User talk:DaffyDuck619

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DaffyDuck619 (talk | contribs) at 04:15, 7 October 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello all my name is DaffyDuck619 my mother was a huge cartoon fan and my dad loved numbers.

Nah sike my name isn't DaffyDuck619 but I don't want to tell you my real name, nor my age, but I will tell you that I'm from Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

And I will tell you my three favourite things in the whole wide world
  1. Wrestling
  2. Cartoons
  3. Doctor Who
Well that's all I believe you really need to know, the story of my life will bore you to tears.

Pro Wrestling WikiProject

User:SWD316/PW welcome

SWD316 talk to me 22:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Angle

Rumours ("It is rumoured he was moved to Smackdown! at his insistence because he wanted to be a permanent main-eventer, like HHH. But they couldn't promise him that if he was on the RAW Brand") are not encyclopedic. The pieces of trivia that I deleted were unsourced and used colloquial abbreviations ("pro wrestling", "gonna"). Contributions that are not in line with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and that do not meet basic grammatical standards will continue to be removed. McPhail 11:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information

Can you please stop adding false information to The Ortons pages, randy nor bob have stated anything of the sorts if they had believe me i would know. Unless you can provide the EXACT link to the so called articles i will not believe you. I have a reason for not believing your information because you made an edit on Barry Orton's page saying one of his sons wanted to be a wrestler when that infact isn't true because Barry Orton doesnt have any sons. Thats why i will not believe anything from the so called first randy interview cos randy wouldnt of said that as it is untrue. So please stop making false edits and using the first interview rubbish as so called proof. (Lil crazy thing 08:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Cindy Bear

Could you do Wikipedia a favor and write a better article for Cindy Bear? I know that she exists, but I don't know anything about her beyond that. Thanks! --M@rēino 02:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Stoppable

The comment about Disney being anti-Semitic might offend some readers, even if it’s true. The fact is somewhat irrelevant and any controversial fact should be cited. Sorry if I come off as a little rough. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns! =D Jumping cheese 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you did to the article Buzz Lightyear

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Buzz Lightyear, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. --Bruin rrss23 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ASSIST, WRESTLING FANS OF WIKIPEDIA

Me and the soon to be departing (hopefully not) Moe Epsilon are setting up a project to deal with the music of this great business. It will be Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of wrestling. Join if you are remotely interested - every little helps! Thanks. Kingfisherswift 17:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who fandom

Hello. Please stop adding information to this article that is not backed up by reliable sources. Thank you.--Sean Black (talk)`

Again, please stop. This is not about "not wanting you to contribute", it's about not wanting you to contribute information which does not comply with Wikipedia's verifiabilty policy.--Sean Black (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Daffy. Please don't take the removal of the Steve Martin info personally. It's not that anyone doubts your truthfulness or usefulness as a Wikipedian — it's just that Wikipedia has a strict policy on verifiability, and there's an honest dispute over whether IMDb's trivia pages are a reliable source or not.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the three-revert rule, which you have actually violated in the Doctor Who fandom debate. I'll be lenient this time, but other administrators might not. This is the standard warning for violation of the rule:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

I'm not meaning to be harsh to you, just to remind you of the rules. It's also important to remember to keep cool in editing disputes, and to assume good faith.

The best way around this little contretemps would be to find another reference. If it's been confirmed on Steve Martin's site, a link to that would certainly suffice. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daffy...

Just pointing out a usual wiki-tip for your journeys throughin: remember to end your comments on the Talk page with the usual tildes.

~ That's a tilde, if you're wondering.. Hardly use it myself anywhere else, but you usually type those things out four rounds rapid after the end of every comment you dish out. Helps in knowing who's saying what. Thanks for the continued contributions for the sake of Wikiosity or what-have-you...DrWho42 05:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Possible

Hey DaffyDuck619! It's Jumping cheese again. The info about Dave The Barbarian being one of Kim's love interest might seem a little out of place, since it is in an advertisement, not in an actual episode. I won't touch your edit, but another editor might remove it. If you have any question, feel free to ask me in my talk page. Have fun editing! =D Jumping cheese 04:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the little argument on the Kim Possible history page. Remember, be happy, and try not to take the edits personally. =) Jumping cheese 07:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks in Edit Summaries

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Naconkantari 04:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry it was just that I feel Khasworks is harrasing me as he doesn't ask for citation when other people try contributing celebrity whovians to the list as well as many other pages.

