User talk:The Technodrome's Toilet

Welcome

Hello The Technodrome's Toilet! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Wikipedia is not • Deletion policy

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Redirecting Tiger Woods

Many people have their wikipedia pages titled based on the the name they are known by. Ranging from athletes (Chick Evans) to musicians (Snoop Dogg), the name of the article is the name they are most famously known by. I think it is silly to redirect these pages, as it will affect their place in Google searches. Wikipedia is often #1, but with redirects, it will not work as well, and will lead to confusion. Supertigerman 22:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Price of Pleasure verification

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Do you have any sources to verify the information in this article? The 2 websites listed don't work. Without some sort of outside verification, the article will probably be deleted. Joyous! | Talk 02:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any yet. Wait a while and if nothing materialises then discuss deletion. The Technodrome's Toilet 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Fury Episodes

While I'm happy that you'd like to contribute to this section of Wikipedia, the episode listing you posted couldn't possibly be added in a way that would pass Wikipedia's verifiability rules. No secondary sources (such as tvguide.com) would list those episodes until one or two weeks before they actually air, meaning there wouldn't be any citations we could add with which to prove those are the real names of those episodes. Further along that line, Disney has under affect for its schedule releases a six week rule: people with press access to said TV schedules are under NDA to not reveal those episode titles until six weeks prior to airtime at the earliest. That means that the absolute earliest we could find out the title of the first JF episode, assuming it aired on the first Monday in February 2008, would be the day before Christmas. The final nail in the coffin is that Disney normally releases those schedules at around the seven or eight week mark, meaning it's still about two months too early for even people who have inside sources and don't care about breaking legal contracts to actually know what the first episodes of JF would be named. And that's assuming they even have names at the moment; JF only just started filming in the last two or three weeks, so that kind of thing likely wouldn't be finalized anyways.

So, basically, if somebody on a website or forum told you that those are the names of the first several episodes of JF, there's a 99% chance they were lying to you. If you came up with those titles yourself, that's an amusing exercise for fans, but not something that belongs on Wikipedia, as the site is an encyclopedic one that lists factual information. Arrowned 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's confidential before the six week mark. After which, it's not confidential, but is still hard to prove the existence of until secondary sources, such as tvguide.com or the like, collaborate it. This is exactly why the episodes posted after #30 at OO's article (which is currently as far as tvguide.com lists) are hidden where normal article surfers can't see them: because they haven't been confirmed by secondary sources we can site yet. But the 30 episodes that are listed on the OO article are both on tvguide.com, Disney's own Jetix website schedule (which is cited in the OO article as proof in the links), and a legion of other television schedule sites. Arrowned 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add an episode list to the Jungle Fury page, or make another page for the Jungle Fury episode list, unless the show has aired, and all of the episodes you mention have aired or have been listed at the TV Guide or official Jetix websites. If you continue, you will be blocked for disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do not add any unverified information concerning what could be the plot, what enemies there are, etc. It's all either someone's rumor fodder or something from your own imagination. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia as such, you will be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Based on edits you made to Zordon in early April, it is quite obvious you are a reincarnation of either Eddie Segoura or CBDrunkerson. Right now I'm leaning towards the former. Should a check on this account prove to be neither, you will be unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Technodrome's Toilet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

ugh. first you're upset with my episode list post and now this. blocker is too sure about himself.

Decline reason:

Being too sure of oneself is not grounds for removal of a block; sorry. — JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Technodrome's Toilet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Still the assertions must be verified. This was over just one edit and besides I just started editing after a long time off. This completely runs afoul AGF. It also sets a bad example since administrators are looked at as people who can be trusted as opposed to people who act hastily without any second thoughts.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have now admitted that this is not the first account you have had at Wikipedia; your username sounds like a role account; the assertions will be checked as soon as a checkuser can get to them. Declined.

I have just been finding more and more questionable edits, such as changing the names of episodes for other shows, making up episode titles for other shows, referencing games when you shouldn't, moving pages unilaterally, changing the basic plotline for movies, making up movies, etc. If you are not either of the people who I think you are, you should still be blocked indefinitely for jeopardizing the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seem to get your story straight. In your check request, you state that that the Zordon edit were today. They were in April. After running into you, I told Arrowned I would stop editing PR pages because you act as if you own the project and will block anyone who does something that disagrees with you. The fact you said I should be blocked indefinitely shows that AGF is not part of your vocabulary since you tend to take extreme measures judging from your list of blocks. And when I said I just started editing after a long time off, I meant that this account was dormant prior to a few nights ago. The Technodrome's Toilet 07:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is way too damning, and you have been performing edits against policy outside of the topic of Power Rangers. You are not going to get unblocked so easily.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with my edits (outside the hoax articles, which couldv'e been deleted). Most of them don't seem to offend anyone. The problem is you tend to act unilaterally. Most admins would give a one day block in response to what I did. You tend to block infinite without warning, which shows your habit of assuming bad faith. The Technodrome's Toilet 09:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Zordon edits. I prodded the article since many TV characters are not notable enough to have their own articles. When the tag was removed, I left it alone and made no forther attempts to delete. I'll admit the hoax article, but again there is nothing wrong with an occasional good laugh. In any case I'll wait the result of RL's query. The Technodrome's Toilet 02:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Technodrome's Toilet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per ANI discussion. If other editors are offended by hoax articles, then I'll refrain from creating them. I also stated that I would have nothing to do editing pages in the blocking user's project which he started so there should be no further conflicts.

Decline reason:

If the only reason you will refrain from creating hoaxes is that other people don't like it, this may be the wrong website for you. Also, there is no consensus whatsoever to unblock you at that ANI thread. Also, your constant attempts to attack the blocking admin's credibility is not a good sign that you will can work well with others; this is a collaborative project. — Mr.Z-man 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I for one am seriously annoyed by hoax articles, and I would seriously consider blocking an editor who persisted in creating them after warning even if his record was otherwise spotless. While I have a sense of humour, wikipedia does not. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated above I would refrain from creating them. I didn't think that people would be that much offended by them. And really the hoax articles constitute only a small fraction (at most 5) of my edits aside from the fact not everyone trusts the blocking user. The Technodrome's Toilet 20:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Technodrome's Toilet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay, I now understand that hoaxes are bad the for site and I was only pointing out that even the people agree the block was too hasty. And why look at the negative? I've conversed with Arrowned about the edits and when he explained his say I made no further attempts to repost. It's just that I don't want to have anything to do with the blocking user, or his project. The Technodrome's Toilet 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You still don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is about. MaxSem 07:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.