User talk:67.163.193.239/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2006

Please do not blank user pages, as you did to User:SilentHylian. This can be confusing to people visiting the user page and offensive to the editor whose page it is. Thanks, Dar-Ape 00:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

February 2006

Regarding edits made to Clock Tower (series)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 67.163.193.239! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule proboards\d{1,3}\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Rule of Rose

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 67.163.193.239! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule proboards\d{1,3}\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 15:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

March 2007

Regarding edits made to Clock Tower II: The Struggle Within

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 67.163.193.239! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule proboards\d{1,3}\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 06:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 06:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spamming Wikipedia. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Shadowbot 06:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Shadowbot 06:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. auburnpilot talk 06:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Rule of Rose. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. James, La gloria è a dio 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice

• I'm sorry I did not get back to you sooner. This is my first time here today. In 1 min I'll go in the history of the article Rule of Rose. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds as if you are trying to advertise the fansite for Rule of Rose. That is why it should be reverted. Please do not add it back. Thanks:) --James, La gloria è a dio 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is the bigest then it is fine to have in there. We need to have a reliable resource stating this first though. Also instead of writting that it is the biggest fan site for it in existence write it is the biggest fansite. Try to keep words at a minimal. You may add it back if you can show me a reliable resource for this and you should also add it in the edit summary. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• Before you edit any more I would suggest you look at wikipedia's policies and our list of guidlines. There is stuff in the guidlines about resources. You can not say that the site is the biggest fan site based on your own observations. It must be from a reliable resource. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 21:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• I am sorry that you feel as if I am picking on you. I am also sorry if you feel annoyed but we still need to enforce policies and guidlines. If we did not there would be no point in having them. Understand? Again, I advise you to take a look at policies and guidlines. There is a possibility you could be blocked just because you do not know them. Also I am not picking on you, if I saw the same thing happen with another article then I would do the same thing that I am doing with you. Have a nice week and god bless:) --James, La gloria è a dio 22:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

http://brokenclock.proboards75.com

http://ruleoftherose.proboards104.com/

Adsense pub-4696585109196199
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are spamming articles with geocities forum links. Please heed the warning above. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(replying from my talk page) You are adding the same personal site hosted on Geocities to multiple articles with the description "Broken Clock-Clock Tower fansite and largest forum in existence" (emphasis added). That constitutes a link to be avoided. Please stop. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The link "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". It is low content, offering a few screenshots of the characters, and primarily a link to some forum, which you already now is frowned upon. Stop re-adding them, or you will also be in violation of the three revert rule. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and your use of those screenshots on your geocities page might also be a copyright violation, which is another reason why the links are problematic. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You were recently blocked for adding links to a forum, and now after the block expires you add a bunch of links to some low-content fansite that consists mainly of a link to....that forum. That is link spamming. Please stop. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sign your comments

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfair? My god.

"I recently got blocked by you for 31 hours due to adding forum links. I did not even know this was against the rules, and i did not even get the warnings until I was already banned. This seems extremely unfair to me." (User talk: AuburnPilot) Listen, kid. In The "History" of the RoR articles, there were at least 2 people who were constantly telling you that the links should not be there. Also in the "Discussion" of the same article, the thing is discussed. If you didn't see it, that's your problem. Just read 3 talk pages you wrote, and in all of them you think they were unfair with you. Please, realize YOU are the problem. You've already had around 300 warnings and only one (extremely short) ban, and you say they're unfair with you. Please. I have to go now, I'm going to rob a bank, in any case, if they want to take me to prison, I'll simply say "I did not even know this was against the rules". -Pablo, BsAs

Removing others' comments

While I don't care if you choose to remove people's comments on your own talk page (although it is frowned upon), do not remove other editor' comments on other people's talk pages, as you did (twice) at User talk:AuburnPilot. It is considered vandalism. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:AuburnPilot. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Improper links again

This is your only warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia and other sites that use the MediaWiki spam blacklist at all. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And please heed the warning messages you just deleted, as well as our discussion on my talk page --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at my talk page. ZimZalaBim left a message. --James, La gloria è a dio 17:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistaking Names XD

XD I'm not Ikary himself, my name is Pablo, nice to meet you. In fact I registered to your clock tower website a long time ago, and to the rule of rose one just a few months ago (I THINK that under different names) (you won't get who I am by looking at my IPs, by the way). If I had been banned I couldn't have said you are asking people to write on wiki what you want, if I say this is because I haven't been banned, on none of them.

