User talk:Liam.gloucester/Archive 2

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning[change source]

You may not remove my messages from your talk page. Other editors need to see that you have been blocked before and if you breach the rules, then you will be treated more harshly. If you do remove messages from your talk page, then you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Billz (Talk) 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please sign your posts using the four tildes. (~~~~) --Isis§(talk) 21:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant to add that to my message. It is the standard way of signing off your messages, so we know who has posted the message. Thanks. Billz (Talk) 21:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know...[change source]

Hello. I just wanted to tell you that you may comment on my talk page now. It's been un-protected. --Isis§(talk) 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: New[change source]

I am totally confused too. If you look at the Block log, you'll see I blocked you on Friday for two hours, but that was all. You've already commented about how "Absurd" the block is, so I don't know why you've left that message. Billz (Talk) 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~ otherwise it's dificult to find out who left it. Thanks. Billz (Talk) 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I can assure you that you are not being singled out, but you need to learn to comply with all of the Wikipedia policies, otherwise people will start to target you. Firstly, you user page is a complete waste of space since the 95% of users who use Internet Explorer or Firefox cannot read it. Your user page is meant to say everything about you, and when yours is awkward and difficult to understand, what does it say about you? Nobody said your user page is "Awful" on Simple talk, so I am unsure of why you said that. Billz (Talk) 16:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Splitting Hairs[change source]

Why use quote marks then? You are simply making our innocent discussion look like a personal attack to an outsider and you have already been warned about manipulating messages. Actually, you were blocked for it!

According to Onestat's statistics, about 10% of users on the Internet use Safari. The other 89% use web browsers which display your user page in an illegible format. What is the point of a user page that such a tiny minority can read and is simply an annoyance to the majority of users?

Finally, I am glad you are not an administrator. You have made several personal attacks and been blocked for them, so please do not accuse us doing the same thing. I would like to assure you that administrators can be blocked and will be blocked for any personal attacks and are not treated any differently to normal users. The only difference is that we have a few more buttons that normal users, but that is all. We still have to abide by the same rules as you. Billz (Talk) 22:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Attacking Users[change source]

As a matter of fact, you have attacked more users than "just" BrownE34. Look here, for example. --Isis§(talk) 23:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Personal Attacks[change source]

I actually just blocked you for two hours, but then I reconsidered and unblocked you to give you a chance to calm down and discuss matters in a normal manner. You have accused me of "Threatening" you, "Patronizing" you and "Violating" you Wiki rights. All of these are totally untrue and the same could be said about you.

You've made several personal attacks, even after several warnings and continue to intimidate users. I feel that you do deserve a small ban, but you are very lucky and you will not be receiving one on this instance. Any more of this behaviour will result in a ban however. Billz (Talk) 23:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read this for further information on personal attacks to prevent them in the future. --Isis§(talk) 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage advice[change source]

Hi Liam, just a bit of advice about userpages. We do generally advise people to keep controversial views off their userpages to reduce the chance of conflicts with other editors. I know that PETA definitely touch on some contraversial issues, so therefore I strongly advise you to remove that sentence. I can't make you do it, as it's not really a wiki-rule to do that, but it's usually very good to stick by it. Basically, any views which other editors might immediately judge you on are usually best left out; for example a toxicologist might immediately stereotype you as an animal rights extremist without actually knowing anything about you. Arguments can start very easily on a wiki :). If you decide to remove it, you can also remove this message along with it. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I also have some advice about you user page, and that is to remove the section about disliking the name Bill. I know exactly who that is aimed at and, to the best of my knowledge, I am the only active person on Simple English Wikipedia called Bill. Therefore, please remove this message since it constitutes a personal attack. Billz (Talk) 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, you can keep it if you like, as long as you keep your opinions neutral in the articles. A toxicologist is a scientist that studies the toxicity of substances (what the harmful effects are to organisms), and many of them are employed in animal testing. About removing that comment, that only applies to this so that we could remove all references to PETA if you decided to remove that, it won't apply to any other comments from now on (unless they say of course). Archer7 - talk 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning[change source]

Nuvola apps important.svg Liam, this is your final warning before you will be blocked from editing. Please stop making personal attacks on users and removing or editing messages on your talk page. It is not me being awkward when I insist on not removing messages, it is the Wikipedia policy to ensure that other contributors know your history.

