WELCOME

Welcome!

Hello, Annoyed with fanboys, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY I EDIT ON WIKIPEDIA

My purpose for editing on Wikipedia is to improve the content with facts substantiated by peer reviewed literature, recognized publications, and critical reasoning. Many of my edits are not popular because they dispute popular beliefs.

I have made the following assertions:

1. Osama bin Laden is really dead and was really killed in May of 2011.
2. Jared Lee Loughner has not been diagnosed with schizophrenia (as of May 25) and has no documented history of mental illness (diagnosis, hospitalization, baker-act, etc). He was declared incompetent to stand trial (a temporary motion) so that he could be put under psychiatric evaluation to determine if he is mentally ill and to prevent a mistrial.
3. Carlos Mencia has been accused of plagiarism.
4. The film, Sea Monsters, is actually a real film that was shown in select theaters in the year 2007.
5. Bigfoot is actually a mythical creature (not real) and actual human beings, as well as other known animals, have probably been mis-identified as this creature.
6. Paris Hilton was accused of plagiarizing music and was actually guilty of driving under the influence.

In each of these situations when I attempted to modify articles or discussions of locked articles I was attacked and harassed and my edits were removed. This means that virtually nothing I have contributed to Wikipedia has ever remained. However, in most circumstances other editors eventually took up my cause (whether they knew it or not) and the articles and edits were recreated.

2007

November 2007 - Sea Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure

Okay, I have a little free time today, so I will summarize what the below discussion is about. Essentially, there was a film called "Sea Monsters". There was no article for it, so I created one. Several Wikipedia editors did not believe the movie was real and repeatedly deleted the article after I created it. Then they threatened to block me from Wikipedia. When I showed sources to prove it was a real film, they then resorted to stating that the very tiny image I uploaded of the film poster was a copyright violation. I gave up and let them delete the article. A few years later someone else brought it back. Huge waste of time.

A tag has been placed on Sea Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

I did provide a source to prove its content. It was the start of an article, so if you feel it was not good enough you could add to it. Deleting it takes no intelligence at all. Further, I was not given an opportunity to add the "hang on code". The page was deleted before I could even do that. Annoyed with fanboys 01:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any speedy deletion tag and I don't appreciate your casting the aspersion that I did so. I am pointing it out so that others reading this will no that I did no such thing.Annoyed with fanboys 01:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part about "removing the speedy deletion template" is just part of the standard template message for the "Db-empty-notice" warn template. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 02:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could have fooled me. Hopefully it will be more than fifteen minutes before the page gets deleted this time. Annoyed with fanboys 02:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Vio Nonsense

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Seamonsters promo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Seamonsters promo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007 - Paris Hilton Nonsense

Okay, I have a little free time so I will explain what was going on in the discussions below concerning the Paris Hilton talk page. This was during the incident in which Ms. Hilton was arrested, sentenced to jail, and her legal team had her released within a few days. This was also during the period when she released a single that the copyright holders (not UB40) of the original song (performed by UB40) sued her for allegedly plagiarizing.

Essentially, there were aspects of the article that were actually biased advertisements for the celebrity and did not reflect encyclopedic content. In the discussion page I objected these particular portions of the article and suggested new unbiased versions. I was immediately verbally attacked by some avid fans of Hilton and essentially just gave up and let them write whatever they wanted. Yet, they followed me to my talk page and tried to start an argument here. Some of them pretended they were administrators of Wikipedia with the ability to block me. They were not.

I know you're "annoyed with fanboys" but that doesn't mean you have to go through the Paris Hilton talk page and respond to all of the old sections complaining about fanboys or statements about Paris. Hating Paris is just as annoying as being a Paris fanboy. --Golbez 06:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, fanboy. Annoyed with fanboys 07:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly a fanboy, considering how much I fought with and even blocked other fanboys. Tone it down. --Golbez 07:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize you just logically contradicted yourself? You just refered to fanboys as "other" fanboys. That logically presupposes that you are also a fanboy. Annoyed with fanboys 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to you, sir, when I said 'other fanboys.' Now, you can tone down your stupid rhetoric, or I'll find someone to do it for you. --Golbez 15:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is amusing that you fail to see the fallacy inherent in calling a person with a bias against a tacky, popular trend a fanboy. Annoyed with fanboys 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who you were referring to. The fact that you would come on my page threatening to tell on me for disagreeing with you shows everyone exactly what you are. Annoyed with fanboys 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not threatening you for disagreeing with me; I'm threatening you for being a BLP violation waiting to happen, who thus far has contributed nothing to the article, and contributed only ranting and insults to the talk page. At what point were you planning on becoming a productive member? --Golbez 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just admitted you are threatening me. I couldn't contribute to the article because it was locked. Duhhh. I haven't ranted or insulted anyone CLEARLY. I simply articulately disagreed with points in the discussion. That is so that people can read them and make their own minds and eventually make the proper changes to what is a very biased and POV article at this stage. The worst thing I said was that someone was clearly biased and letting their bias effect the quality of the article. That isn't an attack. Keep threatening me all you want on this talk page and on the discussion. Oh, and keep distorting my contributions too. Annoyed with fanboys 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's locked to new and unregistered users; since your account is several weeks old, you have the ability to edit it. --Golbez 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was not able to edit it at the time, so your point is mute. Annoyed with fanboys 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Paris Hilton