Get real-I know who you are.

XD Sure you do ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.77.137 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

It's a real shame you would stoop this low, Ikary. Trying to hurt Obscure via Wikipedia...And apparently you are planning to try another attack on her forum? That's a real shame, especially after spending all that time insisting you were better that that.

Removing comments again

Again, do not remove other users comments on other people's talk pages. If you do it again, you will be blocked. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Hbdragon88 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussion after giving the warning. Dialogue is going on now, so I retract the warning. Hbdragon88 02:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for link spamming. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you have not spammed since your last warning, which was retracted anyway, so it was probably incorrect or a mistake of Seraphimblade. However, I would encourage you to keep a cool head on this matter - talk page discussions can get ugly, and when users continue to engage in arguments, sometimes the patience of administrators wears thin. Part Deux 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But there's the warning on 17:32 18 March 2007, which IMO was sufficient enough. It wasn't a test4, but a pretty strong indicator to stop spamming. Hbdragon88 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I remember removing your IP from WP:AIV because of insufficient warnings. I guess someone put you back and you were mistakenly blocked. Request handled by: John Reaves (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rule of Rose

(This is also posted at Talk:Rule of Rose) IMO, the link is borderline, but probably ok. I think the main issue to take away here, especially for User:67.163.193.239, is a lesson not to persistantly insert links (all of your last 50 article edits were merely to insert fansite or forum links), many in violation of WP:3RR (which seems to be why s/he was blocked, not link spamming per se). Happy editing! Not a dog 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

ANd it is probably best to stop accusing an administrator of falsifiying a screenshot, as you do here[1]. You can't prove it is a fake any more than he can prove it is real, so just drop it. Not a dog 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop posting here. I do not need any more harassment on here.67.163.193.239 00:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. User talk pages are places to discuss user behavior, and I just was saying that I think you're being a tad uncivil with those repeated accusations. Quite honestly, there's not reason not to believe ZimZalaBim is telling the truth and posted a real screenshot. Why would an admin lie and risk losing their sysop powers? Indeed, it seems you have a much greater vested interest in getting that link posted, and have more incentive to claim those were fakes. Doesn't really matter anyway, as it really has no bearing on the link's appripriateness itself. (which I think is probably ok to post, btw). Not a dog 01:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He is being uncivil with me, and I KNOW the screenshot is a fake. I'm a member of said forum and would know if it was real.67.163.193.239 02:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you KNOW it is fake? And what difference does it make? Not a dog 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just told you-because I'm a member and that is also nothing what the posts there look like. And it only matters because he is using it to attack me and that forum, not to mention its admin.67.163.193.239 06:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I just visited that forum, and took this screenshot: Image:Ruleofrose.png, which seems to be the same format as what ZimZalabim posted. Why do you insist it is a fake? Not a dog 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken.67.163.193.239 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You've offered nothing to counter my evidence other than just saying I'm wrong. I don't think you are being fully honest here. And changing the skin at the site doesn't really matter, either. Not a dog 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about with the skin. And how do you expect me to prove that the post never existed? It's impossible to prove something like that. All I know is that I have been an active member there for a long time. I have NEVER seen that post, which I am certain I would have, had it ever existed. I also have access to the log that shows when messages are deleted, and that one was not. Those pics are all quite clearly fake. And again, don't see what the forum skin has to do with this.67.163.193.239 02:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are making the positive claim that "this is a fake" - so the burden is on you to prove it. I have just shown evidence that a screenshot from today seems to have the precise layout as the one provided by Zimzalabim the other week, which you've claimed as "fake" and "nothing what the posts there look like" - which certainly isn't a valid statement. It looks exactly like other posts there. (until someone suddently changed the skin today, right after I posted the sample here....hmm.....) If there is a log of deleted activity, please provide the URL or path for me to get there from within the forum itself. I'd like to clear this up. Thanks. Not a dog 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The skin ALWAYS changes when a new one is submitted. It has nothing to do with any of this. There is no way for you to gain access to the security log. It contains member IPs and is a restricted area. The evidence you have supplied is clearly edited, as the posts on the forum look nothing like that, regardless of what skin is used and that message never existed.67.163.193.239 03:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

