User talk:67.135.49.116: Difference between revisions
Undid revision 219873971 by Orangemarlin (talk) - rm bad faith, uncivil, false accusation |
Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) m Reverted to revision 219873971 by Orangemarlin; Actually, you cannot remove until the case is discussed and decided upon..using TW |
||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
: See, the problem is that leaving comments like that just makes people roll their eyes and ignore your position. You'll get much further presenting your views on articles in a reasoned way rather than hitting out in an aggrieved tone. Part of that is accepting that sometimes you'll be wrong, and consensus will go against you. Another part is accepting that sometimes those two won't happen at the same time. The editors who keep an eye on the creationist articles tend to have a fairly short fuse because of the amount of sheer idiocy that surrounds the topic. Perhaps you need to build some experience editing the less contentious areas of the encyclopedia to give yourself a wider view of the community and policies around here. [[User:Orpheus|Orpheus]] ([[User talk:Orpheus|talk]]) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
: See, the problem is that leaving comments like that just makes people roll their eyes and ignore your position. You'll get much further presenting your views on articles in a reasoned way rather than hitting out in an aggrieved tone. Part of that is accepting that sometimes you'll be wrong, and consensus will go against you. Another part is accepting that sometimes those two won't happen at the same time. The editors who keep an eye on the creationist articles tend to have a fairly short fuse because of the amount of sheer idiocy that surrounds the topic. Perhaps you need to build some experience editing the less contentious areas of the encyclopedia to give yourself a wider view of the community and policies around here. [[User:Orpheus|Orpheus]] ([[User talk:Orpheus|talk]]) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
==[[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|Sockpuppetry]] case== |
|||
{| align="left" |
|||
|| [[Image:Puppeter template.svg|50px]] |
|||
|} |
|||
You have been accused of [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sockpuppetry]]. Please refer to [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kdbuffalo]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect|notes for the suspect]] before editing the evidence page. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 07:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:41, 17 June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (67.135.49.116) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! PhilKnight (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to American Family Association, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to American Family Association.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Your changes have been reverted over the last few days by several editors. Stop vandalizing the article by trying to censor it. Feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page regarding your concerns but do not remove sourced content from articles. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
AFA
That text has already been discussed on the talk page, and the consensus was to keep it. If you have anything new to add, open a new discussion section. Orpheus (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- To reiterate - the passage in question has been discussed already. If you have anything new to add, you're welcome to state your case on the article talk page. Orpheus (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to American Family Association, you will be blocked from editing. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Jeepday (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Not vandalism
Your edits were not vandalism by any stretch of the word; however, you were edit warring, which is not something that will get you very far around here. I hope that you will not be too put off by all this. Please, consider creating an account and engage the other editors on the article talk page. Best, ➪HiDrNick! 01:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries
You should drop the conspiracy-theorist language in your edit summaries. Calling people "POV warriors" is not a productive way to build consensus. I'd suggest having a read-through of WP:AGF. Orpheus (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- See, the problem is that leaving comments like that just makes people roll their eyes and ignore your position. You'll get much further presenting your views on articles in a reasoned way rather than hitting out in an aggrieved tone. Part of that is accepting that sometimes you'll be wrong, and consensus will go against you. Another part is accepting that sometimes those two won't happen at the same time. The editors who keep an eye on the creationist articles tend to have a fairly short fuse because of the amount of sheer idiocy that surrounds the topic. Perhaps you need to build some experience editing the less contentious areas of the encyclopedia to give yourself a wider view of the community and policies around here. Orpheus (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kdbuffalo for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)