Annoyed, please realize that you are responding to a discussion that's over two months old and has since been roughly resolved, with the current article containing a mention of the CNN coverage. My points there were explaining my reverts of another editor's specific edit, and most of your comments there seem to miss that context (e.g., your bringing up that the video was on CNN or calling the herpes issue a straw man). If you want to discuss changes to the current article, I'd recommend starting a new thread, or simply making your proposed changes in the article, as Golbez suggested. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its obviously not resolved because the page is still locked and people are still discussing whether or not events which just recently occurred should be added even if they make Ms. Hilton look bad. As much as I enjoy listening to you and the other one whine, make idle threats, and attempt to distort my position in transparently juvenile ways, I simply don't have time to play with you today. Annoyed with fanboys 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only semi-protected. Accounts older than four days old, such as yours, can edit it. I'd first invite you to look over the following links though, it's a standard welcome message. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried and it said it was locked at the time. Thanks for the heads up though. I've got a networking exam to study for now. Annoyed with fanboys 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007 - Carlos Mencia Nonsense

Okay, I have a little free time so I will explain what was going on in the discussion below concerning the Carlos Mencia article. Essentially, I added factual content (substantiated by well-documented events) to the article that did not present Mr. Mencia in a favorable light. Essentially, I stated that he had been accused of plagiarism.

My edits were removed and I tried to start a discussion on the talk page. I was verbally attacked and yet again followed to my talk page. Wikipedia editors pretending to be administrators yet again threatened to block me (as with Paris Hilton). I gave up and let them delete the content about accusations of Mr. Mencia's plagiarism. Since that time, someone else included a section on Mr. Mencia's history of alleged plagiarism.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Carlos Mencia. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. Gscshoyru 04:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Carlos Mencia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru 04:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false accusation and your own personal opinion. I stated facts. If you have a problem with facts being in a public encyclopedia, you need to find somewhere else to go and harass people. Annoyed with fanboys 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your edits were slightly POV'd -- calling something ironic is not an objective assessment. Second of all, the rest of your little changes were uncited -- and I do have a problem with facts being added to articles if they are not cited from verifiable and reliable sources -- see WP:V and WP:RS, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you need to find somewhere else. The fact that someone used the word "ironic" in a sentence does not prove, in the least, that their statement was POV. It depends on the context and what was said. All I said was that the claims that the man has plagiarized the intellectual property of other performers has been backed up by evidence and that his counter claims came only from his business associates. You obviously are going to edit the article to support Mencia and will delete whatever you can get away with that you feel puts him in a negative light. Annoyed with fanboys 19:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Creationism, you will be blocked from editing.~~ WLU 19:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pretending to be an administrator. Annoyed with fanboys 19:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making impotent accusations. I did not vandalize the article. Annoyed with fanboys 19:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of us are pretending to be admins. We're just warning you that what you're doing is against policy, is all. Gscshoyru 19:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you are suggesting I said that you (User: Gscshoyru) were pretending to be an administrator. I said no such thing. It was quite clear who I was responding to (User: WLU) and it wasn't you (User: Gscshoyru). Annoyed with fanboys 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008

December 2008 - Bigfoot Article Nonsense

I have a little free time so I am going to explain to visitors what went on here. Basically, I believe that many Bigfoot sightings may be sightings of humans. This is because humans are bipedal primates and bigfoot is mythical bipedal primate. It makes perfect common sense. I added a section to state this. The conspiracy nuts who patrol the page did not like this and accused me of vandalizing it. Bigfoot isn't very important to me, so I did not fight them on the issue. To review the issue I introduced a non-paranormal explanation of sightings of mythical creature and was verbally attacked on my talk page for doing so. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Bigfoot. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Fiziker ^t c 01:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were not vandalism. It seems ridiculous that the bigfoot article completely omits the explanation of actual people being misidentified as bigfoot. So I added a section. Your assertion that I have committed vandalism appears dishonest to me.Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly the section I added was not well written or researched, but considering that it is based on common sense, in its incipience, it did not need to be well researched. Unusually large persons in dark lit areas could easily be mistaken for a Sasquatch. I don't know why that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Bigfoot for my responce. —Fiziker ^t c 03:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You spelled response wrong, genius. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008 - Sea Monsters (continued)

