| Revision as of 02:50, 17 January 2008 editTheBilly (talk | contribs)2,468 edits Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:04, 17 January 2008 edit undoTheBilly (talk | contribs)2,468 edits →COI: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| == January 2008 == | == January 2008 == | ||
| {{{icon|] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] 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 ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''Remove the COI template one more time and you'll be in clear violation of the 3 revert rule. Your overall behavior makes a strong case that your edits are in bad faith, and the 3RR does not entitle you to 3 reversions, it merely sets an absolute limit. This is fair warning, because you're very close to being blocked'' — <span style="background:#FEC">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | {{{icon|] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] 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 ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''Remove the COI template one more time and you'll be in clear violation of the 3 revert rule. Your overall behavior makes a strong case that your edits are in bad faith, and the 3RR does not entitle you to 3 reversions, it merely sets an absolute limit. This is fair warning, because you're very close to being blocked'' — <span style="background:#FEC">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == COI == | |||
| You keep demanding an "explanation", but none is needed. You are "Felicia Ptolemy", according to how you credited yourself on a photo you uploaded. You credited it to "Felicia Ptolemy", and released it into the public domain, asserting yourself as the copyright holder. You are the producer of this film, and obviously you and the other "ptolemy" user have a distinct conflict of interest. The COI template alerts others to that fact, that the article may be biased because of the close connection to this film that the primary contributor(s) have. As the user who has the conflict of interest, you are not a profit judge of whether there is such a conflict. As I explained in my edit summary, a number of editors have raised the COI objection (by warnings on the talk pages of both of you), and a second user re-added this template when you removed it. I'll be reporting you on the 3RR noticeboard and an admin may or may not choose to block you for your behavior. I'm running out of patience explaining the rules to you, and the way that you blank out these notices (of course, you ''are'' allowed to remove content from your own talk page) shows that you want to ignore the issue that is trying to be raised. I'll also be alerting others on the COI noticeboard, so rather than "win" some sort of victory you've only brought attention to your unconstructive behavior — <span style="background:#FEC">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 03:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:04, 17 January 2008
Welcome...
Hello, Fjnainoa, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Transcendent Man (film), you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam);
- and you must always:
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have conflict of interest, please see Misplaced Pages:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
January 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Remove the COI template one more time and you'll be in clear violation of the 3 revert rule. Your overall behavior makes a strong case that your edits are in bad faith, and the 3RR does not entitle you to 3 reversions, it merely sets an absolute limit. This is fair warning, because you're very close to being blocked — TheBilly 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
COI
You keep demanding an "explanation", but none is needed. You are "Felicia Ptolemy", according to how you credited yourself on a photo you uploaded. You credited it to "Felicia Ptolemy", and released it into the public domain, asserting yourself as the copyright holder. You are the producer of this film, and obviously you and the other "ptolemy" user have a distinct conflict of interest. The COI template alerts others to that fact, that the article may be biased because of the close connection to this film that the primary contributor(s) have. As the user who has the conflict of interest, you are not a profit judge of whether there is such a conflict. As I explained in my edit summary, a number of editors have raised the COI objection (by warnings on the talk pages of both of you), and a second user re-added this template when you removed it. I'll be reporting you on the 3RR noticeboard and an admin may or may not choose to block you for your behavior. I'm running out of patience explaining the rules to you, and the way that you blank out these notices (of course, you are allowed to remove content from your own talk page) shows that you want to ignore the issue that is trying to be raised. I'll also be alerting others on the COI noticeboard, so rather than "win" some sort of victory you've only brought attention to your unconstructive behavior — TheBilly 03:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)