so now you're accusing me of faking a screenshot? unbelievable. denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Not a dog 03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly unbelievable. You are no doubt with Zim and Pablo on their little crusade. It is easy to tell the same person is responsible for all these screenshots and their pathetic photoshopping.67.163.193.239 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I give up (and who is Pablo)? Not a dog 04:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, I go on the forum in question quite a lot and I clearly remember that post. There's no photoshopping done or anything of the sort- I remember that post because I read it and a few posts following it myself. If you're lying about this how much more are you lying about? ~~nameitynamename

Nice try. I know who you are, Nakedfish. PrincessJ warned us about you. You and your many duplicate accounts have been banned for months, and you are one of the trolls responsible for attacking that forum, so your word means nothing here. Haven't you got sick of lying yet?67.163.193.239 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate accounts? Where, exactly? Also, I haven't lied at all here.

Oh pjen XP you just keep digging into your little hole of lies....69.47.50.205 01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you blanked this talk page (the history is still available anyway). Perhaps you should just create an account rather than edit under an IP? Not a dog 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I editted it to get rid of the posts made by those trolls. They irritate me.67.163.193.239 05:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

right, that's why you deleted it <_< 69.47.50.205 17:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Please stop removing external links without any explanation or justification. Seems you might be just doing so to make a point, which isn't a good idea. Thanks. Not a dog 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this activity, otherwise you risk being blocked. And remember the three revert rule. Not a dog 15:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop threatening me. You are not a mod. And I am not breaking any rules. I'm just deleting fansite links, because links like that aren't allowed on WIkipedia, apparently. Don't think you can try and single out one person. By readding the link, it is YOU who is breaking the rules.67.163.193.239 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then please stop trying to get your fansite added at Rule of Rose. Not a dog 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think both of you should chill out because you're both right and you actually agree. Excessive fansite links tend to crop up in lots of articles. Sometimes there's a lot of discussion about them and sometimes there's not. If User:67.163.193.239 is deleting fansite links in articles that just "appeared" one day, I am in general support of that. It's not a WP:POINT violation in my opinion, since there's no disruption and the point being made is well, WP needs less fansite links. So it all seems cool to me. (and I am a "mod" ;)) Cheers. Dina 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. please try to avoid threatening new users with blocks. It's highly unlikely to happen in this case and it could be see as biting Dina 20:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't threatening, just pointing out the possibility (thus the use of "risk being"). Perhaps our IP friend should just create an account and start using edit summaries in order to help make the edits appear more legitimate, and not just retaliatory for some other fansite not being listed (which the IP is still lobbying for, btw). Not a dog 21:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In the end, my reason for doing it does not matter. You guys are the ones claiming you think all fansite links should be deleted. You had no problem deleting one I put up, yet you start a fit when I delete another? Being a bit of a hippocrate, no?67.163.193.239 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, show me where I deleted the link you added to Rule of Rose - I've done no such thing. In fact, I've supported its addition. So please stop making false accusations against me. Not a dog 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and your "reason for doing it" does matter if it is purposefully disruptive. Not a dog 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if you think your fansite should be included at Rule of Rose becuase it is "extensive and informative," then why must the site you are deleting from other game articles be deleted? It is also "extensive adn informative" is it not? By not providing ANY explanation (or edit summary) when deleting those, it still smacks of WP:POINT. I will revert and add those back. If you have a valid reason for them to be deleted (that is not inconsistent with your stance on Rule of Rose), then bring it up on the talk pages. Not a dog 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what's going on so don't say I don't 67.163.193.239. It seems that because your site didn't get added, you've gone on a hissy fit deleting everyone else's links. while perfectly legal, it's by far not 'mature' on either of our books. by doing that, it's as if you're just trying to make a pointWP:POINT. I'm not going on here to rant about our previous encounters, but I know that fansite links, no matter how 'informative' are frowned upon in wikipedia (from personal experience). your persistence to put yours on, and your hostility to other users is frankly annoying.Obscure80 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Again, regarding your blanking of links without any regard to discussion:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Not a dog 00:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am warning you again-if you do not stop threatening me, I will have to report you. You are not a mod. In fact, a mod came in here and told you to stop. By constantly readding that link, it is you who is warring. If you do not believe fansite links ahould be allowed, then stop readding it.67.163.193.239 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not threatening you - these are standard user warning messages that anyone can leave, whether an admin or not. You have not answered my reasonable request (bottom of page) to explain why these links should be removed, but your link added to Rule of Rose. Without any kind of discussion by you on the topic, this appears to be little more than disruption. You can delete your talk page all you want, but the fact remains you appear to be doing this out of spite. Otherwise, you should remove your request to have your fansite added at ROR. Not a dog 01:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it is none of your business. You don't even post in that discussion except to try and stir up trouble. For the millionth time, stop harassing me.67.163.193.239 01:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

