→Reverts: warned editor about his/her incivility |
|||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
==Your ongoing incivility== |
==Your ongoing incivility== |
||
Hello, Anonymous IP Editor. I have been looking through your contributions to various articles, and would like to point out your real incivility in edit summaries. Summaries such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twinkie_defense&diff=prev&oldid=150396657 ''"Any argument that tries to explain "why the Twinkie defense worked" just betrays ignorance."''] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twinkie_defense&diff=prev&oldid=152946056 ''"material is UNSOURCED WITH FAKE CITATIONS, IRRELEVANT, or BOTH. Would work with honest editor on this issue but see no signs that Benjiboi is one."''] are not only uncollegial and incivil, but bad tactics in that they will get you blocked if you continue. I would further remind you, in response to |
Hello, Anonymous IP Editor. I have been looking through your contributions to various articles, and would like to point out your real incivility in edit summaries. Summaries such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twinkie_defense&diff=prev&oldid=150396657 ''"Any argument that tries to explain "why the Twinkie defense worked" just betrays ignorance."''] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twinkie_defense&diff=prev&oldid=152946056 ''"material is UNSOURCED WITH FAKE CITATIONS, IRRELEVANT, or BOTH. Would work with honest editor on this issue but see no signs that Benjiboi is one."''] are not only uncollegial and incivil, but bad tactics in that they will get you blocked if you continue. I would further remind you, in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twinkie_defense&diff=prev&oldid=152529608 this edit summary], to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] about your fellow editors. |
||
I am not going to explain all of Wikipedia's policies to you, or even encourage you to register, as all evidence points to you being an experienced editor editing anonymously, for whatever the reason. I will simply say that I am now watching a number of pages that you edit and hope I do not see such incivility again. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 06:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
I am not going to explain all of Wikipedia's policies to you, or even encourage you to register, as all evidence points to you being an experienced editor editing anonymously, for whatever the reason. I will simply say that I am now watching a number of pages that you edit and hope I do not see such incivility again. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 06:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:23, 23 August 2007
Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, including:
- The use of a username of your choice, provided that it is appropriate.
- The use of your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed.
- The ability to create new pages.
- The ability to rename pages.
- The ability to edit semi-protected pages.
- The ability to upload images.
- The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website.
- Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.
We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~). — Chris53516 (Talk) 19:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Warnings
June 2007
Your recent edit to Engagement (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sago Mine disaster
I removed your merge tag on Sago Mine disaster. You didn't explain why there should be a merge on the talk page. Also, the Randal McCloy page you suggested be merged into Sago is huge. There is no room to put most of the information there into Sago. I also saw that this IP address has numerous warnings for vandalism, etc., so I am not taking you seriously. If I am wrong or you feel you have a good reason for merging, please discuss it on the Sago talk page. Thank you. Fanra 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that it needs to be explained to you why a person who has no claims to encyclopedic notability outside of surviving one notable event does not need an article separate from that event is disappointing enough. The Randal McCloy article may be large; the amount of encyclopedically notable information in it is not. But when I turned on the computer this morning, I was randomly assigned an IP address, and people who had that IP address before me had done stupid things with it, and you think that is all the reason you need to not take me seriously? Do you realize just how foolish that sounds? Imagine if the police were to take that attitude. "Well, we got a call from a payphone saying that there was a bank robbery and that a bystander who was shot during the getaway needs our help badly. But I see in the logs that we've had prank calls coming from that payphone before, so we're not going to take any calls from that phone seriously." As you suggested, I have posted an explanation of the merge proposal on the Sago talk page. But I urge you to get rid of your naive prejudice against IP users and start judging ideas on their own merits; unlike your current practice, that will reflect well upon you. -- 192.250.34.161 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
July 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Melrose, Massachusetts, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mendors 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
August 2007
Twinkie defense edits
Greetings. Your deletions from the Twinkie defense articles have been reversed again. Please use the article's talk pages to discuss material you feel doesn't apply to the article. Benjiboi 23:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regards. Your reinsertion of non-Twinkie defense material into the Twinkie defense article has been reversed again. Please see my lengthy explanation on the talk page on why your material is misplaced and furthers misunderstanding rather than improving the article. -- 192.250.34.161 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input on this matter. You have inspired me to dig up references and sources that I am glad to have read. And without your efforts the article would have limped along blissfully unfabulous. The original transcripts and documents from the trial don't yet seem to be archived online (except an archive of artists drawings) but I'm sure someone will add them as they appear. Benjiboi 10:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
360otc
Hi. I deleted a few references to a drug called "360otc" that was posted about in the articles for several headache medications. The additions sounded somewhat spam-like -- based on your history at Wikipedia I'd definitely give you the benefit of the doubt, but I really don't think the mention of the new headache drug belongs in each of the separate headache drug articles at this point. Thanks; Greg
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please refrain from making further unnecessary edits to the pages for Advil, Excedrin, and Tylenol. There is no need to promote an alternate headache drug in these articles. Thanks for your cooperation.
This is your last warning.
The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked
Please consider making constructive contributions rather than just advertising some OTC pain reliever. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Twinkie defense. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. AngelOfSadness talk 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Reverts
Please be careful when reverting vandalism not to erase legitimate edits or to re-add links banned from Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions. Chicago kid 1911 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Test 192.250.34.161 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Your ongoing incivility
Hello, Anonymous IP Editor. I have been looking through your contributions to various articles, and would like to point out your real incivility in edit summaries. Summaries such as "Any argument that tries to explain "why the Twinkie defense worked" just betrays ignorance." or "material is UNSOURCED WITH FAKE CITATIONS, IRRELEVANT, or BOTH. Would work with honest editor on this issue but see no signs that Benjiboi is one." are not only uncollegial and incivil, but bad tactics in that they will get you blocked if you continue. I would further remind you, in response to this edit summary, to assume good faith about your fellow editors.
I am not going to explain all of Wikipedia's policies to you, or even encourage you to register, as all evidence points to you being an experienced editor editing anonymously, for whatever the reason. I will simply say that I am now watching a number of pages that you edit and hope I do not see such incivility again. Jeffpw 06:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)