User talk:Onorem/Archive 12

Comment from JeanLatore
Underdog-- I do not realise what it is you are trying to say, i mean, what is the "commentary" that youy object to? Is it not "fact"? Its unclear, plz. clarify 4 me. JeanLatore (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is no wonder that young, attractive, hip New Yorkers would be listening to this tune immediately previous to getting eaten by a ginormous alien monster." - This is the commentary that has no place in an encyclopedia article. --Onorem♠Dil 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

sir, what you quoted is undisputedly "fact" AND it is relevant. Why do you confuse "fact" with "commentary"? Did you see the movie? It was about young, hip, attractive new yorkers getting eaten by a giant lizard while listening to the "underdog" right? I saw the movie at the theatre.JeanLatore (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The characters listening to the song before being eaten may be fact, but your addition is presented as opinion. The "It's no wonder" part seems to infer some sort of correlation between the characters listening to this song and their being eaten. And "ginormous"? Real words are preferable to made up words in articles. --Onorem♠Dil 14:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough dude. Chek the article now plz. thanks for your tips, i totally see your point. JeanLatore (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok cool. Happy editing and thank you .JeanLatore (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for protection
DOH. Sorry about that. Yes please, protection is requested on Beatrix of the Netherlands. Thanks! PrinceOfCanada (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Bit of a brainfart there on my part. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from TheTruth909
You reverted the redirect on Johnny Knoxville, though I don't understand why. A wrestle is shown as the real name, with a redirect on the name of the Ring Name--TheTruth909 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (people) says that the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". I don't think many people are going to be looking up Philip John Clapp. Not many people are going to recognize that name. This section of that guideline goes into a bit more detail.
 * Also, changing titles should be done by moving the article instead of copy/pasting the original. We want to try to preserve the edit history as much as possible. --Onorem♠Dil 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.11.209 (talk)

Thank you
for the revert on my userpage :)  --Faradayplank (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the reverts on my user pages! -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user
Can I ask a question I've been wondering. How do you tell if a user is a sock puppet because in what way do you know if they use both. From what I've seen it's communicating with the sock puppeteer. Which can be sometimes a innocent act with a fellow wikipedian. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  17:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several things that might make me suspect sockpuppetry. Sometimes it's a combination of things. Sometimes it's just incredibly obvious. It depends on the user. Any instance in particular you're curious about? --Onorem♠Dil 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm just curious how you tell. Because t's not like you hack onto their computer to see if the log on as two people. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I can't hack onto their computers, but there are methods of seeing where edits have come from. Most of the time, it can be reasonably determined by the duck test. --Onorem♠Dil 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you don't that was a joke. So what is the 'duck test'. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The duck test implies that a person can figure out the true nature of an unknown subject by observing this subject's readily identifiable traits. We might not know for sure who a user is, but we can observe that they edit the same articles, use the same phrases, communicate with the same users, or generally just act the same as another (usually recently blocked) user. --Onorem♠Dil 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Question. Isn't Motofan the sock puppeteer seeing as flyhead is new. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  20:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen evidence of Motofan being a sockpuppeteer. I think that he is just friends with Flyhead/Aerofreak1061...who are likely puppeteer/puppet. --Onorem♠Dil 20:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that flyhead is a more recent than motofan so he couldn't be the puppeteer. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  16:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ''I never said that I thought that Flyhead was Motofan's puppeteer. I do believe that Aerofreak is a puppet of Flyhead. --Onorem♠Dil 16:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

May I ask then who Motofans puppeteer is? ' Chubb ' enna  itor  16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any reason to suspect that he has one. As far as I know, I've never mentioned Motofan as being a puppet or a puppeteer. --Onorem♠Dil 16:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just that's the reason he's blocked. Well atleast what I saw when I checked. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  16:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No it's ok. I just want to know o what terms he's been blocked on. ' Chubb ' enna  itor  16:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.13.151.71
Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I partially reverted User talk:68.13.151.71 as this vandal is correct that WP:USER gives anonymous editor the right to remove (almost all) messages at will from his or her own talk page. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've often argued for the rights of IPs to remove comments/warnings from their pages, but I thought it was generally accepted that current block notices were supposed to remain for all users. --Onorem♠Dil 14:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of months ago it was reaffirmed at WP:VPP that WP:USER applies to both registered and anonymous editors. It was at that time that the WP:BLANKING section was explicitly updated to state "policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages" in the hope that it would permanently resolve exactly these sorts of issues.  As per consensus at VPP, the only types of messages that editors may not remove from their talk pages are declined unblock requests (but only while the blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates like the ISP one at the top of this ISP's page.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming I participated in the discussion. By the way, this has absolutely nothing to do with the user being anonymous. I thought all users were expected to leave block notices up. Obviously, that's not what the policy currently says. I don't remember the topic of block notices being discussed...only warnings. --Onorem♠Dil 16:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