All editors have concern and interest to make sure this encyclopedia is the best possible, and that the rules & guidelines are properly followed. That's my interest here. Again, I supported inclusion of that link at ROR. But I'm concerned with your subsequent activities. Not a dog 01:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop acting like you are a mod and stop harassing me.67.163.193.239 01:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, relax. I'm not pretending to be an admin. And why not answer the actual question at hand: why are you deleting these links, but feel yours should remain? Not a dog 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to know as well (and whether or not you blank what I say, others can always see it in the history, so your effort is fruitless). you seem to be doing nothing but attack those who disagree with your idea on the link, and hippocratically delete other links out spite.Obscure80 02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Pjen, people can still see what I say, and that's still hippocritical, realistically speaking, your site has many incomplete sections, not to mention that it's story summary is a narrative. whether or not your link is 'informational' it's still a fansite. Edit: you also have to discuss what you did before you delete things from an article. so you don't really have a strong argument at this pointObscure80 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)"

I've never trolled your forum before in my life pjen, and you know it. gfaqs yes, wikipedia, hecks no. I'm not taking cheap shots NOR making insults, anybody here can see that. just stop trolling and ranting about your link. and I can be just as stubborn as you are, so people can see what I say.Obscure80 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing comments

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Not a dog 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, stop acting like a mod, and stop threatening me. A mod has already said there is nothing wrong with deleting comments left on your own talk page. This is MY talk page, so I can delete what I wish, especially the comments of that troll. He is rude and thinks I'm someone I am not. His words are false and intended only to start trouble, so I see nothing wrong with deleting them, and I will continue to do so.67.163.193.239 03:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a troll, so stop lying. and this isn't YOUR page, you can start your own page, but this page is for OTHERS to talk about YOU. deleting posts is vandalisms unless you have good reasonObscure80 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did I act like a mod and where am I threatening you. You really need to chill out a bit. Not a dog 03:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What would you call all these "warnings" you keep posting, that are not even valid? You are trying to make it seem like you have some kind of authority here, when you don't. Again, stop posting here, or I will report you. Both of you.67.163.193.239 03:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not intending to start trouble and I'm not a troll. princessjennifer or not, you're deleting people's links while attacking anyone who deosn't want your links to stay, and frankly, it's annoying. This isn't your site and you can't make up the rules. and your'e forgetting, both of us can report you as well, per all of notadog's warnings.Obscure80 10:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Not a dog 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Han Amos. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Not a dog 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove your warnings