Blocking

Please do not add in edit summaries that someone will be blocked. You do not have the ability to block anyone on this site, putting that is making a false threat, do not do it. Also imdb can't be used as a citation as anyone can add false information on there. Information in articles or interviews is more creditable. Lil crazy thing 16:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Orton

Will you stop it, it does not state on imbd that nathan wants to wrestle on bob's profile, will you stop making false statements you have done this before till you was caught out. Unless it is stated in an INTERVIEW or ARTICLE do not add it. imbd isn't 100% correct i have seen many false things on there, it isn't correct all the time. Therefore stop adding it unless it comes from bob or randy themselves or an article which are more creditable then imbd. Lil crazy thing 05:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has not once been stated in any interviews or articles. I'm a big follower of the Ortons and believe me i would know. If you can find the exact article or interview and cite it then fine it can be added until then i will keep removing it as it is not cited anywhere and as ive said before imdb is not a citation. The fact you lie on the ortons pages before is one of the main reason i will not accept any of your edits on there without proof that isn't from imdb. Also i is against the rule to make personal attacks in edit summaries do not do it, if you do it again i will take it futher and you maybe blocked from editting.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0651348/bio, which you appear to be quoting, says nothing about his son Nathan wanting to wrestle, which this edit war seems to be about. --JFred 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any other references, please provide links to them on the article's talk page so everyone can see for themselves. Thanks. --JFred 20:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
imdb isn't as creditable as people like to think, i have notice so many false statements on the orton's pages, thats why i won't accept any info from that site unless there is an interview or article also stating it. The fact there is neither an article or intevriews stating what the person is saying. Lil crazy thing 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Randy's IMDb page states that Nathan has expressed interest in wrestling, it isn't relevant to "Cowboy" Bob's page (or Randy's page for that matter), so it shouldn't even be mentioned. --JFred 09:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has this situation been resolved? Can we all agree not to replace the comment regarding Orton's son until a secondary source can be provided? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop adding that Nathan wants to wrestle, it is considered trivia which the Pro Wrestling WikiProject frowns upon this as per here (also mentioned on the talk page). It is also unencyclopedic. Thanks. --JFred 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks in Edit Summaries

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I'm now taking this futher, perosnal attacks or not accept on wikipedia, you have been warn everytime you have done it and ignor the warnings, i'm now asking for you to be block i will not accept attacks like this (Citation www.Icancontributetoosojustpissofflilcrazything.com) there pathetic and childish, just because you can't get your own way, as i said before and will say again if you can find that information in and article or interview then it'll be added imdb is not always correct and that information isn't correct anyways. Now i have told you and told you but you ignore everything so i'm taking all this futher as i have had enough of your attitude. Lil crazy thing 06:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


GOOD!

I am going to tell them about you harrasing me

i'm not harrassing you so you can try but you wont get no where, seeing as i'm not, all i'm doing is trying to tell you to find other sources which you have blantly refused to do, i'm not in the wrong here, seeing as people have agreed with me on the bob orton thing anyways. i'm not breaking any of the rules, your are.Lil crazy thing 09:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

If you and another editor seem to have a disagreement over something in an article, instead of reverting each others edits (creating and edit war), please direct the discussion to the talk/discussion page, that's why we have talk pages. --JFred 20:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Your profile states you are from Brisbane. Invitation extended for you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Wrestlemaniacs. Please consider and reply on our talk page.

Protected tag

Please don't tag a page as protected when it obviously isn't. If you want a page protected, make the request for it in the proper place. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean edit

Hi, thanks for your edits to this article. The professional wrestler's audition for the role does not assert why it's relevant to the article—without that assertion, it's a random factoid that comes across instead as fancruft. Also, no reliable source is included. Thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not relevant, unless you mention the rest of those who auditioned (and, within the text, not just within the edit summary). I'll give you time to rewrite it, but it must include everyone else of note who auditioned, and a reliable source for the data, or the edit gives preferential treatment to the professional wrestler (and him alone). RadioKirk talk to me 04:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films that have been considered the greatest ever

I removed:

  • Aladdin was the third highest ranked film of 1994, highest ranked cartoon (and G rated) movie of that year. It is one of the most recognizable Disney movies of all time. Despite how angry Robin Williams was at Disney at the time he still saw the role of The Genie as his best performance. The current president of Disney sees this as their "90s Masterpiece". Its songs "A Whole New World" and "Never Had A Friend Like Me" have been referenced many times in television programs and movies.