sandbox
please stop. the sandbox is for editing tests and you are spoiling the fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.220.127 (talk)
 * Yes. It's for editing tests. You've established that you can remove the header and replace the page with a message about credit card details, so there should be no further need for that particular test. Please stop. --Onorem♠Dil 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * the test is social as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.220.127 (talk)
 * Please conduct your social experiments elsewhere. You edits are disruptive for those who actually want to use the sandbox for the actual reasons it's there for. --Onorem♠Dil 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Bloodymaryprettyscary
Hi I appologize about my edit earlier I was just having a little fun...but hey I would like the introduce myself ^^...my name is Robert nice to meet you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodymaryprettyscary (talk • contribs)

RE: Death of George Carlin
I got your message. The text you quoted me was a guideline:

This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with '''common sense and the occasional exception. '''When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Which, by the way, cautions against removing (or striking out) comments, except in unusual cases:

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.

Yes, I agree her comment was not   exactly   about the article. ( No - I won't stretch it by saying it was about the topic of the article --- that would be way wrong! ) It wasn't trolling, spam, attack or otherwise indecent. Why not leave it for a few days then remove it (there's precendent for that already). BTW - should you remove the comment, I'll leave it alone and not war over it!. Thanks Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Good catch on my George Carlin article edit!
 * I realize it's a guideline. I don't see how a bad joke that doesn't have anything to do with improving the article would be considered an appropriate exception. --Onorem♠Dil 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered becoming an Administrator?
You seem like good guy devoted to improving this site. Wikipedia needs more Administrators that fit your description. - 4.156.54.181 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Skanedog
Wilipedia needs moar admins like /b/ needs moar cancer. Also GTFO was my FF7 revision vandalism,; the article is tagged as being too long - The story section was several thousand words long and condencing that to "Aeris dies get over it" is a far more concise way of representing the information. Skanedog (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was vandalism...just like your edits to Battletoads, and your edit to Agatha Christie. Please find a different site to play on. --Onorem♠Dil 14:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

why when it's so much fun here? Skanedog (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Greg Mueller
I can appreciate your interest. However, I have spent days researching this guy. Greg FBT Mueller the professional poker player is not the Gregor Mueller listed in the Hockey db. Pictures on the official team websites are the first giveaway, the birthdates do not match, the heights aren't even close (FBT is 6'5), and FBT goes by the given name of Gregory, and not Gregor. The citations used are from Poker magazines and the funny part about that is there isn't a journalist in site with any of those rags. The articles, commentary, and editorials are all written by professional poker players. Not only is the content sorely lacking any professional substance, but I'm also pretty sure that basic journalistic integrity like verifying bio information isn't even on the list of what these guys do. I'm sorry, i just can't let this go. It's amazing how the truth gets distorted when these 15 minutes of fame people start giving you the "where I came from" speeches. Now, I'm not saying that FBT himself is perpetrating these lies, someone may be doing it on his behalf. However, he's complicit when he doesn't set the record straight because he at least knows that the Full Tilt and WPT bio's on him include this misinformation.

