User talk:James Adams
Regarding your edits to abortion, please do not use misleading edit summaries. It could be perceived as vandalism. If you have an issue with the content of the article, try using the Talk page. Thank you. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 08:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Again, please stop changing abortion to fit your point of view. It is considered vandalism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 09:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just for reference, if you continue to revert as you've been doing (see above), you'll be violating WP's three revert rule, and will be liable for blocking. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
On removing posts from discussion pages[edit]
Hi, you removed a post from the administrators' noticeboard. Please don't do that; I could be considered vandalism. Thanks. --Latinus 12:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
You are in violation of the Wikipedia three revert rule with your edits of abortion. Please stop immediately. Please read the official policy on the three rever rule. If you continue you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Weregerbil 12:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Weregerbil 12:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, James. I'm very hesitant to use the word "vandalism" about your edits to abortion, though I'm sure others would use that word. I have no hesitation in saying that they violate our Neutral Point of View policy, which I'd like to you read. You're also in violation of our three revert rule. If you continue, you will almost certainly be blocked from editing. If you feel a strong opposition to abortion, it would be good to try to work within policy. We all have to respect NPOV, and it's possible at times that when there are a lot of editors in favour of abortion, the wording can reflect that, even though the editors themselves think they're respecting NPOV. By collaborating politely on the discussion page, and by staying within policy, you could, for example help to resist a wording which said that the fetus isn't a human being. There are some very good pro-life contributors here. Editors who revert war and insert POV language just end up getting blocked. It doesn't help them; it doesn't help Wikipedia; it doesn't help the pro-life cause. I'd have blocked you already, since you're now grossly in violation of 3RR, but I see that you're new. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 12:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I've had to block you. I don't like blocking newcomers, but there was absolutely no other way of getting you to stop. The block is for twenty-four hours. Please use that time to read up on our policies, especially WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. You can respond here, if you like, as it's the only page you're able to edit while blocked. AnnH ♫ 12:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strangely, there seem to have been previous contributors who have made the exact same edit in abortion, and also used misleading edit summaries ("rv page blanking vandal", "removing linkspam"). Seems like all of them know about Wikipedia more than a casual new user would as they know what kind of edit summaries to fake. And all of them know they are doing something bad as they try to hide their actions behind deliberate lies. What a coincidence! Weregerbil 12:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Its another Gastrich sock. JoshuaZ 14:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This user is also defacing the atheism article. This user is editing wikipedia to be NPOV and discriminatory.
It's time for blocking
Lordkazan 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)