User talk:Jonawiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Jonawiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Demeanour

I'm going to be so bold as to re-draw your attention to the above post, most notably Wikipedia:Etiquette, under the Five Pillars. Please have a gander. --G2bambino 23:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let me know

How things go with the Mediation of the Upper Canada College article. I find it interesting that that its being treated as the scandal section should be deleted till mediation. If anything the other way around. Do they not have the burden of proof to show why an existing section should be deleted per wiki? I'd bring that up to Snowolf who rv'd your last 2 edits for some reason? I've read the discussion and the notes they put up for mediation. Weak very weak case they got. Good luck.--Xiahou 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Upper Canada College, you will be blocked. :: ZJH (T C E) 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Delirium 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an interest in the gender/race sections; what I was reverting was your continual removal of the crest section, which you've done 7 times in the past 24 hours, in excessive violation of the three-revert rule. --Delirium 00:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You are about to break this again if you decide to revert the edits that are removing rumors that contain no sources. Roguegeek (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To be clear

I'm not personally involved in the dispute. BTW, how can you say that a user created in 2004, with 11k contribs can be a sockpuppet of a ~2000 contribs user? Maybe the other way... Anyway, I'm no sockpuppet.

I came to Upper Canada College while patrolling recent changes for vandalism. I've seen removals of contents from a new user (~25 contribs) → you, with no edit summery. I haven't seen that at the same time you were adding previously deleted contents.

So:

1. No NPA of any type. 2. Stay calm always. 3. If somebody is reverting vandalism, probably it's not involved in the dispute. 4. I should drop you the warning for the personal attack, but I won't: You're a new user, and I don't want to BITE newbies. I hope you'll improve with time. 5. The warning will be removed, and the two mistakes will be recorded in my Vandalism Logs. 6. The 3RR warning by delicious is right, sorry but is right. 7. Have a nice day.

Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you take notice of the fact that the gender/race/scandal sections had ALSO been removed many times in the past 24 hours? Jonawiki 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Please try to calm yourself. Upsetting doesn't help your claims. Neither personal attacks. I don't think I've been impolite towards you, so I really don't understand your upsetting. I really think that at that article a mediator is needed. Unfortunately, I don't think I can mediate because now I'm not totally neutral.
Again I repeat that my edits were vandalism revertions in good faith. Please read AGF, the guideline of wikipedia on this matter.
I'll replay to your "kind" questions: 1. RC Patrollers use standard templates, and if there are any problem, just drop a line (maybe a polite one should be better) on their talk page and everyone try to come to settlement.
2. It seems that I've stopped reverting, maybe because I don't want to break WP:3RR but maybe because I've recognized that my edit is disputable. You've added content but also removed other. About apologizing, I have apologized more than one time at Wikipedia, and I have no problem in doing that, but I wonder why you personal attacked me and then ask for apologize. I'll review the full situation when I'll have some time, and I'll decide what to do. I didn't wished to became involved in this matter but you dragged me in, and I'll do what you want. Expect to hear from me soon.
3. I've noticed what I've noticed. I can notice vandalism only when I do RC patrolling, and I, of course, cannot see every vandalism that happens on wikipedia. So, I've acted for what I've seen. It's the first time that I met you, G2bambino and Xiahou. So I had no ideas about you before this Vandalism Reverts. But now, I have to say that G2bambino at least seems to had been polite.
4. Believe me, you should take a short wikibreak. Also, study closely Wikietichette, AGF and 3RR. Have a nice day ;-) Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 15:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to SOE related pages

Please refrain from angry posting to the Sony Online Entertainment page and related game (Vanguard:_Saga_of_Heroes) pages. Your hatred for the company should not reflect in the Wiki Community. Please review Wikipedia:Civility - Nschubach 05:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SWG edits

Do not place article tags like you have been unless you can give a detailed and thorough explanation as to why you feel like the article deserves those designations. Continuing to do so could be considered vandalism which may result in banning. It looks as if you have already been previously warned on this. If you have questions, please feel free to ask. Editors around here can help you out a lot with understanding Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jonawiki for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Roguegeek (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/n/User_talk%7EJonawiki_1509.html"