User talk:WikiKingOfMishawaka

Archives

"Let's not forget why DHMO 3 was blanked and closed in the first place"

This argument would have carried a lot more weight if you actually had a clue as to why it was blanked. —Giggy 07:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You making a complete joke of the RfA process with your fifth failed attempt, and giving out a user's personal info as revenge, and admitting as such? Does that ring a bell? That's pretty much what I thought. Hilarious that you had to withdraw with 300 (although that number was rapidly dwindling as people realized how immature you are) supporters. The only good thing that came of that circus is that you realize now you have zero chance of ever being an admin. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving correct my assertion that you're a clueless self-important jerk. Oh, and feel free to blank this section; that's why the other blanking took place too. —Giggy 10:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice laydown. I knew no matter how you wanted to spin it, you realized facts are facts. You're immature, and unfit to be an admin. And apparently, you get that. Releasing a user's personal info as a revenge tactic is pathetic. Considering you have nothing relevant to further add, I don't expect any more petty messages on my talk page. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Pi (film)

Hello, I noticed you reverted some of my edits in the Pi (film) article. I would like to discuss the changes in the article's talk page.
Regards, --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 00:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on Titanic (1997 film)

Hi, please never use Twinkle to undo an edit that is not vandalism. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's vandalism at this point. It's gone well beyond a content dispute. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MY ADDITIONS TO DIRECTV PAGE WERE NOT OPINIONS THEY WERE FACTS

my addition to directv is not opinons... it lists factual things that happened, stop illegally helping directv hide stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliahiatt (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles

How do you know? "he can't have her" is hardly encyclopedic language. John is 15 while Cameron looks older (at least 20) and is a machine. It's not like John has any doubt about it, he opened her head to switch her off and reboot her. The edit left the end of the original phrase dangling. The edit was anonymous. Considering all this I couldn't take the edit seriously. That he has feelings for her I can underdtand but that he wants to have sex with her??? If you or someone else want to state the same thing in encyclopedic language, back it up with an episode, leave no parts of sentence dangling, sign it with a registered name, I'll have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the edit (if not its validity). --Leocomix (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with whether or not the edit is anonymous, or whether you take the edit seriously. It's based on Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, which pretty blatantly states that any good faith effort to edit is not vandalism. I fully agree the edit wasn't encyclopedic, but it wasn't vandalism, since the editor was merely trying to expand on the relationship between John and Cameron. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTTF: Universal Picture Film category

I'm not the one adding it, but I don't see why you're taking it off. It IS an Universal Picture Film. Why are you removing the category? -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant category. This has been discussed, digested, and spit back out. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with what? There's nothing on the talk page. You're biting the newcomers, I think. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the page history, then get back to me. I'll preemptively accept your apology. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Category:Back to the Future is a subcategory of Category:Universal Pictures films. As far as I can tell, the UP category had been on the page up to October 11, and was then removed by User:Wildroot, so other users, with no information anywhere on the talk page, had at least 5 days to adapt to the New State Of The World. Now please explain to me why you chose to do an AIV report instead of putting that statement either on the article's talk page or the IP user's talk page; there might be something in that which says that an apology is warranted, but it sure isn't in the page history. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be more dense than I originally gave you credit for. First and foremost, multiple users have caught the erroneous addition. Second, the user has a dynamic IP, and I've warned on several of his talk pages. He knew better than to add it. I consider this matter closed, in my favor, and expect no further gibberish from you. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked

For this comment I've blocked you indefinitely. There's no excuse for making comments like that about other editors. Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]