User talk:Chelseachav

Thank you for experimenting with the page Chelsea F.C. on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. TigerShark 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Everton F.C., you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TigerShark 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Alan Green, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These warnings were regarding your edits to Alan Green, Chelsea F.C., Liverpool F.C., and Everton F.C.. Insertion of false data in bad faith, and especially reinsertion of false data after your edits have been reverted as unsourced, constitutes vandalism. Please stop at once, and do not make any more changes to these articles without discussing them first. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith. I don't think that Chelseachav was intentionally trying to disrupt those articles. On the Alan Green article, Chelseachav added that the Alan Green was a fan of a football club. Someone asked for a source so one should be added. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...after reviewing some more edits, some seem like newbie edits like this and others like this are just plain vandalism. In any event, I am still going out on a limb and going to try and assume good faith. To Chelsearchav, before submitting any more changes to Wikipedia, please be sure to preview the page first. If you have any questions, leave a message for me on my talk page. Please be careful with your edits from now on as they could easily be considered vandalism. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hm, well I tend to disagree, yet I will agree that the last two edits were not obvious vandalism. It is a little difficult to assume good faith when a user is reverted for providing false information after this rash of edits today: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (there are more too; I'm just too lazy to pull up all the diffs). But whatever, we'll just leave it as a final warning--certainly no need to block. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went even further back (actually, I reviewed all of the edits) in this user's history and quite a few edits that are definitely vandalism and many more are questionable. Sometimes I am a little too much of a optimist. However his/her edits are grounds for blocking, but hopefully Chelseachav will stop. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict again) Yeah, there certainly are grounds for blocking, but stating it like that makes it sound like we're punishing him, whereas I feel blocking should be preventative rather than disciplinarian. You made the right call here! (IMO, at least). AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]