User talk:NHguardian

Hello. In regards to User:Jrclark posting the franklinsites external link to several articles I have made contributions to, if it helps to defuse some of the tension, I will vouch for the links. I've reviewed the site, and it provides free information about geographic features described in the articles. I'm not sure what the objection is specifically, other than the conflict of interest snafu. If that's all it is, then just consider the inclusion of the link as my idea, and that erases the problem. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response

NHguardian, it seems that you are operating a single purpose account here on Wikipedia--and that purpose is to edit war with another user. I am also concerned that this account is a sockpuppet. Such practices are highly discouraged here. If you continue to use this account for that purpose as you have in the past [1], it will be reported and shut down. If you disagree with User:Jrclark, and have just cause to object to his/her practices, and can't come to terms via discussion, please use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Do not engage in edit warring reverts and 3RR violations, as these practices are in violation of Wikipedia policy. Personally, I don't object to Jrclark's Franklin sites website links, as they are a fairly innocuous source of good information that lacks banner ads and other kinds of spam. I can't say if Jrclark is profiting from the site or not, although I highly doubt it based on what I have seen; if you can verify that he is, bring it to dispute resolution, but make sure you can back up your accusation with solid proof. I do agree with you that JRclark is technically in violation of WP:Conflict of interest, however, from what I can see in this case, the violation is fairly harmless. There are bigger battles to fight on Wikipedia; if you want to help curb misuse here, why not contribute to WP:Recent changes patrol where your efforts can truly make a difference?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back

I will look into the recent changes. However, I will continue to uphold fixing inaccuracies from jrclark and I would like to see the rules enforced on him rather than seeing rules picked and choosed as to what we want enforced. Rules are rules and jrclark is violating them period.

Wikipedia also frowns on people just dumping links into articles, Sites like hikethewhites or other sites not owned by the user should suffice. User JRclark's website also does contain banner advertisements and a store. What better way to generate revenue than drive people to your personal site by linking it to wikipedia.

Thanks

Regardless of if or not Jrclark is wrong, what you are doing is blatantly wrong. If you have an issue with Jrclark, please follow the correct procedure, or, as I have said, you will certainly be blocked and this account will be shut down. Although I sympathize with your concerns, you are handling this in a completely inappropriate fashion: using an A-bomb to wipe out an ant hill. Use the dispute resolution process, please. You will get nowhere with your current methods. Act professionally, and you will find that you will be treated in kind. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berkshire East

Nhguardian, I noticed that you backed up your claim of vertical drop with a reference. Thank you; this is a better way of disputing factual material. However, you should be aware that the USGS map you are using is likely to be at least 10-15 years old. From what I can see from Google Earth, the ski area has expanded, and although I don't see any wide cut runs over 270m, there may be narrower, less visible black diamond backcountry cuts that extend up the ridge to higher elevations. Also, Google Earth data may be 1-3 years old, so, for all anyone knows, the ski area may have expanded yet again. That said, the unreliability of advertising claims might not be worse than the unreliability of outdated maps. I've updated the article to indicate the problems in source reliability. It looks like you have also asked for advice from Wikiproject ski, again, a better solution than edit warring. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NHguardian, the USGS elevations are accurate, however, the mountain ridge does not stop at 880 feet; it continues south to higher elevations. Please refer to the topographic map you referenced yourself. And check Google Earth and you will see clear expansion; under way as a cut ring around the back of the older ski area. For all anyone knows, that expansion may have continued.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this argument is not going anywhere. Before it escalates, let me remind you that if you disagree with other editors and cannot come to terms, please recourse to the next steps in WP:Dispute resolution and not edit warring. Thank you. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Following the Wikipedia process for dispute resolution is the right way to go here. Personally, I have no stake in what the vertical drop is; I am primarily interested in seeing your dispute with Jrclark resolved peacfully and fairly to both of you, with the least amount of disruption to Wikipedia as possible. As for the Wiki ski project, keep in mind that concensus contributions on some of these small projects take time; patience is necessary. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. You were given plenty of warnings to seek consensus rather than edit war, but you edit warred anyway. If you wish to contest this block, you may add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page.

Also, your removal of comments by Jclark was not appropriate. His comments were not uncivil and users are generally given some leeway to make statements defending themselves on the 3RR board. If indeed such comments needed to be removed, they should have been removed by a neutral party rather than someone in conflict with the user who wrote them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the block to 31 hours as a result of those removals and repeated edit warring causing disruption to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. [2][3][4]. --Hu12 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting

Nhguardian, if you are sockpuppeting, you are this " " close to being blocked for a longer period. Fair warning. Stop fighting! --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]