Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Onorem (talk | contribs) at 12:26, 7 May 2007 (delete3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thank you for experimenting with the page Geoffrey Giuliano on Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Goochelaar 07:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You continue to remove valid, sourced information from the article about you. Editing your own article is bad enough. Even if you weren't violating WP:COI, though, this kind of editing could not be seen as a good-faith attempt to improve the article -- not after the multiple explanations you've been given about Misplaced Pages policies. Because it's not a good-faith edit, it's vandalism, so you now get another vandalism warning:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Geoffrey Giuliano, you will be blocked from editing. JamesMLane t c 02:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Null edits

Please don't make empty edits to the article in order to leave comments for other editors with the edit summary. Take it to the talk pages. I've actually spent hours trying to retype the mess of good reviews you left, and I'm only about 1/8th of the way through it. When I've finished, I plan to repost a link that might be easier for everyone involved to navigate. I don't necessarily think the bad reviews need to be in the article either. Maybe you could suggest a statement along with one or two of the positive reviews on the talk page. Please try to do it without accusing the rest of us of having anything against you personally. ...and I'm not quite sure what my name having 'ONO' in it has to do with anything. --OnoremDil 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm striking out the first line because it appears your second edit actually removed an extra period. The first had removed a valid comma, and I guess I didn't look carefully enough at the second. A useful edit summary instead of some rant about part of my name and a witch hunt may have helped to avoid the confusion. --OnoremDil 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I came here to make the same comment. You've demonstrated that you know how to post to the Talk page. Put your general comments there, followed by four tildes.

You aren't writing your own book here, where you can do pretty much whatever you please. This is a collaborative project with established policies, guidelines, and customs. If you want to edit Misplaced Pages, you really will have to do things our way, in matters large and small. Otherwise, you're wasting a great deal of your time and everyone else's. JamesMLane t c 16:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Let me remind your about the Three-revert rule: please read that page, but in a nutshell it says that Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing. Greetings, Goochelaar 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked from editing.

Take your concerns back to the talk page. One editor making a comment about not liking any reviews in an article is not a justification for your continued blanking of material. Several editors have made that clear to you. --OnoremDil 12:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)