User talk:Duff man2007

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Zephead999 (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Led Zeppelin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. IrisKawling 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Halo 3, you will be blocked from editing. Stryik 04:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Halo 3, you will be blocked from editing. SpigotMap 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song), you will be blocked from editing. SpigotMap 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Halo 3. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your general lack of respect for editors has gone too far. I'm not sure why you haven't been blocked already. Stryik 04:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Guess what buddy? Wikipedia has policies. Statements MUST BE SOURCED RELIABLY. "Go watch the VMAs" is not a reliable source. Guess what? American VMAs don't play on my television... why? Because I'm not in the US. SpigotMap 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

EVERYTHING on this encyclopedia are to be sourced. That's what fact tags are for. Please don't remove them again as it constitutes vandalism. And refrain from being uncivil. SpigotMap 04:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe she played at the VMAs, but that's not the point. The point is the tag was there for a reason. Do not remove fact tags unless you are replacing them with a source. SpigotMap 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your way is about to get you blocked. You have a blatant disregard for wikipolicy. You do not own anything on this encyclopedia and things are not "your way". SpigotMap 04:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, glad to see you took a turn away from vandalism. Thanks for helping with cleanup. SpigotMap 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As a head's up: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Duff man2007 Stryik 04:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

Note: Please don't repeatedly add non-encyclopedic material to articles. When there's a dispute, don't keep putting the material back in, take it to the talk page and discuss it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I did nothing wrong. I had to quickly add that back in becuse they kept on removing it. Infact, if you check I provided links backing up the info that I provided, and they still felt compelled to remove it. I was even discussing this on the talk page, and they still removed it. Again, please un-ban me. Duff man2007 05:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. What do you mean you did nothing wrong? You really need to take a few minutes and read our policies. You've been told this before. We have rules, here, and you're expected to follow them. In this case, it's the 3 Revert Rule. I'll count this diff as your original, just because I don't want to go back farther. So, the reverts were: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . That's an astounding 19 reverts! And you claim to have done nothing wrong? You can consider yourself lucky to have gotten off with just a 24 hour block. There's already been allegations of sockpuppetry...if I find you doing that to avoid this block, you'll be blocked indefinitely. Take some time off, read our policies, and be ready to come back and write encyclopedic content and live by our rules. Oh, and by the way, a leek is a vegetable. I doubt there's a whole lot of them on Ebay. Maybe you were thinking of a leak, meaning something that gets out of a hole? AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I wen to the discussion page and talked about it first. And they STILL got rid of the info without even talking about it on the discussion page for at least 15 or so min. So what was I supposed to do? If I did not do anything they probably never wuold have said anything on the discussion page. So then they wanted some valid sources, I provided a valid soruce, and also told them there are plenty more on the internet. They STILL did not believe me, and simply called it a "hoax" even where there was visual proof it was leaked, AND was provided a link to the Halo 3 page on Ebay. And *I* am the one that gets banned? Do I really need to tell you how asinine that is? Like I said, please un-ban me and ban them. Duff man2007 14:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. The process works like this: you add text. If it's contested, you go and propose it and discuss it on the talk page. You don't add it back in until there is a consensus to do so. Some things that are considered during the discussion: Is the proposed content significant and notable, as we define notability? Is it material worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia (remember, we're not a web forum or chat room)? Is it written in an encyclopedic tone? Does it have sources, and do those sources meet our policies, WP:V and WP:RS? After the discussion and debate, when everyone agrees that the material should be included, then and only then do you add it back in. Doing things the way you did it was a blatant disregard for our ruls, was rude and out of line. The best thing for you to do is apologize, let it go, and move on. In the greater scheme of things, the info you were trying to add simply didn't add substantive content...in other words, in five years, no one's going to care that a beta copy was leaked a couple of weeks before the formal launch - that kind of material just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia; chat room, forum, sure, but encyclopedia, no. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page John Lennon on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Liverpool Scouse 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Image:JohnLennonWhiteAlbum.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD i4.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Liverpool Scouse 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This image was deleted because a) it did not have any licensing information, b) it is a non-free image with no fair-use rationale and c) it was previously deleted because of available free images. The first two criteria also apply to the Robert Plant image, which also was deleted. Please see our guidelines on Non-free content. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jimmy Wales. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Tiptoety 01:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Jimmy Wales, you will be blocked from editing.

There was NOTHING controvesial about Bomis, so I deleted it. un-block me please. Duff man2007 05:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked indefinitely for repeated vandalism and content removal. Please see

Although I wasn't the blocking admin this time, I suppose you do deserve an explanation, and reviewing your last contributions, it's clear: you deleted refernced content (which you're not supposed to do, and you've been told that) without discussion (which you've definitely been told you need to do), from the bio of the founder of Wikipedia. You've been counseled and warned repeatedly by myself and others about your behavoir in this community. Clearly, given the number of warnings on this page, the community finds your behavior unacceptable. You've had plenty of opportunities to turn things around and to ssek mentoring, to read our policies and guidelines, but for whatever reason, you have choosen not to avail yourself of such guidance. After reviewing all that you've said, and your contribs list, the indef block which the other admin gave you seems entirely appropriate to me. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed unapproiate content, and i get banned? Past content has nothing to do with my current ban. this is an unjust ban, now un-ban me please. Duff man2007 06:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

After being unblocked you continued to cause trouble, you don't get freed from trouble every time you get unblocked to start over fresh. This is also not a democracy, no reason has to be given for your blocks, and you have no right to demand to be unblocked. Find a new hobby. SpigotMap 06:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus on the tak page to include this section, all of it was sourced, and you just deleted it without citing any policy or valid reason. As a general rule of thumb, before you delete a whole section, like the one of this size, from an article, you should probably discuss it on the talk page. Hoponpop69 04:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Who's the saddest, biggest bullsh*t artist on Wikipedia?

(I'll give you a hint. If you're reading this, you're on his discussion page.)

How's your art of sockpuppetry going? Just quit while you still have your dignity. Or stop forcing your opinions on other users. It's called the "Led Zeppelin" article, not "Duffman's Led Zeppelin" fan article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.84.51 (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)