I've figured out that you really like this movie as you have added it at least three times. I want you to know that I have removed it at least three times not because I disagree with you, but because there is nothing in the above description that says "the greastest animated film ever made". It was the highest ranked of 1994, but that is not the highest ranked ever. It is one of the most recognizable Disney movies, but that is not a citation saying it is the greatest animated film ever. If the current president of Disney sees it as their 90s masterpiece, that doesn't make it the greatest ever.

If you want to include this film, find a citation saying it is the "greatest animated film of all time". If I see such a citation, I won't remove it again. Without citations that specifically say the film is "the best", the article quickly degrades into everyone's list of their own personal favorites. Please read the top of the talk page, and the archives of the talk page to understand more about this.

Thanks, -- Samuel Wantman 07:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

be careful when reverting

on the 17 june at 04:24 you performed this edit under the context of "ohn Cena is a CONTRACTED WWE SUPERSTAR his appearance on any WWE programming is not considered a guest appearance, that includes Hall Of Fame ceremonies"... however, not only did you revert what needed to be you also reverted recent "In wrestling" and "Championships and accomplishments" format changes... please be more careful. --- Paulley 10:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of [citation needed] tags

Please do not remove requests for citations unless you include such citation in the article. An edit summary is not the place to put a citation. CovenantD 13:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Regarding this edit summary:[1] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. CovenantD 03:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough.

Under avoidant vandalism

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --- Lid 08:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How the F am I vandalising? Where am I vandalising?

you are vandalising the john cena page and WWE films page, everyone has had enough of you ignoring everything we have told you over and over again and thinking you can do what you like, well you cant there are rules on wikipedia, and one of them is you can contribute but it isn't always kept. You have been told numerous times, so start listening cos you will end up blocked otherwise. And making personal attacks on wikipedia through edit summaries is NOT accepted here and you have been warned twice before and you ignore and continue to do it, i'm not harassing you and i am NOT stalking you, you have refused to follow the rules so you can't blame anyone else. If you also take note on other pages very few of your edits have been kept and havent been removed by me, all have a reason to it, so start listening. Lil crazy thing 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cena

Rather than trying to blunt force revert (doesn't work in the long run trust me on this) how about provideing some sources to support your position?Geni 12:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would but it wouldn't matter if I got a link to a website that has a video of John Cena declaring his love for cartoons and announcing he wants to play Dave The Barbarian in a live action movie. Lil crazy thing WILL delete it and say it's not a reliable source or it doesn't matter. She doesn't want me contributing.

  • It's really not that people don't want you contributing, it's that people don't care for your attitude. If you really think the cartoon thing is notable, bring it up on the talk page for the article instead of causing problems for everyone. -Skudrafan1 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

abakharev 00:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on John Cena's page keep getting reverted for the same reason your edits to Bob Orton, Jr. and Randy Orton got reverted, they are considered trivia and are not notable and unencyclopedic. Please see Wikipedia:Trivia. --JFred 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cena Mediation

Hi, I am mediating the John Cena dispute and you are listed as a party. Since the dispute is about your edits, your participation is required, and I strongly encourage you visit the mediation page and plead your case when the 24-hour block on your profile is lifted. Thanks - BrownHornet21 02:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cena

Can you just leave the personal infomration section alone. The stuff about the playstation bit was removed after it was decide by many it isn't needed, so dont add it back in. and the second paragraph isn't noteable one single bit, and to start with roald dahl isn't a poet his an author, you cant provide any proof for anything you add. The section was perfectly fine and had been for a little bit and the second the mdiation finished you started up again, but i'm sorry it's not on, just leave it how it is now and also stop adding huge to the bit about cartoons, you got your little bit in there be happy he rarely mentions anything about cartoons for it to be said his a huge fan, its got his a fan of cartoons thats all it needs to be. so please for once listen to someone other then yourself and just leave the page alone. Lil crazy thing 05:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Do not remove citation needed tags or reintroduce uncited trivia as you did to Batman Forever. CovenantD 15:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite sources

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Nacho Libre, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Untitled Batman Begins Sequel

