User talk:Tombride

Power violence

Hello! I see that you replaced some of the bands listed as "major articst" (an anon having replaced the others). Could you explain (here, or preferably on the article's Talk page) why they count as major, given that there are no Wikipedia articles on them, and Googling for a number of them suggested very much otherwise? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted to the previous version as the annon edit removed a lot bands from the list including the band that coined the phase and genre (man is the bastard). The article needs work and the bands listed need stubs at least, but I didn't have time to do any of that at the time.Tombride 23:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please discuss your edits

Before making anymore edits on the This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb page please discuss them on the talk page. I have cited 2 sources to back up my claim, and you have cited none. Basically you appear to be engaging in original research. Furthermore, you are close to violating WP:3RR (as am I, which is why I will not edit it again today). If you continue to make these edits without responding to the evidence I presented, then they may be viewed as vandalism. The Ungovernable Force 05:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Check it bro. Tombride 06:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I did, but you still shouldn't delete warnings off of your talkpage. Furthermore, you still have not cited a source. The Ungovernable Force 06:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Grow up dude. Please go back to beating off over anthroplogists with questional field research practices.Tombride 06:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And btw see WP:NPA.The Ungovernable Force 06:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, whatever shall I do?Tombride 06:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big poophead.The Ungovernable Force 07:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's mature, change what I actually said. Anyone can look in the history and see that you made it say that Tombride. I strongly suggest you consider what type of user you want to be known as, because making edits like this will not endear you to the community, and may have negative consequences for you in the future. I am asking you again to stop making personal attacks and deceptive edits. The Ungovernable Force 10:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Warning

If you edit the genre of This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb again, you will be reported for vandalism. If you want to debate the genre on the talk page do so, but as of right now the clear community consensus is that they are folk-punk, therefore your edits can and will be considered vandalism. The Ungovernable Force 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, Petros471 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I've told The Ungovernable Force the article edits are a content dispute. Therefore you should discuss changes to the article on its talk page, before making controversial changes to the article. However edits like this are a violation of WP:NPA and are considered vandalism. Please stop. Petros471 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about all that, I got a bit carried away. Won't happen again.Tombride 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Hey, one thing I've noticed about your messages on talk pages is that you often use an "*" instead of a ":" to indent. The "*" is usually only used when voting to show a seperate bullet-point, while the ":" is used in normal discussions to indent. Just thought you might like to know. The Ungovernable Force 22:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Word. Thanks for the heads up.Tombride 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Spyspace

Hey. Was it you that put up the deletion thing on Spyspace? FYI, the site is now down, probably for good. The page should jsut go too. Later. Poisonouslizzie 17:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post this, but please, GO VOTE! Tombride 02:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why you did what you did

Hi there, I wasn't planning on vandalizing our good friend's talk page, I just wanted to take my comments out of there. So, not sure why you took the liberty to do what you did, but, I'm sure you did it in good faith. Kroche14 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't remove your comments with malicious intent, but intent is not the issue. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 06:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rand Dyck Page

Hi. I've noticed you tagged this article for a copy right violation. In the last hour I've reverted this page twice as the copyright violation was removed. Once by user kroche14(who I see you reverted edits by in the past) and once by ip: 208.96.78.122 (whom I believe is a sock puppet of kroche14, and I've added a checkuser request for that). I'm just posting this as a heads up to maybe keep a watch on that page if you aren't already. Thanks! Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is probably no need to do a checkuser request. This IP and this user edit the same pages, have the same edit patterns, and sometimes the IP signs with that user ID. I wouldn't call it a sockpuppet, just editing while not logged in. I know I have done it accidentally every once in a while. And yes, I am watching that page. Given this user's history, I think a few of us should. -- JamesTeterenko 00:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: James, get over yourself. 208.96.78.122 22:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, I guess the checkuser request was unneeded. Thanks for the clairification on that. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "rewrite" and whether it is a copyvio: Well, the list of publications does seem to be copied from his university web site. Even the headings have the French translations like the original source. The text does seem to be modified, but it does read like manipulated text from the original. Let's let the people who monitor the copyright violations make judgement on this one. -- JamesTeterenko 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

None of you let up do you? So far my experiences with Wikipedia has been most unpleasant, had I known member's of the Wikipedia community were this brutal I would not have invested as much time contributing to this online resource bank. All I can say at this point is that my perception of Wikipedia is forever changed and I will continue to hold the view that Wikipedia is poorly managed by people who take pride in making others' lives unnecessarily more difficult. Kroche14 03:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right! Darn the police for making the lives of criminals so difficult! Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 04:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for pity's sake. There are a few basic concepts here. 1) Wikipedia has rules and criteria. 2) Articles written in such a way that satisfies such criteria stick around and don't get reverted. 3) Articles that blatantly flout those rules and criteria get hammered. 4) Editors who routinely ignore those rules and criteria get watched very closely. 5) Editors who routinely satisfy those rules and criteria generally have their edits trusted. What about these concepts is so hard to comprehend? RGTraynor 14:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

HaHa. Come on now. You know better than to refer to me as a criminal. Let this silly war over editing articles come to an end now. It is beginning to appear as if we are all children. Kroche14 04:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not an "editing war". It's me and several other users correcting your mistakes. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 04:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:208.96.78.122 for your two templates that you added without subst:ing. Don't worry about it though -- no one is perfect. If you have any further questions, please see my talk page. Happy editing! — Ian Manka Talk to me! 13:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

White Cross

An editor has proposed that White Cross, an article which you created, be deleted. Since the original nominator did not notify you of the prodding of the article, I have re-prodded the article so that you may have the full 5 days to work on the article. -- Black Falcon 22:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)