User talk:Ebtunc2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Dook
Please see the talk page for the Dook article. DukeEGR93 14:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits to Steve Spurrier
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Steve Spurrier. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not remove warnings from your own talk page. This does not hide it from the page history. Insanephantom 06:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The Spurrier joke is a joke, commonly found on the internet. It goes as such: "Why does Spurrier wear a visor? To hide the circumcision mark." Just a rebuttal to all the people vandalizing UNC pages, which has been plentiful. I have a philosophy, "if they can't take a joke, fuck 'em." So, fuck em. Anyway, I will lay off the "vandalism," I suppose, my adding to it doesn't prevent it from happening to my pages of interest. Ebtunc2006 06:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- We want to make Wikipedia articles encyclopedic, not by adding excessive jokes. Insanephantom 12:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Turn the other cheek, do unto others... etc, etc. More importantly - be a part of the solution, not the problem. Thanks, AUTiger ʃ talk/work 18:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I get the point. Out. Ebtunc2006 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR Violation
You have been reported for a 3RR violation at the Roy Williams (coach) article. Duke53 | Talk 00:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an inaccurate and abusive report for a 3RR violation, as I am reverting controversial information that is protected as an exception under the 3RR guidelines. Ebtunc2006 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- As you were not given any warnings in advance of the report, I'm going to warn you rather than block you immediately. This is not covered under WP:BLP: the information is sourced and not libelous. Therefore, you are in fact in violation of WP:3RR. Dicuss, don't revert. Heimstern Läufer 04:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are several ways to go about this if necessary: see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I tend not to get too invloved in these, especially for articles I know nothing about, such as this one. If you are truly interested in showing that you want to discuss rather than edit war, you should consider reverting your own last revert, as you were in fact in violation of 3RR. Reverting it would show you are ready to discuss, not revert. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tyler Hansbrough
I reverted your change of "apparent" to "debatable", because the citation attached to the passage (from the AP's game writeup) states that Henderson's action was an attempt to block a shot. There certainly are people who feel that it was intentional, and if you can find a good quote from one with a citation from a reliable source (maybe in an op-ed?), it might be a good fit right after Roy's quote in the next paragraph. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
