User talk:D.R Neal G

Vent Your Spleen

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D.R Neal G, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi D.R Neal G! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

19:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User:Cls14. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. GAB^Hello! 23:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Response <- Anonymous warning, I would have thought out common courtesy the admin issuing this would have left there user name, unless its a copy and past nonsense and the true author is User:Cls14.

No, it definitely is me, you can look in the page history. Please do not vandalize other users' userpages. GAB^Hello! 23:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Response <- I'm to long in the tooth for childish tricks. I've overseen hundreds of forums and discussion groups and its common etiquette to issue warning with a admin signature and even more common to issue warning that have some bases in FACT.

Here is the link in which I issued the warning: [1]. The page on these kinds of links (they're called "diffs") has some information on how they work and how to use them. GAB^Hello! 01:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your editing in the one day since you've created this account has been disruptive, attacking, and a violation of the policy prohibiting editing without logging in to escape scrutiny. If you persist in any of these kinds of misconduct, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Can you explain to me exactly how I disruptive, attack, and violate you polices? Please give an example or can't you.

WP:VAN prohibits vandalism, including the userpage vandalism, which also falls under no personal attacks: [2].
More personal attacks: [3]. Either it's attempted impersonation by re-pasting a warning, or it's falsely accusing someone else of posting the warning, when the warning (issued by me, as noted above) remains visible in the page history. Note the part of the NPA page: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are considered a personal attack. More may be found here, and are also borderline outing attempts: [4][5].

GAB^Hello! 01:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Further Comment Again what personal attack? considering I have alter text several time to be more neutral and objective. You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of past and present entries on pages. I have made several changes to adhere to the rules (self-correcting) and to be objective. But I must state at no time have I have made a personal attack on anyone, period. I have wrote about the appearance of a inanimate object, a building to be precise, but that not a person.

Persistent edit warring

Your recent editing history at Budbrooke shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
You have clearly broken 3RR in the process of adding unreferenced or very poorly referenced material to the page. An "unofficial newsletter" is very much the sort of thing that is not a reliable source. Even worse, you have accused the editor trying to stop this and made several personal attacks against them, you have posed as another editor, and you have filed a WP:ANEW report without sending any of the required notice. Any further inappropriate behavior of this or other sort will be reported. LjL (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by user:D.R Neal G Also has this same warning also been sent to User:cls14 for someone who apparently been a editing on here for 10 years hes been engaging in the same thing. Also if you had taken the time to notice I've made small changes on each posting therefore I am not in breach of the rules.

And if you had taken the time to actually read WP:3RR and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you'd know that a silly trick like "making small changes on each posting" obviously does not make you exempt from edit warring rules (if anything, it shows you're not acting in good faith). As to your question, you were the one reporting Cls14 without even having the decency to send a warning first (and it's required to inform anyone of a report filed against them; WP:ANEW clearly informed you of that), so you should perhaps ask yourself that question instead of me.

Personally, I think you should consider yourself lucky that you've not been blocked, but only warned. For now. LjL (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by user:D.R Neal G I did read read WP:3RR and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines and my posting are within the rules. If you can't play fairly by the rules, that you expect other to adhere to then whats the point of having them? Also I'm waiting for a reason why this same warning has not appeared on user:cls14 page as he broke the same rule.

You must have failed to read WP:Gaming the system at the very least. Also see GAB's list above: you went above and beyond what is required to discredit you as a bonafide editor. LjL (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by user:D.R Neal G Adhering to the rules is not WP:Gaming the system that just seems a complete cope out, allowing you to make up the rules add hoc. Rules have to be adhered equally by administrators and those they administrate. If you can’t do that in a fair manner than step away from the responsibility.

You're just showing more cluelessness. LjL (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by user:D.R Neal G NO, What you don't like is that I'm the only one talking like a adult. If you want adult conversation then act like one, I'm all ears but if you going to act childish then you know where to go.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Budbrooke Barracks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if you continue to make personal attacks when this block expires, you will be blocked for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]