User talk:Olir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Freddy Adu

Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! --AW 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts and don't want you to get discouraged, but those sources don't match what the section says, namely the negative things. If you can find Wikipedia:Reliable sources, like a news article (probably not a blog), then please put that in. however, as the section is written now it doesn't belong. You can raise the issue at the article's talk page, however, and maybe somebody else will be able to help or will know articles about that sort of thing. --AW 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

An article on the history of issues of dual nationality and "mercenaries" in football would be much appreciated, but since Adu is not a particularly egregious example (his parents came to the country for non-sporting reasons when he was 8, as I recall), I don't think his article should be the focus point. Bill Oaf 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated NPOV violations on Dr. M.L. King article

I know you feel strongly about this "womanizer" accusation, but the consensus is against you; it is trivial, not central to his role in American life. What you are doing now is basically a revert war, a species of vandalism. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There has long since developed a concensus that this is not an integral part of his life, certainly not important enough to be in the opening paragraph. (And if this stuff is important to you, why don't you sign your name?) --Orange Mike 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please sign your comments

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!--Dan027 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: blink 182

Yes, I missed your post to the talk page. Sorry to be an annoyance... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! We could really use your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as 19th generation speakers) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Flyingtoaster1337 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive Message?

Hello, Olir. I have no idea what you are talking about the yellow card image. I did not do a THING! And besides, I wouldn't be talking because you are the one vandalizing articles (i read the thing about you vandalzing articles wrritien by --Orange Mike). Radical3 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Olir, are you aware that blanking pages for any reason is regarded as significant vandalism?--Anthony.bradbury 01:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It should still be left for an admin to delete. I take your point, but mine remains the approved wikipedia policy.--Anthony.bradbury 13:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blink-182 genres

Olir, please stop changing the genre. Just because you claim that blink-182 is not pop-punk, doesn't mean it's really a fact. Users have agreed that they are pop-punk, not simply "punk rock". Just go to Talk:Blink-182#Punk_Rock_votes if you don't agree that they're pop-punk. See the pop-punk article about the band. If the genre is changed agin, I will ask an administrator to ban you. Alex 16:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when did I threaten you when I asked you to stop changing the genre? I hope that there won't be any hard feelings that you realize that you were wrong about blink-182's genre. I told you lots of users have agreed that they are pop-punk. Sorry, Olir, but you are wrong. They are pop-punk, NOT punk rock. Please, you need to stop changing the genre. Alex 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Refer to your page, and wiki policy. We have to go with facts not opinions. Olir 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please have a read of Wikipedia:Consensus before making any more changes to the genre. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There are souces for both sides. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking citated facts

You can not do this! Please refrain from it in the future, you are very close to getting a block.Hoponpop69 00:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly you should get a block. If you had read the disscussion page and edit summary you would know why those sources were invalid. I say stop jumping to conclusions, rethink your attitude and maybe even apoloigse to me Olir 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Have fun with your ban! And FYI my sources were not invalid, and you need to put yours on the main page in addition to the talk page. But I'm sure you'll have plenty of time to get that down while you are banned from editing wikipedia.

[edit] Don't call me a hypocrite

I keep telling you the reason those sources aren't valid is because it's first party information. Hoponpop69 20:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am not calling you a hypocrite. I reverted my edit. The reason i'm not calling you one is because i want to be civil towards you no matter what angle you approach from, be it vandalism or personal bashing. Olir 20:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on March 1, 2007 to Blink-182

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.

The duration of the block is 31 hours.

The extra hours are for incivility.

William M. Connolley 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page until you and hoponpop69 (along with all the other editors with an interest in the article) can agree on the necessary wording, and as an aside, your really sailing close to the wind for being blocked for the same reasons as before, grossly incivil conduct and revert/edit warring. -- Nick ^t 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)