User talk:Tina M. Barber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Shiloh Shepherd Dog
Please stop with the edit wars on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog page. You will probably want to look at some of our policies such as neutral point of view, verifiability and the three revert rule. Instead of constantly reverting the content, which can lead to your account being blocked, please discuss the problem on the talk page and come to a consensus. If you are unable to find a solution to your content differences, please explore other options at dispute resolution. Thanks and Happy Editing! .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, today you have reverted changes that other's have made to the articles 3 times within a 24 hour period. This back and forth editing is a violation of wikipedia policies, it's the Three Revert Rule - if you revert other users changes one more time within this 24 hour period, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia for a time.
Instead of reverting, why not attempt to rewrite the sections that you object to in a neutral way. take the other person's view point and leave it in place, or rephrase it such that both viewpoints are presented in the article in a manner that is acceptable to you and them.
By the way, while I probably should not say this, if you must do simple reverts of changes to an article, There is a much simpler way to go back to a previous rather than editing each individual section.
- click on the history tab at the top of the page,
- find the revision of the article that you want it to be in the list
- click on that revision of the article
- clicking on "edit this page", ignore the warning about editing an out of date page.
- finally put a comment in the edit summary describing why you did it, and
- click save.
Doing it this way you don't have to find what was changed manually and can just go to a previous point in time with a few clicks.
I still highly recommend working on compromise.
- Trysha (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- You've been asked repeatedly to discuss changes on the talk page before reverting the article to your POV version. Would you please consider reverting your changes and continuing to talk about the article? Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WP:NPA
Enough. Both of you have been asked nicely a number of times to stop attacking each other. Anything further will result in an immediate block. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Your block will expire in one hour. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
If you are not going to be able to follow our WP:NPA rule, you will be blocked from editing again. Please discuss your points without attacking others. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Never disclose personal information
A serious message - PLEASE READ
Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Such posting can cause offence or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia.
If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing this site. REMEMBER: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you.
[edit] blocked
I have blocked you for 48 hours for attacking other users and revealing personal information of other editors. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfC
Please note that an RfC has been filed regarding your following Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tina_M._Barber .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:NPA
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.
I have removed your 2/6/2006 post on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog discussion page which is yet one more personal attack toward me and violates WP:NPA policyShenandoahShilohs 16:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response to RfC requested
Please respond to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tina M. Barber in the "Response" section. Robert McClenon 18:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personal Attacks
Please treat the other editors with respect and refrain from personal attacks and the over-use of Uppercase and grammatical symbols to communicate with other editors, as this style is easily interpreted as "yelling". There are many editors very interested in contributing to this article in a respectful manner and your cooperation is encouraged and would be appreciated. Thank you. |||Miles.D.
||| 02-6-2006 20:03 (UTC)
[edit] RfAR
A Request for arbitration has been filed on the dispute at Shiloh Shepherd Dog. Please visit WP:RfAR to learn more. Thank you. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
I have been asked to help you. I am an AMA advocate, which means I'm kinda like a lawyer for the encyclopedia. Let me know if your interested. Cheers, Sam Spade 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalizing Shiloh Shepherd Article
Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
[edit] Temporary ban from Shiloh Shepherd Dog
This temporary injunction has been passed in the Shiloh arbitration:
1) Until the resolution of this case, Tina M. Barber (talk • contribs) and ShenandoahShilohs (talk • contribs) are banned from Shiloh Shepherd Dog.
This injunction has received the requisite four net support votes. If breached, it can be enforced by a short block. The ban does not apply to edits on Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog.
Enacted on 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh
A final decision has been reached in the above arbitration case, and the case is now closed.
For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