99.145.222.230 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Wimbas1
 * This discussion belongs at Talk:Greg Mueller. Original research isn't going to be enough. There would still need to be reliable sources that dispute the current references. --Onorem♠Dil 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the hockey db information, look at the team photo's, this is not the same guy who is playing poker as Greg FBT Mueller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimbas1 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not saying you are wrong, but no original research... --Onorem♠Dil 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

thank you
You are kind and helpful! The two others were telling me they had a problem with me but not what the problem is. I have read the redlink page and realising what the error was. In my web class we learn that a dead link is a bad link - but not on wikipedia (except for common sense!) But I need to learn a lot too, it seems. Thankyous for being kind ;) Danpatterson89 (contribs) 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Prods
Re your comment at Articles for deletion/Snomping:


 * Wasn't expecting a contested prod

That's one of the drawbacks to prod. Original editors may validly contest a prod, so unless the editor posts the article and goes away, a quick prod will be contested. That's the main reason I don't prod on sight. I'd rather give the article a day to see what happens and then, after the notability tag has hung up there a while, prod the article...but that's just me. (Plus, hopefully any editor who lasts the first 24 hours has had a chance to read the guidelines by that point.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

vandalism????
what am i doing wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobitynoobhunter (talk • contribs)
 * Other than evading a block? Repeated creating nonsense pages is vandalism. There's got to be more interesting things for you to do with your time... --Onorem♠Dil 17:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi. Thanks for your reverts at my user page and talk page. Deor (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Onorem♠Dil 23:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"3RR"
Regarding the comment you left me regarding 3RR at Catholic sex abuse cases, note that User:Anietor has a sock puppet single-purpose account that has no substantial edits other than removing the wikilink I added. Certainly, if I had created a sockpuppet account and split my edits accordingly, then I'd be just as well off. Thanks. Reswobslc (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think an editor is using a sockpuppet inappropriately, take it to WP:SSP. Either way, you are still past 3RR. --Onorem♠Dil 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am the only person who has made any effort to make any discussion on the talk page, and nobody at WP:SSP gives a crap about "suspected sockpuppets" until they do a lot more than break the 3RR rule. That's OK, I understand though.  Next time, rather than making meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia and trying to discuss them and move forward, seems like I'd be better off not discussing, and making sockpuppets to engage in stale revert wars to hide from 3RR, as this seems to provoke less trouble.  Reswobslc (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And then I would be requesting page protection instead of warning you. Either way works for me. Nobody wins in mindless edit wars...and you didn't attempt to discuss on the talk page until after you'd been edit warring past 3rr. --Onorem♠Dil 23:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is only true if you completely disregard the multiple requests for talk page discussion in each of the edit summaries you have carefully counted in order to allege me in violation of 3RR. Reswobslc (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

''"and you didn't attempt to discuss on the talk page" - Sorry, I don't count requests for discussion while edit warring as counting as actual discussion. There's no reason why you couldn't have started the discussion yourself. --Onorem♠Dil 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)''

Comment from 122.163.203.152
Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.203.152 (talk)
 * Please point me at the edits that you felt were vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 12:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply
YOU CAN'T FUCKIN BLOCK ME!

KISS MY ROYAL THAI ASS.

--122.106.14.163 (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I can't block you. I'm not an admin. --Onorem♠Dil 02:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I will believe it when I see it, you gay asshole

fuck off and get a life

--122.106.14.163 (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for the revert. What was his problem? --  role player 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure. He's been trolling the St George Christian School with a bunch of IPs/sockpuppets for a year or so now. I've been a fairly frequent target. --Onorem♠Dil 02:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I reported him, and he is now blocked. Landon1980 (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok never mind, looks like I reported him for a second time. He is blocked none the less. Landon1980 (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Better reported twice than not at all. Thanks for the report. --Onorem♠Dil 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

response
I guess those edits weren't necessarily vandalism and could have been a mistake. This user was listed on AIV, and continued to make the same type of edits after he was warned, so I thought it would be good to give him a short block. I can unblock if you wish. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops...sorry
I've seen a lot of hoaxes relating to non-existent movies and when I saw that none of the external links seemed to point toward this title, I may have jumped the gun and assumed it was a hoax vandal. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

AIV
Hi, you might be interested in this. I have reported User:Pfonilonitappa and his IP avatar User:122.163.203.152 to Administrator intervention against vandalism. Shovon (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
-Just a reminder, I back in action!

P.S.- How are things up there in Minnasota?

