Contents |
Welcome!
|
June 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Labh Singh, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. As usual whenever you move to a new account, you almost immediately begin making personal attacks. Please stop now. - sinneed (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2009 (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.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Labh Singh, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. As usual when you move to a new account, you fail to sign your posts on talk pages. Please stop. - sinneed (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2009 (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.
The recent edit you made to Labh Singh has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. As before, you must stop introducing or reintroducing copyrighted materials into Wikipedia. Reverting to re-add the copyrighted material is included in this prohibition. - sinneed (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2009 (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.
Please note that your restoration of the copryrighted material is an exception to wp:3RR.- sinneed (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see wp:Sock, wp:edit war, wp:copyright and wp:Ownership of articles- sinneed (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gurbinder singh1 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. - sinneed (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism by Sinneed
Sinneed has accused me of being the same person, I'll ignore him if I was you, I do also notice his behaviour in reverting work because he does not agree with what is reported by playing down the news article references or replacing full sentences with partial ones giving a totally different POV such as he did regarding the murders in Austria.
I would strongly suggest that you report him to admin for vandalism, thanks Morbid Fairy (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ignoring Sineed and other editors is not a good policy and would be againt WP:Consensus and possible WP:POV. Bad advice Morbid Fairy.--Sikh-history (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Another level 4 warning
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you abuse a warning or blocking template, as you did to user talk:Sinneed, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Again, this is simply yet another Level 4 warning.
I encourage you to redact your message from my talk page. I have given you adequate time to reconsider, and you have not done so.
Your wp:3rr statement was false, 3 not being greater than 3, and the copyright violations you were repeatedly re-adding are an exception to 3RR.
Your wp:consensus statement was false, there having been no discussion of any specific edit which I made.
Please redact your warning now. - sinneed (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2009 (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.
-
- wp:consensus - **What consensus did I fail to follow?** - You have withdrawn nothing. The warning still remains. Redact it at once.- sinneed (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- You appear not to understand. Your warning is a report to everyone on Wikipedia. I have challenged you to show what single edit was against any consensus. There was none. Withdraw your warning. This means physically remove it with an edit summary saying something like "warning wihdrawn".
- I understand that you did not wp:LIKE my edits. I formally inform you that I do not care what you like or dislike, as you have violated Wikipedia rules repeatedly.
- Expanding on that: I will continue to work with you on the Labh Singh article to reach consensus. But I find your behaviour to continue to be offensive.
- sinneed (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
RfC - Attack - Warning - PoV - time - questions
- "Let Administratives decide on your RFC first" - "Administratives" do not decide on RFC's. They are requests for comment from other editors of Wikipedia. Expanding: had I wanted to ask for administrator help, I would have gone to the copyright violation page or to wp:ANI page. However, I decided to simply wp:AGF and assume that one or more of the editors you were reverting had made some error.
- "attack" - This post was not an attack, and it was not by me. I have not attacked you. I am making light of some to the changes you identified as wp:vandalism, such as eliminating duplicate periods, turning naked references into Cite templates, etc.
Please provide a link to an attack.
- The fact that others have not objected to your discarding their work does not lessen your vandalism. You repeatedly stated by your roll back that every edit you rolled back was vandalism, as vandalism is the only reason a rollback is allowed. You made a very grave error. Repeatedly. I believe you did so under more than one login.
- As to your improvement of Wikipedia, yes, I believe that you feel that pursuit of your PoV is very important, at expense to both Wikipedia and your pocketbook.
- I am still finding errors in the article that I have corrected repeatedly, due to your vandalism. Very clearly many of those edits, which you have now accepted, were not vandalism... you just did not wp:LIKE them.
- Time - I understand you have limited time. The article has been there for quite a while. It will be there for, I should think, quite a while. There is no rush.
- Questions - I don't think I have any questions for you, except for the ones your Warning should have contained, or which you must be ready to answer if challenged about the Warning.
-
- I had 2... now I have one. Actually, though, I have and had no questions.
-
- I already knew I had not violaged 3RR, as I can count.
- I also knew I had not violated consensus as I was the only one posting.
- sinneed (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
As what editor?
On my talk page, you wrote: "...you know how much information/references I have added to the articles before any body else..."
- No, actually, you began working on Wikipedia on June 17. Or are you some other editor as well as "98.207.210.210"?- sinneed (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)