User talk:74.65.39.59

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Changes to George Strait

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Knucmo2 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to Daz Sampson. Please note that the sentence already states that "Sampson claims" -- please do not add a redundant statement to the end of the sentence. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 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.

--Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Jim Davidson (comedian) on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Misza13 T C 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1st June 2006 - Jim Davidson

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Rgds, - Trident13 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sainsbury's

You said "if you think this can be improved then improve it. DO NOT delete others edits just because you perosnally don'yt like it. this is wikipedia, not your own personal webspace."

Well right back at ya! I took your point about it being important so instead of deleting it for a second time I tried to improve upon it. You then did exactly what you accused me of, deleted it because you don't like it. Mark83 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sainsbury's Value to shout about advert

I've replaced my edit. The reference I added states "The company soon dropped it and admitted it had had the unusual effect of actually depressing sales by turning off customers." Yes you can say things were going badly overall but there is a direct correlation between pre ad sales and post ad sales. To quote you "DO NOT delete others edits just because you perosnally don'yt like it. this is wikipedia, not your own personal webspace." Thanks Mark83 01:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we got things sorted out. Sorry for deleting your first edit out of hand. Mark83 21:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone down your criticisms of fellow editors

Hi. Your summaries for your edits to the Elvis Presley article a few minutes ago were not particularly tactful:

  1. ("marketerd?" please... this is said by many crictics and music fans it wasn't a selling ploy.)
  2. (it's disgusting how elvis haters have made this article a waterd down version and ow this pales to every other article on this website.)
  3. (old hits, new "songs". complete drivel, implictaing his hit pahse was behind him. nonsence.)

Please use a more civil tone. Thanks!

See: Wikipedia:Civility

--A. B. 20:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You removed my earlier comments above with this edit summary:
"removal of POV - most people call this removal of vandalism. don't come here and make out it's a need of concern"
My point was not about the edits themselves -- just the message you sent others in the way you described them in your edit summary. As a matter of fact, I think your edits were definite improvements, although I would not say they vandalism removals or even, in one case, a POV fix. Those earlier edits someone made were good faith edits.
I also can see how you might be a bit short-tempered in defense of The King -- something about Elvis Presley draws out every spammer and vandal on the net, plus just a lot of plain old idiots. You seem British -- I hope you can make it to Graceland (just don't go in the summer becuase it's hotter than blazes here in the South this month.)
This is your talk page and my comments were not some sort of formal warning tag (which can't be removed) so if what I've just written really bothers you, then by all means, remove it.--A. B. 01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The whole reason I have the Elvis Presley article on my watchlist is because it's been a target for a particular link-spammer. Can you keep an eye out for this spammer? See:
He/she likes to add a link to something bogus called "Elvis Fan Clubs International" -- it has a URL ending in tux.nu. It's more about increasing search engine rankings for the stuff at the bottom of the "fan club" page than it is about Elvis.
If you see this show up again, can you reverse it and warn the offender? Also, if you want to, check their contributions and see if they've spammed any other articles else at the same time -- or just leave a note on my talk page and I'll follow up.
Thanks. --A. B. 01:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Do not make personal attacks as at the end of this edit [1]. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. Please act in a CIVIL way and present verified information for the article. Tyrenius 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you comment. I also hope you raised this point with the editor who also attacked me IE "How old are you?" .. I hope you didn't overlook that. Thanks.
Oh and it wasn't a "perosnal attack" on my part, it was a direct responce.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.65.39.59 (talk • contribs) .

I've looked through the recent history and left personal warnings where appropriate. I believe the remark you mentioned was one such instance, but if I've missed it, you're welcome to post the diff on my talk page.

The same thing looks different from different viewpoints. From where you are it was a direct response. From where I am it was a personal attack. The whole talk page is more about the editors than the article. That's got to change forthwith. If people put wiki first and co-operate, following policy, there won't be a problem. If anyone continues to cause one, then they'll be stopped from editing, until they get that attitude sorted out. I've been patient enough and spent enough time explaining - see warning at the bottom of the MJ talk page. Let's see how it goes.

Tyrenius 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page

See [2] Tyrenius 00:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning re Aneiden-Rex

The point of this discussion has been settled, as everyone has agreed. Aeneiden-Rex has co-operated by amending his user box, even though he plainly did not want to. Clearly a continuation of this discussion is irritating to him and he has asked you not to continue to post. As there is no need to discuss it further, any further comments can only serve to be a form of provocation and harrassment, and will be dealt with as such immediately. This is a warning. If you want to talk about it, post on my talk page, not his.Tyrenius 13:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

He asked me a question, I replied. You kept posting "let it drop", time after time, this could just as easily be seen as provoking me. You kept posting when there was no need (you added fuel to the fire, if you had just stopped, then so would have I). If he asks me anymore questions then he is quite clearly directing towards me and I am entiled to respond to it. It is not a form of harrasment anymore than what you appear to be doing to me 74.65.39.59 15:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, he may say he wants me to quit posting, but one thing is clear. He does not own his user page. Therefore he has no right to say who posts on it. Neither do you. I have NOT broken any of the rules, simply replied to posts the same as you have. Therefore I think you should heed your own warning as one day someone might do the same to you as you have to me because this is quite simply double standards. You are posting when there is no need, telling someone there is no need for them too. 74.65.39.59 15:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that I said "let it drop" once, and "shall we drop it now?" once, which hardly qualifies as "time after time". Check the conversation. You are quite entitled to post on his talk page if there is anything that needs to be said to contribute to the project. On the subject in question, he hasn't asked any more questions so there is no need for you to say anything more, particularly, as I've pointed out, he was not very happy about changing the wording, which I supported you over. You presumably were thinking in the interests of wikipedia by asking this to be changed, and — in the interests of good relationships with other editors — I presume you would now wish to handle this sensitively and give the other editor a bit of breathing space. I was merely being cautious in my warning, and I apologise if I have been excessively so.Tyrenius 17:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok so maybe "Time after time" is a little over the top, but still you seemed to have got my point. Apolgy accepted and I would like to add that my intention was never to offend, but rather keep things factual, espically with all the controversy about record sales. 74.65.39.59 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I commend your desire to maintain standards.Tyrenius 18:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redir Wack

This spelling of the word does not mean Spanking, or Hitting. I don't see why Wank needs to be included, since the term is 'wack off'. --Sagaciousuk 12:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Try http://www.urbandictionary.com --1568 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pages for more than one meanong of a word are all over wikipedia. rightfully so. This isn't just a united states most common usuage of one word encyclopedia. 74.65.39.59 11:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 4

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Quarma 12:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/4/2E/User_talk%7E74.65.39.59.html"