page you started on. Lbrad2001 (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glock_pistol for evidence of how he's done this to others. Lbrad2001 (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Its 2am and I'm still being ridiculed and threatened for one sentence post I made 4 years ago. If this isn't extreme censorship I don't know what is. All the admins I run into on this website seem to think that "the truth" of their little edits are their own little fiefdoms. And you can't edit anything without asking permission. True or not. It really doesn't matter, they'll use a dead link and call your's unreliable. Lbrad2001 (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I love the flawless logic of the person I'm having an argument with. It works like this. "I'm right so I can delete your content as many times as I want and add whatever I want without citations."

"You're wrong so anything you add to the page is vandalism. Once I delete it, you can't put it back. However if you delete anything I added to the page its vandalism and I can add it back as much as I want.You have to explain your citations to my liking, but if my citation is a dead link I don't have to explain anything. It doesn't matter if you disagree and if you do it's vandalism. If anybody supports your arguments then you are a SOCK and should be banned for SOCKing and vandalism. Anybody who supports my argument is a vigilant protector of this page from vandalism"

In other words if I touch the WA 2000 page in anyway its vandalism. He owns the article and controls all content on the page. I'd go into more details and put everything in bold type, cause that gives it so much more weight if I go by the person I'm disagreeing with, but I'm busy.

The history of the WA 2000 page will back up everything I'm saying.Lbrad2001 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

CLEARED
I've finally been cleared of all the BS charges that were made. This has been an absolutely ridiculous witch hunt perpetrated by people who want to stop 1 sentence from being added to a page about a sniper rifle. Incidentally the main user that accused me is now the target of several investigations into his bullying tactics and I hope to see him punished for his actions.

I would welcome talking to anyone who has been the victim of Wiki bullying as I have. For some sick reason weak minded people feel the need to beat up on people that have something to say that they don't agree with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lbrad2001

Check User
This guy won't give up. This is getting near an insane level of stalking and harassment. It's getting really pathetic and embarrassing for someone who can't back up anything he's saying unless he has friends to do it for him.

Here he is threatening me again even though he just tried to report me and it failed.

"The CU was declined because the other accounts are old ("stale"). Regardless, edit warring and/or hopping from one IP to another is still against Wikipedia policy, and could earn you a block if you continue." ROG5728 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So is threatening people ROG5728

BOLD LETTERS MEAN A LOT according to this dude, HES DEADLY SERIOUS WHEN HE TYPES IN BOLD.

Let me make something clear because evidently some people don't understand. There's this thing called sarcasm and I use it a lot. I should probably stop however because certain people, who will remain nameless, are not intelligent enough to pick up on it. Lbrad2001 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Proof of a pattern of behavior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glock#Violence_Policy_Center_.2F_Mass_Murder_addition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lbrad2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walther_WA_2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glock_pistol

I would ask that anyone who chimes in on these events actually look at whats happened from the beginning. My temper has flared at times, and I wish I had kept it more in check, but I have been being provoked by continual attacks from multiple people sicked on me by one user. There's also multiple occasions of other users ignoring the rules of wikipedia, and dismissing that as being inappropriate by saying, and I'm paraphrasing "oh well you're a vandal, we can treat you anyway we wish and it isn't a violation." An example would be the 3RR rule. I was accused of violating it because the sentence I placed in a certain article was removed three times in one night and I revert'd it back to it being included every time. So that means he violated 3RR and so did I. He's trying to claim that I'm the only one who broke the rules because he can revert me as many times as he wants since I'm a vandal. Keep in mind the fact I put in the article was one sentence long and its not in dispute that its true. The only thing in dispute is whether its relevant or not, but he took it upon himself to just start deleting my stuff without discussion or consensus from anyone. He then dismissed the other users who supported me, including admins, as being irrelevant. He did not feel that the users and admins that sided with him are irrelevant. I definately have not been in the right with everything I have said, but neither have those parties that have attacked me. I also feel like my intentions were always to act with good faith, but that has not been the case with the way others have treated me. This consistent approach to attempt to control information to such a degree that a one sentence long truthful statement is suppressed and attempts made to permablock me for attempting to keep it in the article is highly dangerous to the existence of freedom of thought on wikipedia. It's also disturbing that the user in question had an entire paragraph cited with a dead link but he didnt feel the need to have that removed and tried to have me blocked for that as well. Thankgod another admin stepped in and removed it himself because if I had tried to remove it I know damnwell he would just 3RR that to death and say it was justified because I'm a vandal. Lbrad2001 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

