>Rules for my talkpage.

1. 1: Try keep your posts short and to the point.
2. 2: If I told you not to edit my talk page, don't. If it's a warning, head to rule 4.
3. 3: If you're going to post threats, insults or harassment, I will revert your edit and I won't reply, but an admin might.
4. 4: If you've come to talk about rules with me, don't expect much. I think I know the rules pretty well, and I'm tired of telling people that. Leave me alone about it, and go fix the bigger problems.
5. 5: As this is my talkpage, I reserve the right to remove comments.

Your time here on Wikipedia means nothing, It's the way you act that does. I'm taking this to ANI. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the discussion is here. I'd urge you to reconsider your talk page rules, even if not against the rules per se, they don't really help create a pleasant environment for collaborating in. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have taken the liberty of adding informational links, and noting that your "rules" are non-binding, for the benefit of inexperienced editors who might wish to post here. Please note that when referring to your User page or your Talk page, the word "your" means "associated with you" and not "belonging to you". Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may be non binding to you, but if it breaks one of my rules i set to keep myself content so i WONT start a fight; i'll remove it, my talkpage anyways so,--Jakezing (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?

1. Try keep your posts short and to the point.
2. If I told you not to edit my talk page, don't post here except for official business.
3. If you're going to post threats, insults or harassment, I will revert your edit and I won't reply, but an admin might.
4. If you've come to talk about rules with me, don't expect much. I think I know the rules pretty well, and I'm tired of telling people that. Leave me alone about it, and go fix the bigger problems.
5. As this is my talkpage, I reserve the right to remove comments.

No need for a disclaimer - it's compliant with Wiki policy - and if anyone breaks these rules, I or another admin should back you up. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“Your time here on Wikipedia means nothing, It's the way you act that does.“ I could not agree more. Keep up the good work Jakezing195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.202.13 (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jakezing. Heh, it's "Húsönd", not "Hudson"! ;-) Most guidelines/policy pages are well watched and defended, they require as much protection as ordinary articles. Thank you for reverting some vandalism though, sometimes it slips through (but usually not for long). Regards, Húsönd 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Husond" will do then. Still different than "Hudson". Regards, Húsönd 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot add a reliable source for your claim, don't add it. If you do, you will be blocked. Simple as that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halopedia is no more reliable than Wikipedia, if not worse. Read reliable source requirements; Wikipedia is about verifiability, not your supposed truth. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "cheating"? My old account was basically on history (and I made a lot of stupid edits... lol). And this account is giving all my effort to RuneScape and RuneScape themed articles. Sorry if I gave the impression of cheating.--Heroclix222 (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop this and respond to User:Daedalus969 I will take this over to WP:ANI...again. CWii_(BOO!|Eeek!) 04:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, honestly. I know that being snide seems like the best way to tell someone to go away, but it really isn't. All you're doing is antagonizing each other and becoming more and more aggressive. If you have any questions shoot them my way. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was it constructive to the article? You still have yet to answer it. It should be a very easy question for you, since you apparently had the intention of contributing to the article, but yet, there is no clarification, and your re-added it, but you have yet to explain why. If you want me to leave you alone, then just take a few seconds out of your incredibly busy day and give me a straight answer, please.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 02:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment. You are very clearly violating WP:NOT with it, as far as I can see, you are publishing your point of view on the subject in an area where you are not allowed to do so, again, per WP:NOT and WP:SOAP. Secondly, as per you last sentence in the comment, you clearly have a conflict of interest.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comprende(I don't know spanish, cut me some slack), because the matter is not as simple as acceptance and rejection. You stated that anything that does not accept the country's choice is rejection, and and all your logic, you are only accepting the variables X and Y. You would be right if there were only two variables, there however, are not. The states that are still finalizing their opinion do not fall under the red, and the one's remaining neutral are even more complex. They could have not wanted anything to do with the matter, because they did not want others to badger them concerning their choice, or for various other reasons. Either way, they chose to stay out of a dispute, and assuming you know the reason for that choice, without citing a single reliable source, is against the rules, as it is broadcasting of one's opinion. If you want your position to be known, find a way to work it into the article, with reliable, verifiable sources. Logic does not count as a source, as it still requires that all variables are taken into account, and whether or not certain variables are taken to account is not verifiable unless sources are cited for each variable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no. It is not simple logic. If you know anything about logic, you should realize that the world is never simple. There are always complexities behind the veil. But I regress. We each have differing opinions on the matter, and neither of us is going to convince the other otherwise

I still wait for you to explain how your comment was constructive, and if it was, then what sources do you have to verify that your opinion is held by more than just you? Remember, they must be reliable and verifiable per WP rules. I am not going to ignore the rules just because you think you're right. They are there for a reason, and if they are not being enforced, we might as well just throw away all reason. When no time is taken to edit constructively, the project falls into a torrent of chaos and soap-boxing, and no one here wants that, so, please, listen to the rules and abide by them to establish a non-chaotic, neutral point of view, encyclopedia.

I'll say this again. Your own logic counts as original research, and therefore, you must cite reliable, verifiable sources in order for your comment to be constructive, otherwise, it is soap-boxing. You stated your opinion on a talk page of an article, a place for discussion on how to improve the article, not a place for discussion about it's topic. So far the maps in question had been verified by reliable sources, but then you make a comment saying they are all wrong, and have yet to cite a source. This is why it can be viewed as disruption, it serves to only disrupt, not to better by including a passage in the article how some reputable sources believe there are only two choices in the matter.

Also, it makes matters worse that you have a conflict of interest with this subject, which is why it is impossible for you to see any point of view besides your own.

Lastly, do not speak in caps on the talk page owned by wikipedia that I use for speaking with other users, ie, my user talkpage. Yes, I realize it is not mine, hence my statement above about WP owning it. Continuing on, CAPS are usually used to describe YELLING and RANTING, so again, please do not and remain civil.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you admit disruption to further relay your own POV to others. The simple fact is that IAR cannot be used in this matter, as editors are blocked for disruption, and if your only purpose is to disrupt, then action needs to be taken to prevent further disruption. WP is not a soap-box, so stop using it as one. The comment was removed because it was disruptive and not helpful to the project. That was my original stance and you questioned it by re-adding it to the article and claiming it was not POV pushing, but now you claim it is. The fact of the matter is that wikipedia is not a forum or a blog for you to convey your thoughts on a matter, the talk page is there to improve the article. I already stated that I was improving the article by helping to quell the disruption so that constructive work can take place. If there is edit warring going on, it is impossible to contribute constructively, hence why there is a rule against it.

Thirdly, IAR is only to be used when trying to improve WP and are hindered by other rules. Your goal was not to improve WP, so that argument and your use of the guideline hold no water.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]