User talk:Bermudatriangle
virginity
[edit]In response to your comment that women are normally virgins until they are married, I would have to ask if you are joking or not? If you are actually serious, then I will bite my tongue for a moment, try to stop the laughter and request that you provide me with some sort of proof backing up your statement. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing.
Please do not revert the article again.
My edit was due to the wishes of the editor that you mentioned. He stated that at some time there should be a dedicated for the Princess Diana Institute of Peace. I created one.
Your edits have been highly disruptive, the next step will be me making an official complaint and requesting that you are blocked from editing wikipedia.
Please help to improve wikipedia, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me. I realise you are new here, and maybe are not aware of the rules, however I will not allow you to continue with your disruptive behaviour. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
ANI report
[edit]I think it would be polite of me to mention that I have made an ANI report regarding your edits.
please feel free to give your opinion on my report.
I think your edits were far from acceptable, the other editors that did not want the Institute of Peace section removed, stated that it was only linked by name, and that a dedicated article should be made. Therefore I find your edits to be disruptive. If you wish to revert your last edit, then of course I will remove my ANI report, or ask that someone else remove it (i am not sure which would be best, but it would be no longer required)
I really do think you should consider your actions a little more, I followed consensus, and put myself out to create an article and this is not the response I was looking for. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
3RR
[edit] 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.
Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
you may wish to revert your last edit. As your account is new, I will show a little good faith and assume that you are not aware of the Three Revert Rule, you have however made more than Three reverts within the last 24 hour period. Please revert your edits. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- My last revert is nothing to do with my previous reverts.Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.
Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- But your edits are borderline vandalism.Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I gave you ample time to undo your reverts, and I have made you aware of the 3RR and pointed out that even if they are reverting different edits, you are still not allowed more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. You have responded to these comments of mine, showing that you are aware of the messages that I put on your talk page - however you still refuse to undo your reverts.
I have made a 3RR report against you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Bermudatriangle_reported_by_User:Sennen_goroshi_.28Result:_.29
Feel free to comment. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
Civility
[edit]
This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
While wikipedia is not censored, allowing such language as "fucking" and "asshole" when not used as a personal attack, all forms of personal attack made against an editor, is in breach of wikipedia guidelines. Your comment "your total stupidity and arrogance." was clearly a personal attack made against myself. I will make an ANI report regarding your personal attack if you do not immediately modify your behaviour and refrain from such actions in the future. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- What I felt, I have mentioned. You can take anywhere. I am not going to alter anything.Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- What I felt, I held back, because I respect the rules here. Do you have any respect for the "no personal attacks" rule? Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Rajkumar Kanagasingam
[edit]does the name ring any bells?
Maybe he is your brother or something? You seem to share a lot of interests and characteristics. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your linking with the above name is the very first evidence for your political motivation on the article Diana, Princess of Wales. Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it really? I was suggesting that you are one and the same.Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you have that feeling, then you can't be a "White English".Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is an absurd and offensive statement. My race/nationality has nothing to do with the fact that I think you are 1. a single purpose account. 2. a sockpuppet. Take a look at my edits, I have edited articles relating to UK, food, cars, Japan, Korean, Islam, Judaism, Music, TEFL and football.. Do you think I spent the last few months doing that, just so I could pass myself of as someone else, in order to edit the Princess Diana article? Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- If I am sane enough, I don't think a "White English" will take extra caution on issues related to Sri Lanka like this way.Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't carry out conversation through edit sumamries, as you did here. This is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. The article's talk page is the place to hold a discussion with other editors. Making a null edit just so you can include an edit summary is not appropriate. Also referring to the race of another editor is highly inappropriate. The race of editors is irrelevant to their editing. Please assume good faith in other editors and do not accuse them of racial bias. This is a form of personal attack and will not be tolerated. Thanks, Gwernol 17:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will refrain from in the future.Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rajkumar Kanagasingam for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The sock puppet case page is to discuss YOU and the fact that I have accused YOU of being a sockpuppet.
If you wish to discuss you suspicions regarding me, then you can either reply to this message on your talk page, reply on my talk page, or file a sockpuppet report.
And no, I am not Iwazaki. I have never used a sockpuppet account in my life, I suggest that you concern yourself with the sockpuppet report accusing you, as I have requested that you be permanently banned.Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop putting unrelated crap on the sockpuppet report page, if you have an accusation to make against me, either do it on my talk page, or make a report. And learn to answer the question, I have asked the same question numerous times. You have failed to answer it.
Which accounts have you previously used?