I have some free time today, so I am going to explain the discussion below. As you can see there are colorful symbols followed by threats that it is my "last warning". The problem with this is that anyone can use these symbols and the person making the threats was doing so for no justified reason and was not someone with the authority to be threatening anyone. You might wonder why they were doing this? Essentially, I created a page about a movie, Sea Monsters, and these Wikipedia editors wanted to delete it. I tried to reason with them and gave up. Later, someone else created the same article and it stayed up. These idiots did not realize I was not responsible, so they came on my talk page (a year later) and started harassing me again. This time they had new identities and started using colorful symbols and threats. I was not amused and you can tell this by the way I reacted.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Cat, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous warnings you seem to be referring to were from contributors attempting to insinuate that they were administrators and who were making accusations that were concluded to be false by the real administrators. Further, their attempts to delete the page I was working on (Sea Monsters) were thwarted, which would rather paint those parties as the culprits in that context. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the Cats article, I did not intentionally violate any rule, although as a human being, I do make mistakes. Further, I seldom edit on wikipedia to begin with, my contributions are sporadic and limited at best. As such your characterization that I am a highly active trouble maker constantly being warned is beyond stretching the truth. It appears that you may be frustrated by your inability to stop actual vandals and so you are picking targets you feel will be easier; individuals you do not agree with who (1) are not actually vandals (2) do not hide behind spoofed IPs and (3) are not part of a geek* support group here on wikipedia.

To be blunt, I respect your authority and the work that you do but you would be in error if you thought you intimidated me even remotely. It appears you are using your administrator privilege in a bullying manner in this situation. It appears you are making a mountain out of a mole hill to inflate your apparent effectiveness at your role. These comments I have made should stand so that others can view what has transpired should other events involving other contributors and yourself come to light in the future. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

geek is meant as a term of endearment, just as "geek squad" or "computer nerd". I am sure someone will try to distort that into an attack so I'm making it clear what it really meant.

June 2008 - Sea Monsters Article (the idiots are back)

This is a continuation on the saga of the Sea Monsters article deletion. Basically, I created the article. Some people tried to delete it immediately. I let them. The article was put back up by other editors. These idiots did not realize I was not the one supporting the article, so the persisted in harassing me (and this was about a year later). Mentally ill much? Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I stated that one individual was insinuating that he was some type of administrator and then this different individual stated that I had accused both he AND the first individual of pretending to be admins of some fashion. This was a slick deception and I justifiably I would not stand for it. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you did indeed justify it on the talk page, so it's not vandalism. However, it is a contested edit, so please discuss on the talk page until a consensus is reached. Thanks. WLU 19:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you may be mis-understanding the warnings - vandals receive up to four warnings for consistent vandalism within a limited period. After the fourth, they are reported at WP:AIV, and then an admin reviews the case and blocks or not. So even though we're not admins, consistent warnings could escalate to the point of potential blocking, depending on the decision of the admin. You may want to review this section of WP:BLOCK - persistent belligerence, incivility and disruption of the community can get people blocked. Civility is always the ally of those serious about contributing usefully to wikipedia. WLU 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be totally clear, in the matters above a few wikipedia contributors most definitely did make false accusations and insinuate that they had the authority of administrators. (One individual in regard to the Mencia article and several in regard to the Sea Monsters article) There were implicit straw man arguments being asserted and very slick ad hominems being employed. At least one individual even attempted to go back and alter his statements after the fact. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, all of this surrounds two events. The most recent involved several wikipedia contributors who were hell-bent on having this page (Sea Monsters) deleted and attempted to distort certain activities to that end. As you can see, it backfired. I can only surmise that this aggravated certain parties involved enormously; they were robbed of their capacity to arbitrarily delete a perfectly good article as they are used to doing.