--122.106.14.163 (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good for you. Things are great. Thanks for asking. --Onorem♠Dil 02:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing abuse by user 69.109.174.47
Please note that user 69.109.174.47 has not contributed anything to Wikipedia and his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to have my content removed. Without going into lengthy debates about valid citations, sources and notability, I voluntarily removed ALL my content contributions and the accompanying citations. I ask the reports made about me in the SPAM Notice Board and COI pages be removed as they are no longer relevant.Spinacia (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking to pick sides in this dispute. Both of your "contributions" seem to be fairly single purpose. The reports likely won't be removed. They will be archived once people with interest in the situation have had a chance to look into it. --Onorem♠Dil 04:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the mistake all admins made. While from the outset I made full disclosure and was always transparent about my identity, user 69.109.174.47 never was and appeared on Wikipedia one day only to harass and modify my content.  This user originally deleted entire submissions and then opted only to delete references.  So his motivation here is clear. He is most likely a commercial competitor and the admins had served his wishes, but ultimately it is the Wikipedia community that will be hurt because they will not be able to see the content.  This matter is over, but please be advised that my content is copyright and must be accompanied by sources so I will not allow it to be resubmitted.  Thanks for responding.Spinacia (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. I also never tried to say that all your links should be removed. I only warned against removing discussions from noticeboards. If you made full disclosure from the beginning and people thought the links were appropriate, then there shouldn't be any problems with allowing discussion to take place on the COI/N and spam noticeboards. I'm not exactly sure which of "your" content you are referring to, but please be aware of the GFDL which is the license that all of your contributions to Wikipedia are under by default. --Onorem♠Dil 04:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Without going into a lengthy discussion, there are mainly copyright infringement issues with the content so it is voluntarily being removed by myself. Thanks for your insight into this matter.Spinacia (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyvios
FYI DumbBOT completed your copyvio nominations for Image:David Lee Roth.jpg, Image:Van Halen 2008.jpg, and Image:Alex Van Halen.jpg. In future, please skip the copyvio tag on the Image's Talk page. It's redundant and it creates more housekeeping work on WP:CV. -- Robocoder ( t|c ) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's redundant to what? I thought I was just trying to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. My apologies for the housekeeping work. --Onorem♠Dil 03:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DumbBOT picks up the tag on the Talk page and re-lists on the Articles sub. (Hence, redundant.)  Moving it to the Images sub preserves information and acts as a reminder to remove the copyvio tags from those pages. -- Robocoder ( t|c ) 03:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. The tags weren't redundant when I placed them. That's what confused me about your statement. The bot also didn't complete my nomination...It just added said redundant reports where they didn't need to be...although I do understand that it stemmed from my initial mistake. --Onorem♠Dil 03:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Heather (song)
Hey, thanks for the fix on that article. I was in the middle of taking a look at the article's history when you got it all sorted out. Keep up the good, speedy work. Useight (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert
See the merge discussion for why that information is both pertinent and valuable in the "reaction" section. But I won't revert you. I'm so tired of this issue, and attempting to work out compromises that don't stick that whatever you want to do is fine. S. Dean Jameson 05:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your note on my talk page makes me think you didn't look at my edit. I left the reaction section alone. I simply restored all of the other edits that you reverted past to get to the reaction section you liked. --Onorem♠Dil 05:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking Back Sunday
I didn't "create" a new policy. I merely updated WP:MUSIC to reflect the state of the consensus and application of policy as it already stands. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said you created a new policy. I said you updated a guideline, without any discussion that I can see, and then used the new wording so you'd have a stronger argument. --Onorem♠Dil 17:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Lenerd (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Lenerd (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What personal attack? --Onorem♠Dil 23:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?
Just so you know, you (and I) are being talked about by a blocked editor at User talk:Ebfilms :-) --triwbe (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann Personal Life
I sourced the statement about his girlfriend on the discussion page. I thought we weren't supposed to put sources on our edits. I also suggested creating a separate section called Personal Life, as you did.

Before I do, I need to know how to source properly. Thank you. Mrs. Peel (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on my way out for a few hours, but WP:CITE should be able to help you with questions on sourcing properly. If you don't see what you need there, there's probably people ready to help out at the help desk. --Onorem♠Dil 06:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Done. My only qualm is that perhaps I should have titled "Early career" as "Youthful career" instead. Is that something you can decide?

