User talk:F.O.E./Archive2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:22, 7 July 2006

Re: 68.166.253.102 and vandalism

Hi F.O.E., I've taken the liberty of reducing your vandalism warning here from a final warning to an initial "test" template. Note that the editor in question has only made one edit to date, and this edit does not even constitute vandalism (in my opinion). It's important to not bite the newbies; we want to encourage them to get accounts and help out, not scare them away! Best wishes, Kasreyn 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...

I didn't vandalise Jimbo's page, I made the hidden text a bit more readable. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Friday, July 7, 2006, 06:59 (UTC)

And just so you know, I found this in your contribs. While the IP had no right to attack you, he was actually fixing it. I'm also insulted that you think he needs an account to be taken seriously. IPs are still Wikipedians. I think that's why you reverted me-just because I'm an IP. My suggestion would be to read the whole thing, not just see a number and assume it's vandalism. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Friday, July 7, 2006, 07:10 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm just curious. How is this POV? POV is Point of View, it has nothing to do with sections. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Friday, July 7, 2006, 08:06 (UTC)

Alright, one more thing: why did you give me the BV warning? How was my edit blatent vandalism? It wasn't even vandalism to being with, let alone blatent. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Friday, July 7, 2006, 08:12 (UTC)

Condom

Please read the Foundation issues, particularily point number two, which refers to anonymous editing. There's no reason why anonymous editors, particularily those editing in good faith, should not be taken seriously. Tito xd^(?!?) 07:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

I removed two especially inflammatory userboxes from your user page. If you feel it necessary to proclaim these sentiments, please do it more diplomatically (though they may still be removed). The "evilutionist" comment, too, is rather inappropriate, and certainly damages your credibility. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous

If you want to be taken seriously, quit assuming people need an account to be taken seriously. If you revert edits, pay attention to what you are reverting. Your recent edits on the condom page were unacceptable. You now have less credibility because of your actions.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Revision as of 16:08, 7 July 2006 edit 63.24.51.156 (talk) No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:22, 7 July 2006 edit undo 63.24.51.156 (talk) →Anonymous Next edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:

	If you want to be taken seriously, quit assuming people need an account to be taken seriously. If you revert edits, pay attention to what you are reverting. Your recent edits on the condom page were unacceptable. You now have less credibility because of your actions.		If you want to be taken seriously, quit assuming people need an account to be taken seriously. If you revert edits, pay attention to what you are reverting. Your recent edits on the condom page were unacceptable. You now have less credibility because of your actions.

			Please stop. If you continue to [[Wikipedia:Vandalism\|vandalize]] pages, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy\|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. <!-- Template:Test3 (Third level warning) -->