Also, when you leave your computer, log off Wikipedia to stop your "Little cousin" from making vandal edits. I don't want to have to block you again, but if you continue with this behaviour, then I shall have no choice. Billz (Talk) 15:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am now starting to think you're only on Simple English Wikipedia to cause trouble. Your IP address ( was on its last warning for vandalising pages and you keep leaving messages claiming that I am making a personal attack against you. You have already had your final warning so any more of this unacceptable behaviour and you will be blocked from editing. Please remember that it will not be for 2 hours this time, but for a much longer period. Billz (Talk) 21:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Browne34 just blocked you, but I got you unblocked because I need to talk about your behaviour. Please remember you are still on your final warning and if you make one wrong move, you will face a long block. Billz (Talk) 22:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Film Rating System[change source]

We already have an article called Motion Picture Association of America film rating system, which covers the USA system and we have explained this several times to you. We do not want a page called Film Rating System, because we do not yet have pages about the global system.

Please do not recreate this page and read the Manual of style before creating any more articles, to ensure that they are formatted correctly. Thank you. Billz (Talk) 21:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This edit has been reverted because it does not contain a neutral point of view (NPOV). Thanks. Billz (Talk) 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, your article would be considered much less detailed than the current one because it does not discuss the various ratings, which is the entire point of the article. When creating an article, please think about what needs to be said and what can be linked to other pages. For example, you didn't need to define "Audience" when there is a page about it. Billz (Talk) 21:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted it for the reasons listed above and not to cause any disputes or arguments here. You may deserve a ban for your behaviour, but you are on your final warning instead. Billz (Talk) 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop insisting that your film rating system is more detailed than the current one. Firstly, it is not the film rating system, since each country has its own system, and the current one outlines each of the ratings, as per the article title. Billz (Talk) 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
For the final time, please stop recreating pages called Rating System. Firstly, the capitalisation in the article title is wrong (It should be Rating system). It should not redirect to the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system either, since there are rating systems for other things other than films and because each country has its own film rating system. Billz (Talk) 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already explained why we should not have an article called Rating system. At the end of the day, you're redirecting it to the film rating system article, but other things are rated using systems, other than films. Billz (Talk) 22:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving[change source]

I've now archived sections 1 to 18 on a sub-page, and I've also linked to it at the top of this page. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 21:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pages added[change source]

Please move the page you created on pages you have added to user space. Basically just put User: in front of it. If you would like me to do it for you, please let me know. If you do not move it, it would be subject to quick deletion. Thanks -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No trouble, in fact, it looks like some other editors already moved it for you. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Right here: User:Liam.gloucester/Pages added by liam.gloucester -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Main page changes[change source]

Hi. What consensus were you following when you added one of the vgood articles to the main page, calling it the "Article of the Week" (which also has no precedent)? If someone told you to, fine. If you were being bold, fine. But even though I like the idea of having one on the main page, that was not the opinion of at least some of the other people in the discussion. Better to review the discussion before doing something like that, especially when it affects the look of the main page, and in a negative way (in my opinion). If we're going to add a vgood article to the main page, let's do it in a nice-looking way, in an appropriate place, and with the consensus of the community, please. Thanks. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Liam, I have hidden the change you made to the main page. Plase do not take it personal. It is not about you, it is about we need to reach consensus before such a big change. I would be grateful to hear your comments on Talk:Main Page and I think you can help with WP:VGOOD as well. Regards, - Huji reply 07:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the images on your talk page[change source]

You have six very big images to the top of your talk page. This is not desirable, at least for me, for two reasons: 1) It makes the page to take a longer time to load, and the "table of contents" is pushed down so you need to scroll to find it; 2) I see no reason for seeing that picture six times when I'm scrolling down to the discussion on this talk page.

For these reasons, I think it would be grateful if you kindly consider removing these images (and/or moving them to your User page), please. - Huji reply 07:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The images simply make it harder to leave messages. Billz (Talk) 13:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Innapropriate additions to articles[change source]

Your comments about Col. Sanders are non-neutral point-of-view. They are also incredibly innappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you continue to make edits of this nature, you may be blocked. · Tygartl1·talk· 14:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to block you for 3 days right now. You are already on a final warning, and your edits to Christianity class as vandalism. Comments like that about Col. Sanders push it too far, and you know that it's wrong too. It looks to me right now that you are only here to cause trouble, I hope I'm wrong. See you in 3 days. Archer7 - talk 14:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I see you've been blocked, Liam, for your edits, but I do really hope that you will return and make constructive edits after your block. Billz (Talk) 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Guitar[change source]

Please do not remove content from pages, as you did on Guitar. This is vandalism. Please remember that if your edits are not constructive, you will be blocked for longer. Thanks. · Tygartl1·talk· 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page[change source]

Regarding the message you put on the top of your page, which refers to Panda Bear's talk page, I want to notify two things:

1) en:WP:Talk, the Talk Page guideline, "Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." I believe that is why Panda Bear has posted that message on the top of his talk page. Also, I think what you put on the top of your page is pointless, because the talk page of an encyclopedia editor is by no means the place to post about winning a radio game. I suggest you remove that message.