Stop re-adding Adam Sandler to this page as a candidate for The Joker. Look at your source. Even the 'source' uses the name as INDICATIVE of the names being used, and dismisses it as 'the usual suspects'. Unless you can find a source which specifically mentions Adam Sandler as having been solicited, volunteering, or under significant consideration by the filmmakers or executives, do NOT re-add him to the list. I will continue to remove him, as 'Sandler' is all that's used in the rumor you continually cite. There are 24 actors with the Surname 'Sandler' listed on IMDb. Until you can demonstrate citations that it is, in fact, ADAM Sandler who is being referred to, along with viable sources, It will be removed over and over. By a 2:1 ratio, there is consensus that Sandler does not belong. Please respect the ideas behind Wikipedia, and avoid breaking consensus and adding original research. Please respond at the conversation on Talk:Untitled_Batman_Begins_sequel.ThuranX 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All improperly sourced names will be reverted on sight. Learn to cite properly or stop trying to force these items into the article. CovenantD 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celebrity Whovians

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. CovenantD 05:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are engaging in your very bad habit of not providing any supporting references for you edits and refusing to discuss them except in edit summaries. This has to stop. Either provide a reference to where you saw something, in the text of the article, or stop editing Wikipedia. CovenantD 05:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want them to be deleted, then you need to start sourcing properly. Saying it was on Hey Hey is not good enough. Please provide proper sources which can be verified. Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reference to your edit summaries on Steve Martin and Prince Charles: (This is relevant, he falls under this subject, plus I can contribute too so piss off). Please observe WP:CIVIL. This is not the first time you've been uncivil in your relationships with other editors, and if you persist, you will be blocked temporarily. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "citation BBC" or "IMDb" is not good enough. Please read Wikipedia's policies on sources and original research. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

I'm sorry, but "piss off" is completely unacceptable. You have been blocked for 12 hours. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. CovenantD 06:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now violated 3RR and been properly warned. CovenantD 06:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on numerous articles

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. CovenantD 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Personal Attacks

Please stop using edit summaries to make personal attacks or you will be blocked (again). Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am sorry Sarah but YOU KEEP REMOVING THE BLOODY CATEGORY LISTINGS WHICH HAVE VERY RELIABLE SOURCES

Your frustration is not an excuse for making repeated personal attacks. IMDb is not a reliable source. People like us write IMDb. Please cite reliable and verifiable sources according to Wikipedia policy or stop what you are doing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


However the webmaster of webmistress resaerches imdb.com before adding, it says whenever you submit bits of trivia for it. Plus people not like us don't write bbc.com or davidwalliams.com yet you delete the information I find there

IMDb do not verify most of the information. I know this because I've added totally unverifiable information to pages for my uncle and cousin. The BBC is a big site. If people ask you to source your edits, saying it's somewhere on bbc.com is not good enough. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ask one of your teachers how to properly cite sources since you choose not to read the links here on Wikipedia. CovenantD 01:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you block expires, please do not add articles to categories unless the article explicitly states that the article belongs in such category. If you want to add a person to category X, find a reliable source, add text to the article that presents the source, and then add to the category. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Sorry mate but you can't use http://www.answers.com/topic/doctor-who-fandom as a source because it's a mirror of a wikipedia article. You need to find independent sources. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Whovians again

Before adding controversial categories, such as Celebrity Whovians, to articles, such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category. The addition of a category to an article is considered a claim that the subject of the article is what the name of the category would suggest, and the article needs to contain information that backs your claim up, otherwise it will most likely be removed by another user. --Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Whovians deleted

Hey, Daffy. Per the discussion here, the category "Celebrity Whovians" has been deleted. I wasn't sure whether you knew that it was up for deletion, but now that it has been deleted please don't add it to any more articles. If you still think the category is important and the consensus was incomplete or ill-informed, you can try to bring it up at Deletion review, but frankly I wouldn't hold my breath. The best thing is to concentrate on finding reliable sources for the notable fans listed at Doctor Who fandom, like I did here. You've put URLs in edit summaries before; try to put them in the article itself, with Template:cite news or Template:cite web or whatever's appropriate. It's not too difficult once you familiarize yourself with the templates.

