User talk:Meaneager

Helpme

Thanks for cleaning that stuff up. Wwwyzzerdd 05:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! User:Gluestick22 has been blocked indefinitely. Unfortunately vandalism does occur in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Vandalism has some tips on dealing with it.--Commander Keane 05:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys. I can go to sleep now. --Meaneager

Warning: Personal attack on User talk:65.95.239.209. using TW

March 2007

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:65.95.239.209. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Real96 04:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected your userpage for 24 hours to slow down a flood of vandalism from multiple IPs. Heimstern Läufer 05:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah as you probably saw I reported them to WP:AIV and requested semi-protection. In the future, if someone vandalizes your user page, warn them and if they continue report them to WP:AIV yourself. It's usually faster than trying to get the attention of a particular editor. —dgies^t_c 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi protected the page for 2 weeks. Hopefully they'll get bored in the meantime. WjBscribe 18:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reprotected

After semi-protection expired, the attacks resumed. Some friends you have, eh? Anyway it has been re-protected until April 10th. —dgies^t_c 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Man, you've gone through a lot of vandalism. Don't let it discourage you! --Wwwyzzerdd 07:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Image:Lollapaloozaratm.jpg

Wikipedia is not censored. Please refrain from censoring images as you did to Image:Lollapaloozaratm.jpg. Any changes should be discussed at Talk:Rage Against the Machine.–Skomorokh 14:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, really? I didn't know. --Meaneager

Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Your comments ("Yeah right ya asshole. Just trying to make Wikipedia decent." or "Didn't know Wikipedia hosted porn.") can be seen by others when editing your page. One element of "making Wikipedia decent" is to adhere to Etiquette. Also, regarding the actual topic: this is a picture of a nude protest - there is nothing wrong about it, and it is - by no means - porn. Wrong would be to exercise censorship, which you are trying to do. Wikipedia is not censored. --Johnnyw talk 11:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the image from the page and replaced it with a link. I reverted it because I believe the image illustrates that section of article vividly, better than any amount of text could. It does not violate WP:IMAGE: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)", the fair use rationale is sound. I don't know of any valid objection, having read through the extensive discussion. 'S nothing personal.Skomorokh 03:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I see you reverted my revert. I have no wish to get into an edit war, and I feel very strongly about this issue. Would you be willing to put the matter to Mediation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I reverted your edit to Rage Against The Machine again. Please do not assume your view is correct or the "safe" way to go. Wikipedia is not censored, it is about verifiability. If you do not want to see the picture, then don't look at it. The image was there, it was relevant, and unadulterated, and that's just how it is. Let's keep it on the talk page. Once a majority comes toa conclusion, then we can take action either way. Wikidan829 04:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry folks, I would like to help and partake in this discussion, but I have to pass an exam on Friday... Just a few thoughts: WP works on consensus, not on majorities, keep that in mind. So let's try to explain each others POV to solve this issue.. I am sure Meaneager is only acting in good faith, let's not escalate this discussion. Regarding the issue, I added my 2 cents to the RATM talk page to keep the discussion where it belongs. Best wishes! Johnnyw talk 12:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not offend me, I think your actions were in good faith, and so I lack anything to forgive you for. Best of luck with your anger management. Skomorokh ^incite 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that image wasn't there. My opinion: Even though it is a protest against censorship, it should still be black barred. If someone had sex on camera to protest censorship, should it be censored? Someone kills someone on television, live, to protest censorship, should it be censored? "What? They were just naked. They weren't doing anything bad." Well, I believe its the principle of the thing thats wrong. I'll get blocked if I don't turn my attention somewhere else.

Please don't leave me a message regarding this note.