The other event involved my statements on the Carlos Mencia page which stated that other entertainers had accused the man of stealing their intellectual property and had video tapes of their performances and his performances which they allege he lifted. I was not given the opportunity to cite the ample sources on the internet before I was immediately slandered for making a POV edit. Even though my edit could have been worded better it was certainly NPOV. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that these sporadic events and the Cat edit which spanned almost two years could constitute constant vandalism over a limited time is hard difficult to swallow. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009

September 2009 - Request for your opinion

Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? We need as many people as we can get in this, since the 4-6 participants from previous discussions on this matter was felt by some to be insufficient. It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would someone contact a person who is barely ever present on Wikipedia to participate in a discussion about templates? Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009 - Accused of being Charlie Demerjian

In the page below I was accused of being Charlie Demerjian, the owner and administrator of the Semi-accurate website. Ironically, I hate the man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GeForce_300_Series

May 2009 - Mighty Orbots Lawsuit

As I knew my edits to the article would immediately be deleted by a**holes, I made some suggestions on the talk page to include information about the Tonka lawsuit against the creators of the Mighty Orbots. Strangely, someone actually added the information and it is still there. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

2010

May 2010 - Tung Chok Ming

Accurately modified article to reflect that Tung Chok Ming (former CEO of Soyo) was never a member of Manudo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tung_Chok_Ming&oldid=348825521

2011

May 2011 - Believe it or not, Rklawton, Osama Bin Laden is really dead.

I have a little free time today, so I will explain what went on here. Basically, during the time that Bin Laden was killed people were editing the article to indicate his assassination might not be real. He was, in fact, shot dead. I entered the discussion but found it swamped by conspiracy theorists who believe that basically the entire executive branch of the U.S. Government is lying, that the legislative branch has been duped, and that the assassination either never happened or that he died ten years ago and was in Dick Cheney's refrigerator the entire time. I tried reasoning with these people and eventually made a sarcastic comment to prove how crazy their assertions were. IN OTHER WORDS, I WAS ARGUING THAT UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNREASONABLE STATEMENTS THAT HIS DEATH WAS FAKED SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE (SUCH STATEMENTS HAD BEEN WEASELED INTO THE ARTICLE AT THAT TIME).

This Rklawton person did not understand this and immediately removed my comment. He also came on my page and accused me of constantly making off-topic posts to numerous articles. Evidence does not bear this out; I had actually only made a handful of edits on Wikipedia throughout a period of about three years and none of them were off-topic, including the one that he removed. Based on my experience with this Rklawton, it seems to me that this person is mentally unstable. I hope he does not try to stalk me and am in fear of my life. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Osama bin Laden Please use talk pages for discussion about how to improve the related article. I'll continue removing your off-topic posts and consider blocking your account if you persist. Rklawton (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found the edit you are talking about. I was being sarcastic about what an obvious conspiracy theorist was saying about Bin Laden's death. I was implicitly stating that there was adequate proof that Bin Laden was dead, but that you cannot provide evidence to a conspiracy theorist. Your above statement implies that my post was off topic, which it was not, and that I had made numerous off-topic posts, which I had not. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Lee Loughner

Please stop adding information that is contrary to the source material and then ignoring edit summaries telling you why your editions are being reverted. The cited article from the Washington Post says EXACTLY "his diagnosed schizophrenia." The cited article from the New York Times specifically says that he is undergoing treatment, not observation. If you want to dispute this information, you MUST cite reliable sources that say otherwise. It isn't an optional step. -- Fyrefly (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. At the time he had not been diagnosed with schizophrenia and I was not altering a quotation from the Washington Post. I was only adding a qualification to the wikipedia article itself in order to make it unbiased and factual.

2. Any reasonable person would find it odd that you chose to leave this notice here well after I edited the article. It is also odd that you make an implicit threat as though you are an administrator of some sort when you are clearly not.

3. Actually a source is required to make a claim, not to remove the substance of a claim that itself did not have a source at the time.

4. I do not need a source to remove a statement that itself has no source. That is not how wikipedia works.

Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. You were not simply adding a qualification. You were directly contradicting the sources. You kept inserting statements about him being in a period of observation to determine treatment, which would clearly mean that he was not undergoing treatment yet. The Times article said that he was already undergoing treatment. That is absolutely contradictory. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you and I don't care to try. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Statements like "I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you" and "I don't care to try" are simply rude and make you sound like an internet troll or a cyber-bully. Is that how you want to be perceived?

* I was doing exactly what I said I was doing above. The statements you are making here do seem to be intended to be inflammatory, condescending, and an obvious form of harassment.

2. Any reasonable person would be able to look at the dates involved and see that I left this message either one or two days after you made your last edit (depending on whether the IP edit was you, as I suspect it was), right after I reverted it again. In what sense is that "well after?". And I haven't made anything even vaguely resembling a threat.