Also, in the box, why is Domestic Partner(s) relevant for, say, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Peter Scarsgaard, and Spouse for other folks, but nothing similar for Keith Olbermann? Thanks.Mrs. Peel (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Kate Gosselin
Roger dodger. I went back and put in a couple of sources on her parents. Have a happy noodle day. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Jay Phoenix / Battle of the Bone section
You removed a section from Battle of the one (the synopsis section) claiming that it was copyright infringement; this is the actual blurb that has been used about the movie everywheer, including the website for the film itslef (the domain of which I OWN) and I am updating the wiki page with the full consent of the film writer/director so challenge that this is any infringement of copyright material. - Jay Jay Phoenix (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC) After putting that section back on the page it has once more been deleted with the following reason: "still a copyvio. still sounds like an advert" - as explained it is NOT in breach of any copyright information and while it may sound like an advert surely the fact that it is the blurb that was used to promote the material means that it shoul be allowed on a page giving information about the movie? Would it be preferable if I renamed the section to 'promotional blurb' instead? Jay Phoenix (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Conversation continued at User talk:Jay Phoenix. --Onorem♠Dil 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bujinkan
To User Onorem, I think it is a bit unfair you have singled me out for a so-called edit war when in fact the guilty perpetrator is the user: Jikaku who continues in his POV reversions saying that the Bujinkan is NOT a Ninja organization when in fact, it indisputably IS a Ninja organization. Due to the requests of various editors, I have complied with and provided evidence on the discussion page providing indisputable proof and evidence on the legitimacy of the Bujinkan as a Ninja organization. But unfortunately, despite my polite requests that he provide evidence showing that the Bujinkan is NOT a Ninja organization, the User: Jikaku continues to avoid presenting any evidence or reliable sources and continues his point of view vandalism in the name of so-called "editor consensus" which is actually just a group of young people who have NO knowledge of Ninjutsu or Special Operations editing this site. Pretty ridiculous!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.179.120 (talk)
 * I'm not concerned with who's right. I've left a note reminding Jikaku of 3RR also. --Onorem♠Dil 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To User Onorem, this dispute about Bujinkan being a Ninja organization cannot be left to a so-called majority consensus. Because it seems as if the "majority" is occupied by a group of young people who either don't understand Ninjutsu or are practitioners of some other competing martial art like Tae Kwon Do, Karate, Brazilian Jujitsu and they feel threatened by the higher respect afforded to the Bujinkan. I have presented my logic which is quite simply based on provable facts, that the Bujinkan IS indeed a Ninja organization and if you would please just watch the following videos I am certain you will be convinced of the legitamacy of the Bujinkan Ninja organization rather than seeking to lock or block out any future editing. The Wikipedia should be a forum of correct information, and not a place where a bunch of young martial arts practitioners seek to defile the Bujinkan. Please watch the following for indisputable confirmation of the Bujinkan Ninja organizations legitimacy:

1.) http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=4242971n 2.) http://youtube.com/watch?v=XxdLH0ax64I 3.) http://youtube.com/watch?v=lyvmhNFwjuo 4.) http://youtube.com/watch?v=LC0rwG5rR8Y

Comment from Pohick2
expanded Robert Girardi left out the high school citation; why did you think he was italian? lol --Pohick2 (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied here. --Onorem♠Dil 00:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper
My edits were not vandalism. It is well known that Anderson Cooper is gay. Mr. Kruzkin (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I see you've been wikistalking me. Well, a couple of my edits were out of line I guess. Sorry, and it won't happen again. Man with a tan (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not wikistalking to review an account's recent edits when you notice some that are blatantly unhelpful. In fact, it's recommended in the relevant section of the policy. --Onorem♠Dil 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter talk
Hi, I made some responses. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi, Onorem I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG
I am very concerned about JzG, and the way in which he treats fellow users. He claims he doesn't like using templates, but this is not an excuse to be overly rude and obnoxious to others, in particular other established users. What is the standard procedure for resolving an issue like this? Man with a tan (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Anbmedia
Thanks for the help. Sorry for the confusion. --Anbmedia 3:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Feel free to drop by again with any questions. --Onorem♠Dil 14:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)