User talk:Machchunk

Personal attack

I do not appreciate being called an idiot. Please view wikipedia's polciy on No personal attacks. Thank you . And if you notice the text i had used was a merger between your re-write and what I originally had. I also heavily copy edited hte merger; it has more clarity, uniformity of syntax, and asscakes. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 04:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

More on alien hominid

You really shouldnt remove content that you think doesnt fit without a larger context. I specific item can still be detailed on. It is not a good idea to remove content. If you really want it not on the page, it shoudl go on the talk page instead, until the time has come where it can be put in its proper context. However the pda minigmae, as listed in the french wikipedia article, is notable on its own wihtout necessitating a larger context. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 04:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever

...but I still think you butchering everything I put (which BENEFITS THE ARTICLE) is dumb.

Also you can't say you use better grammar because I think our grammar is about the same.--machchunk

Actually I noticed yours is WORSE. Look at that mess you crapped onto my talk page. You call that a paragraph? Buzz off, doof. --Machchunk

This guy clearly dislikes personal attacks, doof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.213.15 (talk • contribs)

Aww, are you still leading your witlle cwusade against my supposed personal attacks?

Eh. Refer to the discussion below this one. Machchunk 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You Have Issues...

...and you should probably take another English class. Just64helpin 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, JUST because I say 'idiot' you think I have issues? No, I think YOU do. You frickken sissy.

Also, my statement still stands. LISTEN TO "MUSIQUE" AND LISTEN TO "WDPK 83.7 FM". You'll see my elaboration is completely correct AND needed. --Machchunk

"intentionally" needs to be verified. Also I believe you already understand the policy on personal attacks. I have begun the neccessary steps in making my complaints against you. Just64helpin 20:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

By saying that you prove that YOU do not. Read it again and you'll see it does not directly state or even indirectly that calling someone an 'idiot' is prohibited.

YOU'RE the one directing the personal attack. See where it says "no accusatory comments"? You accused me of a personal attack when I wasn't.

Psst, you're still a sissy.

Now that this has been resolved, we will not continue this discussion any further. --Machchunk

NPA

It didn't take you two hours from the end of your previous block to start back up with the personal attacks. Last warning. Learn to play nice or the blocks are only going to get longer. It's just a song... you're taking these editing conflicts way too personally. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 08:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 09:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Then that's the problem, what if I don't want an ugly lie stinking up my talk page and ruining my reputation? --Machchunk

Your own words do that. Please try to remain civil. You might consider making your User page less confrontational, for starters. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, no they don't. In fact I'll make a campaign. STOP THE LIES. MACHCHUNK IS YOUR FRIEEEEEEEEEND. OR AT LEAST WILL BE, UNLESS YOU SUCK. --Machchunk

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. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal....what? How? You're not telling me HOW? I need to know HOW. I don't see ANY evidence of personal attacks.--Confused

Here's a few... Profanity in edit summary: [1], responding to some friendly advice with "YOU SUCK": [2], provocative user page: [3]. This is mostly to humor you, as a cursory glance at your contribution history provides more than enough evidence of personal attacks and incivility. I'm knocking the block down to 24 hours instead of a week, which was too long, but if you can't figure out how to cool off and contribute here without calling people names, you're not going to last long. Check the links above; you should probably look at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Wikipedia:Etiquette too. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I was able to tell after looking at NPA, I don't see anywhere it says "No insults", but I didn't notice Incivility.

But still, you saying I can't contribute well is too much. They were disputing a fact, and were pretty much ignorant to anything I was saying to convince them to stop. Machchunk 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I said UNLESS "you suck". Machchunk 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Grammar problems? Me? Just read on.

Machchunk, for someone that is such a grammar nazi you sure do have a problem writing English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.100.69 (talk • contribs)

First off, I really don't think that was needed or even fit for that page. Second, show me ANY major grammar mistakes I've made aside from accidentally not typing "find" right here (which IS, in fact, not on purpose, I don't know where you'd get that) and I'll coincide, but so far I don't see anything that would make anybody think I have bad grammar. Third, um, does my supposed bad grammar have ANYthing to do with me getting reported for saying I'm someone on a different website?

Someone here needs to think before they start mudsliging. Machchunk 03:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You've been blocked twice for incivility. This really isn't the way to "learn your lesson". -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, pretty tight on everything around here. Tsssssss...would "start mudslinging" be an okay substitute? Machchunk 04:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And just to add, I don't want to go through another round of this stuff, if you know what I mean. Just try to understand, I've used curse words a lot on the Internet, and no one cares about that. It's really hard to get used to this kind of super-strict community. Machchunk 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's got nothing at all to do with swearing. It's the angry tone of your comments. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

All of that I wrote in my first response is entirely true, though. Would YOU like someone baselessly accusing YOU, and that person just leaving and giving you no explanation as to what he did? Talking about the unregistered guy, not you. Machchunk 04:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but if you're in the right and state your case effectively, you have nothing to worry about. Indulging in personal attacks just weakens your claims. I don't always keep a cool head either, but I know when to stop before things escalate. Besides, it's just some guy on the Internet -- if you know you're right, why bother dignifying his accusations with an argument? (Just to clarify, I have no idea at this point what the argument between you two is about, just that incivility was involved.) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have no idea at this point what the argument between you two is about

It's not really an argument, just some statement he/she/it made out of the blue saying I have bad grammar and I'm a grammar Nazi. Neither of which are true, and he provided no evidence to back his first claim. Machchunk 04:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you defending yourself against that, but the approach and verbiage was just too confrontational. Not that I'm trying to tell you what to do (seriously), but if the guy can't respond back in the same know-it-all fashion that he first accused you with, ignore him. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it might've been, but it's changed now.

And right now I am ignoring him, I'm just working this little thing out with you. Machchunk 04:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's cool, we don't have a thing as far as I'm concerned. I've got no problems with you, and I hope it's mutual. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Snakes on a Plane

You said: "It may be original research, but it's still there in the movie. So what would you suggest I do with it?"

Find a reliable source which provides a citation for this information. --Yamla 00:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your warning to User talk:74.65.247.237

Under the circumstances, the {{blatantvandal}} was a bit extreme. In most cases, warnings should be used in sequence: test1, test2, test3, test4. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked on the vandalism page, and it looks like {{blatantvandal}} is the next in the sequence.

And the vandalism to EBaum's World looks exactly the same as when you warned him. So I don't see how it's any less blatant.

I see you changed it. In any case, don't make it seem like you were the one that reverted the vandalism. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 00:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point about the Wikipedia:Vandalism page; I just changed it. The difference is that he hasn't vandalized enough times, or seriously enough, to reach the threshold of being blocked. With the blatantvandal warning on the page, the next person to warn him (if he does vandalize again) is likely to report him to WP:AIV, and that's not appropriate right now. I downgraded it to correct that, and I signed it because I was the one who placed the corrected warning. Anyway, no big deal, and it's all sorted out now. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)