* I am a reasonable person, however you are again distorting my actions and constructing a straw-man. How reasonable is a person who visits a talk page several months after a resolved issue and continues to harass a complete stranger for no reason at all?

* I am also going to state that I did not make any edit in bad faith or from a spoofed IP address or sock puppet. Your accusation that I have is what we call libel. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 & 4. For the last time, you do actually need a source if you want to replace sourced information with contradictory statements. The information you were trying to replace was sourced at the time. -- Fyrefly (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* This is a veiled threat. Don't make them. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* You do not need to use a source to correct the grammar or logical consistency of a statement that is already sourced. For instance if someone says in an article that "bigfeets are a mythical creatures" and uses the source "Book on Bigfoot, page 3, VOl. 4" and I change that to "Bigfoot is a mythical creature" (while keeping the source) I do not need to provide another source. It is not that hard to understand.

* Frankly your feedback is full of personal attacks, condescending statements, and is just rude and immature. If you can't make a single argument without attempting to insult someone's intelligence nor without distorting the truth, then just go away. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Hi. Please do not remove valid, sourced material from articles without providing a valid, policy-based rationale in an edit summary, as you did with this this edit to Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, in which you replaced that information with the following statement of your personal opinion, "At this time there are not a large number of credible reviews". Movieline and Rotten Tomatoes are indeed reliable sources for material pertaining to feature films, as are the 42 reviews that at the time of your edit, were cited by Rotten Tomatoes (now at 45), which includes reviews by publication such as the New York Post, the Village Voice, Rolling Stone, and the Daily Mirror. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was invalid material because those statistics from those sources depend on a numerical amount of critical reviews. As the movie had been only recently released the 40% (or whatever the score was) from Rotten Tomatoes was based on roughly two reviews. If you can't comprehend this, you cannot be rational. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get one thing perfectly straight here. Number one, you don't talk to me about what I "comprehend". You're new here, I get that. And I'd be more than happy to help you learn how things are done on Wikipedia. But don't presume to cast aspersions on the intellect of the editors who disagree with you, or who admonish you for violating community standards. Doing so is a violation of WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and may result in your being blocked from editing, especially when you do this repeatedly, as is evident from your other interactions on this talk page. Please do not make that necessary. If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, try to discuss it in a civil manner. This is not intended as a threat or attempt at intimidation, but an attempt to explain that this site has policies and guidelines governing how editors should interact with one another, and how they should not.

You basically just threatened to ban me because I said that you did not appear to comprehend something. Why do you even care what a total stranger thinks you can or cannot comprehend? (rhetorical question) Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the material was not invalid, and and the rest of the editing community is not going to abandon the standard practice of citing Rotten Tomatoes in movie articles, including ones with low numbers of aggregated reviews, simply because you deem by fiat that the number of reviews cited is not enough. The number of reviews aggregated by RT at the time of your edit was 42, and not "roughly two".

At the time it was invalid because there had not yet been enough reviews. Once there were several reviews on the site, it then became valid. I just wanted people to hold off before they used that source. I think you understand, but you turned it into a peeing contest. You win. I don't care. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, statements like "At this time there are not a large number of credible reviews" are those of your personal opinion, as was the passage you added in your most recent edit, in which you said, "Although critical reception has been negative, it has not been unpopular with audiences". Whether a 46% audience rating denotes popularity or lackthereof constitutes an analytic or evaluative claim, which would require a secondary source. Expressing such conclusions without such a source is called synthesis, which is not permitted, as it is a form of original research. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH for why it is not permitted to add such statements to articles. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fact that there were only two reviews on the site was not a matter of opinion, it was a matter of fact. As more reviews came in, the source became credible. It is your tendency to take statements like out of context and completely miss the point of what the person said, that make people wonder about you. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream, you come on this page being as condescending as you possibly can, attempting to lord your power over me. Then you say that isn't what you are doing. If you don't like an edit, you can simply revert it. I very seldom edit on Wikipedia, so there is no reason to follow me to this page to harass me. You interpret rules in queer ways (or just lie in some instances) and try to stir up trouble. You think your arguments are air-tight and brilliant, but frankly you come off as a pedantic pseudo-intellectual to anyone who reads this. You say I constantly violate community rules on Wikipedia, when I am barely ever here. So here is my advice to you, go on contributing to the "important scholarly" work of Wikipedia, but do not harass me on this page or contact me again through any channel. Thanks and have a nice day. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]