2) Your reference to Panda Bear may make things personal. It is no good to compare people (including comparing yourself with others) in a way that might represent the others negatively. In case you are not going to remove that message (as I suggested above), I ask you to reword it.

Have fun - Huji reply 06:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have removed that message. Just wanted to thank you for paying attention - Huji reply 18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your signature[change source]

Hi, I see you have been signing your comments with "LIAM !" lately. While I, and other regular editors, may know that it really is you who made the comment, other editors may not see it immediately. Please change the signature so that it includes a link to your user page or talk page, for example like this: [[User_talk:Liam.gloucester|LIAM !]]. Best regards, --rimshottalk 11:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Creating new articles[change source]

Please try to be more careful when you create new articles. You have created two articles today that already exist with a different name: List of the 50 U.S. states by population/List of U.S. states by population and Template:50states/Template:United States. Thank you. · Tygartl1·talk·

<big>[change source]

Please, please, please stop using <big> tags on articles to enlarge text to an illegible size. Not only is it extremely pointless, but it is also very annoying. Billz (Talk) 20:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't put those on articles, just my user page! Now would you just get off it? I know you hate my user page, but it is MY page. Personally, I find mine easier to read then Sir James Paul's page, with all the different colors and formats. LIAM !

What about this edit? Billz (Talk) 18:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lily Allen[change source]

Please stop changing the article to say she won best dressed. That is incorrect, if you look here, it says she won worst dressed. Best dressed went to Faris Badwan. Thank you. --Isis§(talk) 14:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But clearly she dresses well; you can't say she doesn't; it is like saying Mozart can't play Classical Music to well;;;; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam.gloucester (talkcontribs)

But she won worst dressed. It doesn't matter how well she dresses, she still won worst dressed. That is important (and true!) information to put in the article. You can't change it just because you think she dresses well. --Isis§(talk) 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
But is this really encyclopedic information? LIAM ! 15:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Isis§(talk) 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. I really don't want to start an edit war. --Isis§(talk) 16:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't say she won best dressed just because you think she dresses well. That is adding false information to the article. And yes, that information is important. I understand your concern here, but it's information that, IMO, needs to be in the article. --Isis§(talk) 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Another thing;Why do you not want that info there? --Isis§(talk) 18:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I referenced it with a link to the list of winners from the official website. That shows you that she did win the award. If you still do not believe me, look at these: [1], [2], and[3]. --Isis§(talk) 20:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Um...better to do than what? :) --Isis§(talk) 20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Um.. harrass me about Lily Allen ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam.gloucester (talkcontribs)
I'm not trying to harrass you about Lily Allen. I just want that information to be in the article. Winning an NME award is a pretty important thing to put in an article, whether it's a good or bad award. --Isis§(talk) 20:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is that important? You obviously could be doing something more important.

Making images links[change source]

Hello Liam, sorry for the late reply. About the images on my userpage, they use Template:Click. It's one of the more complex templates to use, and you can find help on it on the English Wikipedia page. Don't use this template in articles however - it can be useful in certain situations, but very few, and it's normally better to just not use it in articles at all. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 22:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Warning[change source]

Liam, I am sorry to do this, but I becoming fed up of your behaviour on Simple English Wikipedia. You are purposely creating an edit war on my talk page which is totally unacceptable. Snake111's comment was not a personal attack, so there was no need to pretend it was. If you continue with this behaviour, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Billz (Talk) 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV[change source]

Liam, you must keep a neutral point of view when editing articles (I reverted your edit to Kentucky Fried Chicken). It is unethical by some people's standards, but not by others. You've done this before and been blocked for it, I don't want to do it again. You've already caused disruption today, so take this as a final warning before blocking. Try finding a topic you're interested in other than animal rights, and work on articles about that. Cars, sports, tropical lizards, anything but animal rights - no-one can write about something they feel that strongly about from a neutral point of view. Archer7 - talk 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)