List of James Bond firearms
The Walther WA 2000 rifle is in the following list: List of James Bond firearms, which is linked from that article. It does not really belong in the article on the rifle for its brief few minutes of screen time and the folks at the movie project don't seem to want it in The Living Daylights article. I remember seeing that movie in the theater when it first came out and recognized the Walther right away for what it was, but this gets into the realm of trivia. It is simply not Bond's PPK, Riggs' Beretta 92 or Dirty Harry's Model 29. If you are interested in improving the encyclopedia, maybe you might want to take a look at that list and help clean it up. If you're a bonafide film buff who knows his guns, you may want to help out over at imfdb.com, I apologize if you feel you are being censored, but it is not the case.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I respect your statement on that, and I have no problem talking in a civilized manner when I'm addressed in a civilized manner. I would argue that the Beretta 92 is not as signifigant as the Walther 2000 simply because the Beretta has beeen used in so many movies and is undistinguishable from a lot of pistols. The Walther 2000 is such a unique weapon and looks like no other rifle I've ever seen. But I see your point and I respect your position. I'll definately take your recommendation and look into another venue for my information. It's also extremely likely the Bond will eventually use that rifle in another film and perhaps in more depth. At that point, or if I find sources that otherwise confirm its relevance I will revisit the topic. For right now I'd just as soon let the thing go. If I find evidence I will discuss it on the talk page for WA 2000 and not attempt to insert it and get into another edit war that I have no desire to be a part of. Lbrad2001 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. For the record, I did search on Google Books and a few other places and not much has been reported in the press about this rifle and that particular film. With regard to the Beretta in Lethal Weapon...it was responsible for a lot of sales for that pistol, that's what could make that notable..although still nothing like Quigley's Sharps Rifle or Dirty Harry's Model 29 which caused that gun to be backordered for years and boosted sales of Ruger's then, new Redhawk. Same with the PPK...everyone I've known who owns one owns it because of either Bond or Hitler. In 26 years I have never heard as much as one person say they want a Walther WA2000, much less becaue timothy Dalton used it in a Bond flick. I'll grant its a cool looking rifle, but that's about it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * True enough. I own a PPK with suppressor myself, and that's exactly why. I have heard from people who see the WA 2000 in pictures or in video games and remember it from that movie. The WA 2000's sales can't be affected because its so rare. I'd also point out that "The Living Daylights" made more money than either "Die Hard" or "Lethal Weapon" which came out the same year. Lbrad2001 (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it did well at the Box Office (actually I remember Die Hard coming out the following Summer) but that has nothing to do with the status of the rifle among fans of the film. I don't see Daniel Craig toting one anytime soon (although I'll admit it would be cool if he did, but his Bond seems to be more an HK guy with regard to rifles or smgs). What can are you running on the PPK? I run an AAC EVO on my 45s.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a big James Bond nut and have been since I was a little kid. Which I'm sure makes me a bit biased. However, all the times that I've watched The Living Daylights with people, I always here them say "what kind of f***ing gun is that?" But you are right, thats not enough evidence to place it in the article. That was just the original reason why I tried in the first place.

Daniel Craig already carried one in the video game for Quantum of Solace. It was also included in Modern Warfare 2. James Bond is always associated with Walther, and has even carried a wide variety of Walther pistols. It's true that he has used a variety of guns in the movies but usually those are guns he picks up off the ground or something. The weapons he actually starts the films with are usually Walthers. Casino Royale marked the first movie in which the series was actually rebooted. Before that all the different actors were supposed to be the same person. Slowly but surely they have been putting in various things to get Bond back to being the old familiar James Bond. Moneypenny and Q appeared in Skyfall. M's office also made an appearance in a style thats almost a duplicate of how it looked in Dr. NO. Now they are going to film the next two bond movies back to back and its rumored, and hoped by most of the fans like me, that Ernst Stavro Blofeld will make a return to the franchise for the first official time since 1970. Lbrad2001 (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)