Misplaced Pages

User talk:ZombieSlayer54

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZombieSlayer54 (talk | contribs) at 23:09, 6 April 2007 (Further Notice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:09, 6 April 2007 by ZombieSlayer54 (talk | contribs) (Further Notice)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in The Zombie Survival Guide. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --McGeddon 13:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for you 3RR violation on The Zombie Survival Guide.. 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.

Additionally, please stop adding nonsense to that particular article. This is your final warning; if you continue to vandalize the article, you will be indefinitely blocked. EVula // talk // // 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it nonsense if there is no proof of Max Brooks saying he doesn't believe in zombies, yet plenty of proof of him saying that does, so therefore having no evidence to say his book is false? And if I will have to be banned indefinitely to support my beliefs, then so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieSlayer54 (talkcontribs)

That... that's really too ridiculous to actually take seriously. EVula // talk // // 23:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to know you think I'm a clown. You believe what you want to believe, and I believe what I want to believe. Just don't impose your beliefs on Misplaced Pages just because you're a mod, ok? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieSlayer54 (talkcontribs)

My status as an administrator has nothing to do with the fact that Misplaced Pages is intended to be a serious project. Adding nonsense is not looked highly upon, and edit-warring even less so. EVula // talk // // 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I still say that it is not nonsense. If there is no evidence against, but some, albeit highly debatable, evidence for it, I can only conclude that it MAY be true. That is why I put supposedly. It is apparently your belief that that is not true, and therefore you call my edits "vandalism", even though I'm simply putting the facts down. No evidence against the truth, so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieSlayer54 (talkcontribs)

The publisher marketed it as "fiction" without Brooks complaining, and he also went on to write a zombie novel set in the future, rather than doing anything to seriously alert the world to the zombies that really exist. I agree that it's fun to pretend that zombies are real (I'll be at the Fleshmob zombie walk tomorrow), but a factual encyclopaedia isn't an appropriate place to pretend stuff for fun. --McGeddon 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You do realize I believe in the existance of zombies, right? And Brooks only didn't complain so as to actually sell the book. If he had the chance, he'd change the genre to "Documentary", or the such. And he wrote the novel in order to give people a sense of what to expect in a Class 4 zombie outbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieSlayer54 (talkcontribs)

Further Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for continuing to introduce nonsense to The Zombie Survival Guide. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

This is your final warning. The next time you edit the article to read as "supposed fiction", I'm blocking your account for good. I'd love to see you make some constructive edits in the project, rather than continuing to undermine the purpose of the encyclopedia.

If you feel that this block is unfair, feel free to use the {{unblock}} template for another administrator's opinion on the matter. EVula // talk // // 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And indeed I shall.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

ZombieSlayer54 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

As there is no evidence that this book is fiction, yet while there is minor, and albeit debatable evidence that the book is true, it can only be theorized that the book is fiction. The author himself admits his belief in zombies, and I have seen no reports what-so-ever of him saying that he was just joking when writing the book. And is it not constructive to add other persons beliefs, while still, in a sense, maintaining another persons beliefs on a top that is highly debatable?

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= As there is no evidence that this book is fiction, yet while there is minor, and albeit debatable evidence that the book is true, it can only be theorized that the book is fiction. The author himself admits his belief in zombies, and I have seen no reports what-so-ever of him saying that he was just joking when writing the book. And is it not constructive to add other persons beliefs, while still, in a sense, maintaining another persons beliefs on a top that is highly debatable? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= As there is no evidence that this book is fiction, yet while there is minor, and albeit debatable evidence that the book is true, it can only be theorized that the book is fiction. The author himself admits his belief in zombies, and I have seen no reports what-so-ever of him saying that he was just joking when writing the book. And is it not constructive to add other persons beliefs, while still, in a sense, maintaining another persons beliefs on a top that is highly debatable? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= As there is no evidence that this book is fiction, yet while there is minor, and albeit debatable evidence that the book is true, it can only be theorized that the book is fiction. The author himself admits his belief in zombies, and I have seen no reports what-so-ever of him saying that he was just joking when writing the book. And is it not constructive to add other persons beliefs, while still, in a sense, maintaining another persons beliefs on a top that is highly debatable? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Category: