User talk:Cole132132/Archive1

A Notice

Posts marked with a #1 are important and have weight. Posts marked with a #2 are biased, disputed, or frivolous. Posts marked with a #3 carry equal value. Explanations are found in "Closing Summary". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole132132 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012; 2

Hello, I'm Demiurge1000. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Charles Jaco, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for notyfying me and the problem has been resolved.Cole132132 (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Charles Jaco. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry Demiurge1000 but this is obiously out of hands, I have a clear souce (although some may not take youtube serously) it would be a clear assessment as well that someone would not make the video of CGI. This would make it quite solid as well as not weak. I must now only assume you are taking action because of your personal beleifs. This has already been posted the Dispute Noticeboard. I will have to turn to higher action as this artical appears to be in a Majority gridlock. Once again I must state that my information also said "possible" as to infer it was a theory based on reputable evidence. I hope this can be resolved within the coming days. Cole132132 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Global warming controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Vsmith (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, but my dispute resolution seeking have not gone well, besides reverting the article now would make anyone who did so the one who requires the block because my references are perfectally reputable. Cole132132 (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your "dispute resolution seeking has not gone well" because you have repeatedly ignored the clear instructions at the top of WP:DRN:

"Notice: The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN."

And now, in the above comment, you are ignoring WP:3RR winch clearly states

"Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring'."

Consider yourself warned. If you continue your disruptive editing you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In particular DO NOT FILE ANY MORE CASES AT WP:DRN WITHOUT EXTENSIVE PRIOR TALK PAGE DISCUSSION. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The cases at WP:DRN that you have filed have been closed because of lack of prior extensive talk page discussion.

Do not continue to make disruptive edits until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Global warming controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Summary: These edits were made without prior knowledge to the events that occurred, prior talk page had been consulted. A mere biased dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole132132 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion; 1

Hello, Cole132132. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Charles Jaco.The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Summary: Just a notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole132132 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not impersonate other editors.; 3

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says Do not impersonate other editors. In a recent edit[1] you put another user's signature on the end of your post. I am going to assume good faith and assume that this was a simple cut and paste error, but please be careful to use quotation marks and to use your own signature when quoting ither editors.

Also, If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond on your talk page. Responses posted to my talk page will be deleted without comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, but I also had my signature on it, I understand now that I broke a policy, however thruthfully I did not mean to impersonate him, even then you can see where he had typed it before, however if you dont consent to responding to my posts the why should I do so to yours?-- Cole132132 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Summary: My edits did violate rules, but editor takes hypocritical stances. Despite countless times at trying to talk reason editor ignored. But he expects me to respond to his posts; the irony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole132132 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change; 2

Dear Cole132132,

Concerning your recent edits to Global warming controversy you need to be aware that specific rules apply to editing articles such as that one which fall under the general topic of climate change. Please find more information below: --BozMo talk 21:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to conduct yourself as you have at Global warming controversy, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Summary: Edits were made clearly due to past conflicts as well as political sides on "BozMo's" part (see Talk:Global warming controversy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole132132 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and WP:BATTLEGROUND warning; 2

Accusing others of making libelous remarks on an article talk page is not the way to make a complaint designed to improve the project. Instead, please take the evidence (in the form of specific diffs) to one of the various avenues in the dispute resolution process. Continuing to label others remarks as frivolous, libelous, or similarly derogatory characterizations might be seen by some as evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and could result in sanctions either at in an ANI proceeding or as a result of enforcement of climate-change related arbitration, all of which you have been previously warned about here and here and here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Summary: The past makes the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole132132 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]