User talk:ABigBlackMan

PETA edits

Hi, regarding your edit to PETA, nobody is arguing that you shouldn\\\'t be able to add criticism - of course you can. But the criticism you add has to be added in its proper place in the article, not in a separate section. This has been discussed at length in the Talk and its archives. If you read the article and find a logical place to insert a new criticism (or any relevant information) that is not already there and for which you have a proper source, go ahead and insert it, along with the source. Thanks, Crum375 17:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. If one thing bugs me, it's censorship, and I interpreted it as \"Criticism is evil". -ABigBlackMan

You need to find a reliable source for any information you want to include. The www.animalrights.net group is an advocacy group that exists exclusively to criticize PETA and similar groups, hence they are not known as a neutral observer. You can rely on their information in your own research and possibly use their sources directly, if they are respected mainstream newspapers, for example. But you can\\\'t use their statements directly, except as it relates to them specifically, e.g. in a section or article that describes animalrights.net. Crum375 16:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacking

I wasn\\\'t \\\"hijacking\\\" any comments(whatever that means), but I admit to deleting it. I must have accidentily done so, and I apologize.ABigBlackMan 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was this edit [1] you\\\'ve replaced someone\\\'s comment with your own. Sorry to be such a stickler for WP:SIG but it\\\'s the only way to keep track of who said what, when, and to whom. Cheers. L0b0t 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I\\\'m a bit scatterbrained admittedly. I wouldn\\\'t put it beyond me. ^_^;; ABigBlackMan 15:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to fix, no harm done. Cheers. L0b0t 15:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you do close the pool?

I saw your name + post in 4chan\\\'s talk, so I suspected. By the way I like how you read Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review. Anomo 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebaum did it.--ABigBlackMan 14:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you VANDALISM IN MY PANTS

WHY ARE YOU lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololo

U R FUNAY-- ABigBlackMan 13:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. :]

You're welcome. =D --ABigBlackMan 13:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA

Hi ABigBlackMan, I've reverted the edit you made to GNAA. That particular article was deleted and the page protected to prevent recreation. I am sure you are aware of this. Please do not add the entry again without gaining consensus from other Wikipedia editors. Thanks. Robotman1974 14:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly aware of this. However, I made no attempt to do anything with the deleted article, link it, anything such as that. I simply added that there was something called the GNAA on the disambiguation page. I see no problem, nor need for consensus, when it's simple existance is quite verifiable. I will link you to the website if needed.-- ABigBlackMan 15:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole purpose of a disambiguation page is to provide links to different meanings of a term. From WP:DAB "...disambiguations are paths leading to different topic pages that share essentially the same term in their title." If there is no article, there should be no mention. It is the mere mention of that particular entry on the disambig page that I most strongly object to. Whether or not you included double brackets to make it a link is beside the point. Robotman1974 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think it's pretty obvious what is happening; The article was successfully snuffed, and now people are trying to blot out any mention of it on this site period. Several other articles I have seen have, after the page's removal, been vandalized by people attempting to remove any mention of the GNAA, even if it is perfectly verifiable.-- ABigBlackMan 21:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thank you ABigBlackMan for your message. Now that I am an ex-con (wrongfully convicted) I am hoping to have a better perspective of WP. Thanks again for the encouragement, Crum375 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Antisemitism

Why did you put up Leftists as antisemitists? I do not know were you come from, but at least in Norway, were I come from, Leftists are one of the key-actors in arranging demonstrations on the 9. november, Night of Broken Glass. For me, saying that leftists are one of the major antisemitist-groups seems very absurd. I think you might mix the fact that leftists often criticize the Israeli governments politics, like the occupation of Palestine, but this is by far antisemitism. Mmarien 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Iw as reverting some vandalism and that might have been left in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ABigBlackMan (talk • contribs) 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

<<unblock| I was simply reverting the edits of an editor who was removing parts of an article without any apparent reason or consensus. This editor turned out to be an administrator and promptly banned me with the label "troll", to which there is no basis as I politely pointed out that if he went into the talk page to discuss it, we could reach a consensus. I have made no personal attacks, have vandalized no articles, and do not see why I should be marked as a troll.

My checkuser may come into this case. I use two different IPs, one my school(which I made the above-mentioned edits from) and one from my own home(which I am making this unblock appeal from). I am not responsible for any anonymous edits made from the school, unfortunately, and I am deeply sorry if there are any defacing Wikipedia.

Also, if I have offended him, I sincerely apologize. However, an infinite block is beyond extreme. If I am to be banned at all for this it should not be for this long a time.>>

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I've discussed this with Alkivar, over IRC. Although he's warned me to "stay out of this," and that you're a "GNAA troll," I don't see evidence to support the allegation that your sole purpose on the wiki is trolling and disruption. You've been editing, apparently productively, for three months. Your only real POINT violation was at the GNAA disambig page, and you stopped when asked; it's worth noting that the images you were blocked over aren't fair use (as Alkivar claimed), and that they're now back in the article, after other editors reverted Alkivar. While he mentioned deleted edits, I have been unable to find any of them, and there's no evidence on your talk page or block log to suggest that I will find them. All in all, a summary and indefinite block, without any review, seems quite excessive. A number of people on IRC have agreed that the evidence doesn't seem to add up. If other admins care to take this to WP:AN/I for review, feel free to do so. If anyone feels I'm doing this in greivous error, please do explain. Luna Santin 11:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Luna Santin 11:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the blocking admin for comment. In the meantime, please bear with us, and thanks for your patience. Luna Santin 07:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THank you very much, Luna Satin. It disturbs me greatly that there is an apparent consensus that I am a "GNAA troll" when I have no association with them whatsoever. I will continue my editing regardless of this incident.-- ABigBlackMan 13:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]