Misplaced Pages

User talk:John Spikowski: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:09, 19 September 2006 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits Time to stop← Previous edit Revision as of 11:35, 19 September 2006 edit undoEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,782 edits Block: 24 hour blockNext edit →
Line 21: Line 21:


Third, edit-warring is ''not'' the way to resolve disputes. Please try ]. <b>]</b> 11:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Third, edit-warring is ''not'' the way to resolve disputes. Please try ]. <b>]</b> 11:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

==Block==

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to a ] breach. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. ] 11:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:35, 19 September 2006

Removing warnings

Template:Wr0

Look John, you can delete this info all you want, but it's there in your history all the time and people here are smart enough to know how the MediaWiki application works. Anyone and everyone can see what you're doing. They'll see that I've tried to reasonably work with you tonight on several subjects, but that you continued to maliciously edit work no one agrees you should be editing and deleting warning after warning being given. I seriously don't think you have done one thing tonight that didn't go completely against one Misplaced Pages policy or another. Again, it's very easily seen going over the history. And for what? Just to get a site that is yours up on the external links sections? Personally, I don't see a reason why the site can't be included. Seems like a decent resource. You just need to keep in mind there are many resources out there most of them contain more content than yours with a user-base much greater than the 2 (literally 2!!!) users on yours.

That being said and all of this being recorded into the history, I see there are two different directions you could take at this point:

1 - You constructively and interactively help shape these articles by participating in the discussions and, in turn, edit with and not against the other editors of the PanoTools subjects. No more rogue edits. No more malicious edits. No more defamation of users. No more spamming your site. (all of which are a form of vandalism WP:VAND)
2 - You can delete all of this on your users talk page, remove the very valid warnings once again, and continue to vandalize the articles in the same manner you have been doing all night. All this option is going to do is add more negative edits to your history and give more reasons to the admins to ultimately block you from editing these articles all together (a task that should be pretty clear for them to do at this point).

It's pretty much in your hands now. Roguegeek 08:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You should also read and understand the three-revert rule WP:3RR Misplaced Pages policy and know that you've already broken in several times here and on other articles tonight. I'm simply trying to inform you that a rule really does exist. Roguegeek 08:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Time to stop

First up, vandalism is a loaded term, it's defined at WP:VAND and specifically does not include good-faith content disputes. To accuse other editors of vandalism when they are acting in good faith, regardless of how strongly you disagree with their edits, is uncivil and can lead to your being blocked from editing. Please do not do this.

Second, there is credible evidence that PanoTools should be a redirect, since the verifiable content about the company itself is small and you have not provided any evidence that it meets the guidelines for inclusion of companies. Either way, it makes no sense to link the product's common abbreviation to an article on the company in the context of an article already about the product, which is the major problem with the last couple of edits you made.

Third, edit-warring is not the way to resolve disputes. Please try dispute resolution. Guy 11:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to a WP:3RR breach. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. El_C 11:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)