Good luck! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian book Greatest Films of All Time

Hello Daffy, is there any evidence this book exists? I can understand a book not being on Amazon or eBay, but legally a copy of every book published in Australia has to be placed in the National Library of Australia, but there is no copy of it there. Until there is some way to double check the contents of this book, it can't be considered a verifiable source. Since you have a copy of the book could you provide more information such as the author and publisher? - SimonP 11:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - SimonP 22:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 3 editors who clearly do not agree with your edits. You either have to do some reasearch to find some citations that meet the guidelines, discuss this with us and convince us we are wrong, or give up. -- Samuel Wantman 23:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Daffy, re Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, please don't post text you have lifted from other websites or books, it is considered a copyright violation. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin

Daffy, I'm going to make one attempt to discuss this with you directly. You can't just put a film in as the greatest of all time because you're a fan of the movie. I'm as strong a fan of animation as anyone else who cares about this stuff (ask me anything about the Termite Terrace days of WB). I agree with you that Aladdin is a great movie that deserves the awards and nominations it's earned. But in every aspect, there's a movie that's done something (or everything) better than it. Nor has it been listed as a highest regarded movie in any respected poll or book that exists in *cough* reality. Many movies that do a particularly good job at something in a particular year will sweep the category across many award programs (as Aladdin did for its score). It simply isn't a "best" movie in any genre or nationality outside of you and any of its specific fans. If people lobby a specific film outside the criteria given or compromise the page's integrity, it's value is limited and will eventually go away. So I'm going to remove the reference and ask that you do not replace it unless you can find a legitimate, verifiable source that justifies its place on the page. --Happylobster 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

You have been blocked for 48 hours for continuing incivility, in particular this edit. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during August 29 2006 (UTC) to The Marine

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ryūlóng 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments

Donald and Daffy Duck

I agree. DaffyDuck619, you need to cut out the nonsense. — BrianSmithson 08:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave the Barbarian stubs

Please do not use "short-lived cult classic" when you make pages in the future; it's really biased.

Thank you for your time. Ryūlóng 07:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Oz trivia

Hello! I was looking at the history for the Frank Oz article, and wondered about the trivia you added about Oz including a reference to Jim Henson in all of the movies he has directed since Henson's death. Is there a source for that, or some observable citations? Thanks! -- scarecroe 00:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was once interviewed by Rove McManus and he said that he puts a reference to Jim Henson in the movies since his death, he told Rove that he sees it as a tribue to him AND a "thank you" for making him a star
Daffy doesn't believe in citing sources.CovenantD 07:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! A good friend of mine is a writer for Rove Live, so it should be easy to track down an exact quote for the article. —scarecroe 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What interviews is Frank Oz quoted as having spoken in detail about his intentions for a directorial go at Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? —scarecroe 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro

Add proof before you add rubbish to Nitro's page. Thanks! --Fr3nZi3 23:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during September 6 2006 (UTC) to John Cena

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Ryūlóng 05:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 72 hours

You have been blocked for yet another violation of WP:CIVIL despite previous blocks and warnings. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down now or you go back in the chamber for another 72. You're being very incivil; DISCUSS things please. --Golbez 08:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you don't start discussing things now, you're getting permanently blocked. No, it's not permanent - it's just to force you to chat. You have used a talk page ten times in the last month, and I think no times in the last week. You have a problem with discussion, so I'm going to force you. If you want to edit again, you'll have to discuss here. (You can edit your own talk page when blocked) --Golbez 08:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aladdin

You might want to cite where Aladdin is noted as the greatest movie of all time. With it, there should be no conflict. Referencing other articles is a self reference, which should be avoided. --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during September 9 2006 (UTC) to John Cena

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Ryūlóng 08:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --MONGO 08:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lengthened MONGO's block to indefinite. Now you HAVE to discuss. So, discuss. Right here. --Golbez 08:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Alright I'm back from my little sabitical, I've been reading some of the histories of the pages and I've got to say that I have never been on here ever since I was blocke. Now the reason I threattened an edit war on the page Films Considered The Greatest Ever, because I found sufficient information about the movie Aladdin being there and HappyLobster continuing to delete it. That's exclusion, that's harrasment and I AM THE ONE WHO GETS BLOCKED, what the fuck is up with that But wait, he's not the ONLY ONE who is harrasing me here by excluding me from editing, lil crazy thing for one yet she wasn't blocked, Khasworks (who states that if someone likes Doctor Who they're not a fan of the show, if they talk great things about Doctor Who they're not a fan of the show, if they are a fan of Doctor Who they're not a fan of the show) also, but no blocking. Now i want to know why the fuck those three weren't blocked for harrasing someone here yet I was


Well, why aren't you answering me

Who are you talking to? If you want to establish that someone is harassing you, I think you should provide diffs. But from what I have seen, people are very concerned about the quality and validity of your edits. That's not harassment. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's just that they demand citations, I got it up there and they still keep deleting it calling the citations unreliable (it's not just imdb.com they ), before I got blocked indefinetly I was starting to lose my patience DaffyDuck619

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaffyDuck619&oldid=79972298"