User talk:Bart Versieck

User talk:Bart Versieck/Archive 1 User talk:Bart Versieck/Archive 2 Current status: > Awaiting posts. Hello! Please, append your message at the end of the page. This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Welcome to Wikipedia! Goeiedag/Hello Bart Versieck, welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some tips: Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset. Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style. Find out how to revert, move and merge pages. Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk. Use the Show preview button Provide an Edit summary Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload Take a look at Consensus of standards Create a User page Be bold Ignore all rules If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks, and happy editing. WOP Newsletter WP:INTRO Bart, try reading some policies. WP:LEAD clearly states "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Seeing as how it went through a good article review that noted that the introduction was good, it should remain there. Also, you have already twice broken your promise not to touch other's talk page edits for any reason, and I have brought it up here with another administrator to discuss the appropriate course of action. Cheers, CP 19:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC) No: it's not forbidden for me to edit talk pages, especially not titles, since I'm not correcting their mistakes. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC) You weren't to touch anyone else's edits on talk pages, period. Most other people have more leniency, because they do not have such a long history of disruption. Besides, if I had thought you were certainly in violation, I would have just blocked you instead of bringing it up with other admins first. Cheers, CP 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC) So why bring it up at all? Extremely sexy (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Bart, the agreement was you would not edit any person's comment - for any reason. Is having proper capitalization worth your indefinite block being reapplied? –xenocidic (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC) A title isn't part of the comment though. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC) a title is another user's creation. you are editing it. you agreed not to edit other's talk page contributions. I ask again, is it worth being indefinitely blocked because of capitalization? on a talk page, capitalization isn't important. –xenocidic (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) No, of course it isn't, but I have seen others do it regardless, even for entire talkpages, and adding titles. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ...and others aren't under the very strict restrictions that you are. if capitalization bugs you that much, ask for it to be fixed as LessHeard vanU suggested. –xenocidic (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Meaning for everything? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Per my comments at my talkpage in response of the above, it is just easier if you didn't. Stay away from anything that looks like it may appear to be in violation of the terms of the unblock, and if you make a mistake and someone thinks that you are in violation - then don't argue with them, and don't do it again. If you still think you weren't doing anything wrong, then contact me and I will review and if I think you were right I will take it up with the other editor on your behalf. As Xenocidic says, "correcting" other people may be permitted for a contributor of good standing - and the best way of you becoming that contributor is to not do it at present. The best way of utilising your copy edit inclinations is to do it in article space, where it is beneficial and permissable - but PLEASE not in talk space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I will ask you. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Great. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC) You are the greatest. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC) And yet you didn't ask him about this. Should I tell LHvU or will you? Cheers, CP 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) You're really making me regret standing up for you, and you're doing a great job proving all those people who opposed your unblocking right. Yes it's confusing that he signed his post 4 days after the fact, but in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? –xenocidic (talk) I understand you, although I only corrected the day and hour into the right ones. Extremely sexy (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Blocked for 3 hours Well, of course I was going to be watching your talkpage. If you needed to have changed the time/date you should have asked the editor concerned to clarify it, or asked someone else to place a comment, such as <small> (original comment placed at XX:XX on YYY and later signed as here.) </small>, under it. Please just sit out this block, BV, so you will remember better what it is that you must not do. Try to ensure that there is no "next time" LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Okay then, man: next time I will just ask him to correct it himself. Extremely sexy (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Lucy, you've got some 'splainin' to do. Am I mistaken in thinking that the agreement was that you wouldn't touch anyone else's comments for any reason? Cheers, CP 18:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Yup, I'm also waiting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Make that three, and at least one willing to support a return to the indef block without a very compelling explanation. –xeno (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Violation...warning...promise not to do it again...repeat cycle. Postoak (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC) See next subject for my "explanation". Extremely sexy (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Blocked for 24 hours You have not answered the concerns of 3 editors above, so I have blocked you from editing while you consider your response. You will note that this block is longer than the previous one, and the next one will be longer still. This cycle of "violation/block" will increase until either you stop editing other contributors comments, or you are blocked permanently from the encyclopedia. Had you responded to the above it is possible that there would have been no block, although I cannot guarantee this would have been the case, but since you responded to subsequent comments on your page I have assumed you are unwilling to reply to the concerns raised. It was on this basis that I decided to reblock you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Quite frankly, I support the original indefinite block being reapplied without a good explanation for this. This was not a minor typo correction in a header, this was not updating the time on someone's sig - this was a summary removal of someone else's comment putting back someone's comment that they removed themselves. The last two transgressions I could overlook, but this is unacceptable. –xeno (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC) (clarified –xeno (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)) I haven't been on Wikipedia for more than a day, so I couldn't respond at all, and moreover, this was only a reversion, since I put something back, which is quite the opposite. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC) The person obviously wanted it removed, and redacted it within 10 minutes before anyone responded to it. You should not have put it back. Since you don't seem to understand why editing other peoples comments is not acceptable, I support a re-application of the 20:49, June 21, 2008 indefinite block. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I did not edit his comment at all since it wasn't there anymore: I just reinstated it, so exactly how foolish can you people be? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, I was mistaken above and clarified, nevertheless - you had no right to reinstate it. I also find it fairly disrespectful that you're insulting people who stood up for you and got you unblocked. –xeno (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I am not insulting anyone at all, whether they supported me or not, but just looking at the facts: this is a very minor thing indeed plus no vandalism, on the contrary really. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Editing Bart, there is no need to pipe World War II into the Second World War when "World War II" is the title of the article. It's a complete waste. Furthermore, trying to sneak it back in without explanation after I reverted it is not good faith and certainly not conducive to the spirit of Wikipedia discussion and consensus. Finally, it is extremely misleading and disingenuous to provide an automatic edit summary of "reverting edit blah blah blah", then perform a whole bunch of editing that is completely unrelated within the same edit (unless you also add in the edit summary that you are doing it). Your entire editing behavior, not just your actions on talk pages, are being watched, and shenanigans such as these are not very conducive to promoting your good faith contributions to this encyclopedia after so many warnings. Cheers, CP 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but I honestly didn't know you had done this before, and I didn't mean any harm at all, you know. Extremely sexy (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Catherine Hagel Here is the link to the picture as you requested. I contacted Jeff Wheeler about it but I only asked for permission on Wikipedia. I decided not to contact him for free use. If you wish to contact him about the picture be my guest. --Npnunda (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks, and I will do so, but have you got his personal e-mail address by any chance? Extremely sexy (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC) You should be able to find it at www.startribune.com --Npnunda (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Okay then, and I will contact him. Extremely sexy (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC) You may try again, since he fails to respond to my mail that Wheeler guy. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Snooker world rankings 2008/2009 Please stop undoing my edits on this article. All i'm doing is adding perfectly sensible internal links to snooker player articles. Thank you. Samasnookerfan (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, but they are already linked above. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)