User talk:63.22.55.169

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hello. Welcome to the Wikipedia. Your test has been reverted or removed. Please remember to always provide an accurate edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. -Scm83x 21:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not do that. Blanking your own user talk page to remove other's comments is not good Wikiquette. Additionally, please stop using misleading edit summaries in your edits. Your edits can be considered vandalism and continued action may result in a block from editing. Thank you. -Scm83x 21:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] War on Christmas

Please address your concerns to the talk page rather than reverting many edits by several good-faith editors. Please work towards consensus, rather than repeatedly reverting. Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Scm83x 21:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3 reverts

Please stop reverting the War on Christmas article to conform to the way you've decided it should be without gathering talk page consensus. If you revert again, you will be blocked. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

WRT article condom, You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -Scm83x 21:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to War on Christmas, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Scm83x 21:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why that sentence is no good.

You changed the opening sentence to:

"The War on Christmas is a campaign to remove the Christian religious elements from the celebration of Christmas in the United States of America, some have alleged that this is not the case."

This sentence says outright that the war on Christmas is a campaign. That amounts to saying that it is real, and Wikipedia cannot take that side in the dispute while maintaining NPOV. Saying that it is an alleged campaign is neutral, because it doesn't say whether or not it's real, just that some people say it is, which is indisputably true. Get to the talk page and discuss - if you keep making unilateral edits, they'll keep getting reverted. How is that productive? How does that make the article better in the long run? What on Earth is the point? What, do you think you'll just outlive those who disagree with you, or win by being more stubborn and uncommunicative? That doesn't work here! -GTBacchus(talk) 21:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well that's reaL fair of you, block me, then tell me to come the articles talk page, then act shocked that I won't be there--63.22.55.169 21:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    I didn't block you, Izehar did. I am fully prepared to dialogue with you, but don't act all violated. It's not like that was the first time I or anyone said "come to the talk page". Also, nobody forced you to violate the 3RR, in fact, two of us warned you about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're actually willing to talk, you can start here. Show that you're willing to cooperate with other editors, and you are likely to be unblocked - but you have to show good faith first. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the three revert rule on condom. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Izehar 21:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/3/2E/User_talk%7E63.22.55.169.html"