User talk:Lazyguythewerewolf

Welcome!

Hello, Lazyguythewerewolf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Pyro spirit ^Shiny! 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 20, 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Niko Bellic. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. HalfShadow 16:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -- Merope 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey tom!

Hey there, no I'm not wikipedia and no, I'm not gonna jeer, uber-block or call you a script kiddie.

How're you..? It's me, chris. --Napster964 09:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for disrupting wikipedia to make a stupid point. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 10: 06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hooray for antisocialist wikipedians!!!

(Dnt worry, my account got blocked cause I wrote a thing that they thought was 'inaccurate.'

...It was a f***ing indefinite block. --Napster964 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you've been warned...

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Imaginationland, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Will ^(talk) 14:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate on that?~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 17:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got blocked, remember? Will ^(talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the personal attack.~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 20:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that. "Moron removed list." Will ^(talk) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nationality" debate removal

Explain to me how that "solves" it, seeing as how users continue to post unconstructive comments that don't solve anything on an equally un-solvable subject? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said it attempts to. It needs help; something removing it isn't giving it. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 18:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain anything. Removing these irrelevant discussions removes the unnecessary clutter from them from the page. Users are just gonna continue to tack on to these discussions and create new ones regardless. At least removing them, which is encouraged by WP:TPG, discourages this. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

With regard to your comments on Imaginationland: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. {{{2}}} Will ^(talk) 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size Matters being canon

Yes it is. In a video for Tools of Destruction, Brian Allegeir (the creative director) mentions it takes place "after the PSP game". Also, in an interview someone from Insomniac mentions they accepted it into the canon. Sorry, I can't seem to find either, but I'll be searching for them. --Jopasopa (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. [1]:

Shack: So Insomniac was pretty happy with the way the game turned out?

Ryan Schneider: Absolutely, yea. It seemed like the media was, it seemed like fans were, it seemed like everybody really accepted it into the Ratchet & Clank canon nicely. I think that's because they had a lot of talented people working on it, many of whom, or at least some of whom, had come from Insomniac. It really made for a nice transition.

--Jopasopa (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User singular they:Secret Idenitity

A tag has been placed on Template:User singular they:Secret Idenitity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Strongsauce (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Et tu? ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lazyguythewerewolf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the other guy deleted his warning - would I avoid a block if I did the same?

Decline reason:

Clear 3RR violation by you. There was no other user to break 3RR on that page, so no other blocks would be necessary. And no, taking the warning off would have no effect on this block. — Metros (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What? So I was edit warring with myself then? I've said it time and time and time again, Wikipedia policy is bullshit. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring with several other users, none of whom breached 3RR. Metros (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The other guy first broke 3RR. If I broke 3RR and my edits were reverted, then surely they are breaking 3RR. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which "other guy"? Please look at the history of the article here and tell which user you believe also broke 3RR. Metros (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're following the letter of the law instead of the meaning. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also sockpuppets. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made 5 reverts total. No other editor made any more than two reverts. Breaking the spirit of 3RR would be making sure to revert no more than 3 times every 24 hours, but still revert warring with no intention of stopping. I am not sure how any other editor violated the spirit of 3RR. I'd also like you to elaborate on the sockpuppetry accusation. Who were the sockpuppets reverting you, and who were the sockpuppeteers? Am I one of them? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those users definitely aren't sockpuppets of each other. When your block expires, take the issue to the talk page of the article to discuss whether your statement belongs in the article. Metros (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is a sockpuppet of Silver. And if not, Damned good friends.~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be that there are a lot of people who just disagree with you. Did you consider that? Metros (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy!~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you go around crying "conspiracy" and attacking others, throwing out false accusations of sockpuppetry, you'll probably wind up getting another block for disruption. So you should probably should take a bit to calm down before you go back to editing when this expires in about 24 hours. Metros (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I care about another block? I'm used to it. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to talk to Michael Moore. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because your next block will probably be a lot longer until, eventually, you're not allowed back. Metros (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a noble gas.~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<.<

>.>

Last word! Woo!~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 72 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. As soon as your block expired you went back to inserting the statement again without first seeking consensus on the talk page. I noticed that you now have posted to that talk page but only after inserting it twice and then inserting it again right after posting to the talk page. What you left at the talk page is quite incivil, by the way. When this block expires in 72 hours, please use the talk page for consensus before editing that statement back in. Thank you, Metros (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. :D~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 10:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. 71.174.69.25 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (User:Dreaded Walrus on Wikibreak at a public computer)[reply]

Being involved in the debate, you are hardly impartial. Have you warned yourself, hmmm?~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 23:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because making one revert in the past 10 days is not even approaching violation of WP:3RR, while you have made 4 reverts in just over 24 hours, having been blocked twice recently for this. Have you read WP:3RR? And besides, you don't need to be impartial to merely notify a user that they are approaching violating 3RR. I would recommend not reverting any more, lest you may be blocked yet again for disruption. Don't take this as a threat, more a notification 71.174.69.25 (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (Dreaded Walrus again.)[reply]

Another block

I have blocked you now for two weeks for your continued edit warring. As soon as your block expired, you went right to it even though I explicitly told you not to do so. Metros (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Metros (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]