User talk:WizardOfWor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Mdsi logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mdsi logo.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Mdsi logo.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mdsi logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MDS International

Please do not revert the changes to the article without addressing the problems discussed on the talk page. It is important to note that the text was removed due to policy violations, specifically for violating the policies on verifiability and neutral point of view. If you have any questions about these policies or need more information about how to properly re-write the article, please let me know. Shell babelfish 22:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Several more references have been added and the article is now Neutral. I am trying to keep your last reversion but can't revert any more.
Again, you've reverted the article to an incorrect version. Please take a look at the changes you are inserting. The version you reverted to even goes so far as to claim the company was started in 2006! If you have more data or corrections you would like to add to the article from reliable sources, please do so. However, do not revert blindly without verifying that you are putting back correct information. Thanks. Shell babelfish 04:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have put this article for deletion since the admins are reverting to NON-notable and Primary source information without justification. WizardOfWor 11:51, 27 March 2007 (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.

The duration of the block is 3 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Shell babelfish 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So again if I understand, I wrote an article. I was told that the Article was not notable. I made arguments for its notability while the page was repeatedly vandalized. The vandal is now "a company employee" and has reverted the article how many times? Then the article is stripped of any notability to the industry by admins who them block me from participating in the 'discussion' of the AfD to make the argument that it is notable. And because of the 'decision' that this was an attack piece. Is the Contempt of Court Order also an 'attack piece?'

As well, someone made a complaint that I uploaded an unfree image and that means I did? I created that image. It is simple and can be done by anyone in 5 minutes. But even Admins have admins.

SO Wikipedia serves as a scam protection zone?

Editors on Wikipedia do not own articles they create. The other person reverting the text has been warned as well and hopefully will cease the edit warring. It appears that both of you have a conflict of interest in editing the article and should not be doing so unless you're correcting factual data. You might want to review our neutral point of view policy which will help explain why an entire article cannot be a negative representation of the subject. You may also want to look at WP:V and WP:ATT which will help explain why we do not use court documents and other primary sources as the basis for large sections of information.
In regards to the image, creating a copy of a copyrighted and trademarked image does not make it your own image or allow you to release it. You may wish to review WP:Copyrights for some more information on the subject.
The block was only for three hours to prevent further edit warring and allow everyone a moment to calm down. Typically first offense 3RR blocks are 24 hours, but in light of the ongoing AfD discussion, I chose to make it much shorter. Please try working out the problems you are having on the talk page of the article or through one of the other dispute resolution processes. Shell babelfish 04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

I would appreciate it if you could remove the personal attack from your user page. Per our policy, attacks of that nature are forbidden. Thanks. Shell babelfish 04:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Again you did not look at the history. Should I return it back to the personal attack on me. Are you going to revert back to that attack by jeancluaduc?WizardOfWor 10:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments here:
Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please understand that personal attacks are absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia. Your positive contributions are appreciated; comments such as "pathological liars" may get you blocked without further warning or discussion. There is no excuse for personal attacks. Please understand the phrase no excuse. Not even the excuse you are now preparing to present to us. Thank you. Weregerbil 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not planning to present you with an excuse. I am guilty as charged. My problem is that I edited a personal attack left on my talk page against me by another user and remade the attack to reflect back. It was wrong. But why only warn me? Should I restore the original attack against me? 00:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

One other thing. "Not even the excuse you are now preparing to present to us." So only Admins can personally attack? Reply WereGerbbil. I count number personal attacks on yoru talk page. Should I quote them here, perhaps the juicy homophobic ones? Please change that to There is no excuse for personal attacks. by non-admins WizardOfWor 09:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars

I know this must be frustrating, but please stop wholesale reverts of multiple pages to you preferred version. If you have concerns over information, please discuss it, but simply removing large areas of well-referenced text isn't acceptable. I've mentioned my concerns with your version and have yet to receive any response to those problems. Shell babelfish 03:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] More comments

It is very frustrating. I and I think large numbers of people are seeing the PERVERSION of Jimbo Wales' dream by a few determined people.

Please see the Serious Referencing problem section of this page for good comments from someone not involved in a "edit war" with Admins. killing the dream

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/z/User_talk%7EWizardOfWor_e90c.html"