User talk:Schmetterling

Carla Martin

Can you explain your edits to the Carla Martin page? They make it look like a resume and not an encyclopedia article. Frankg 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Carla Martin, you will be blocked. PubliusFL 16:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing the Carla Martin article. Exeunt 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One could say "STOP-TIME OUT" to all of you who have so self-righteously insisted on reverting back to a Wikipedia stub that is largely inaccurate, as well as inflammatory. Yes, the present stub could be revised to look less like a resume, however, the information contained within the edit is far more accurate and complete concerning CM's biography than what appeared in the original stub, and as stated previously, is sourced through the references and links themselves. Schmetterling 16:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, the User Exeunt is vandalising this stub repeatedly, and should be banned-information such as "born circa 1955" is irrelevant because it is per se not factual, and other previous edits did not clearly reflect the issues of this matter. Other information was added which was merely filler material, but irrelevant to the legal issues in this case. The stub now is clearly sourced and factual, but apparently some users prefer inaccurate, sloppy, as well as slanderous, information to be entered onto a wikipedia entry, rather than the truth. Malicious postings make Wikipedia entries far less helpful than they otherwise could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmetterling (talk • contribs) 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Carla Martin. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 16:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on March 8 2007 to Carla Martin

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block #2

You have been blocked for 31 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on Carla Martin. Please stop doing this. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia stub, as it is now written, is 1. distorted, 2. inaccurate. Therefore, I'm going to ask the administrators of this stub to take it down entirely. The revision as I put it was both content neutral, and sourced. It is now an inflammatory, slanted stub that is not useful to anyone Schmetterling 12:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)