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from User talk:67.163.193.239. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Amos Han ^Talk 20:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, there are a lot of warnings this user has removed.... Not a dog 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To Not a Dog: YOUR warnings. You are not a mod. You have no authority to give out warnings. I was told by an actual staff member that I have the right to delete content on my talk page, especially offensive spam like yours.67.163.193.239 20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't know the rules here, my friend. Anyone can give warnings in order to point out policy violations. Then there are different places to report incidents so Admins can take action. SO please stop accusing me of somthing that isn't valid. The warnings, especially the ones against personal attacks are appropriate. Please heed them. Not a dog 20:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To Han: As stated above, I already had a staff member confirm my right to blank my talk page. And most of said warnings were incorrectly given by Not A Dog, pretending to be a staff member here. He gives warnings for bogus things, which is why they are deleted.67.163.193.239 20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can post warnings and he isn't pretending to be a staff member <_<Obscure80 20:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is hopeless, it's not even worth it anymore -_-; you mods don't get any migraines ya here?Obscure80 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore this guy, see WP:DENY. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 20:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does that guy keep editting my statements?!^^ agree'd Obscure80 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He's talking about you, Obscure.-.-;67.163.193.239 20:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

probably becuase you are editing someone else's [2]. Not a dog 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

you are selectively removing editors comments and inserting your own - that is disruptive (see above condition). please stop. Not a dog 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 67.163.193.239 is giving me a migraine >.<; I'll stop as soon as she stops deleting my posts Obscure80 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A- They're still my posts and B- he's talking about you <_< why not ask him? more respectful and less rule...breaky Obscure80 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well in any case, my talk page already warns other users of you, so your continual delete of my posts is fruitless in the end Obscure80 21:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is hopeless, it's not even worth it anymore -_-; since 67.163.193.239 keeps deleting my posts, I'll just leave, and I assure you Hdt83 ("Just ignore this guy" as said in below post) I WILL ignore her from now on. you mods don't get any migraines ya here?Obscure80 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Another personal attack warning

You've deleted all your other warnings, but regarding this edit:

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Not a dog 21:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For the millionth time, stop threatening me. You are not a mod. And for the record that was me defending myself from his personal attack on me. I've already reported you both for this harassment.67.163.193.239 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you had actually bothered to read, you would notice that he is the one who editted his original comment, to make it look like the above user was telling him to ignore me, instead of the other way around. I simply returned his post to normal.67.163.193.239 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen Up

From this point on, anyone who reverts my deletions on my talk page will be reported to Wikipedia. This is my talk page, and according to the staff, I have the right to delete anything on it. People are spamming it with fake warnings and offensive comments, so I have to keep deleting stuff. Please STOP reverting these deletions that I am perfectly within my rights to make, or you WILL be reported.67.163.193.239 22:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• May I also refer you to WP:NPA? Your edit history is replete with irate comments - Alison^☺ 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been more than patient. Obscure80 is a person who got banned from a forum I'm a member of. He thinks I'm the admin and refuses to leave me alone. Take a gander at his talk page, and tell me it is not one big attack against me. You can only be so patient. I've both of the people harassing me to stop posting here very politely, but both keep it up and even harass me on OTHER people's talk page in hopes of sparking a fight. A person can only take so much before they start to get irritated.67.163.193.239 22:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 67.163.193.239). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

Note: Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. Please note, though, that the removal of good-faith warnings, even though permitted, is often frowned upon.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.237.140.84 (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I tend to get spammed with warnings for things I did not do by this one guy who likes to pretend he is a mod, thus why I delete them.67.163.193.239 05:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism.--Hu12 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not threaten me. As you can see above, it is ALLOWED to delete content on one's own talk page. On a side note, few of the warnings are legitimate. Most are spam from a troll with a grudge. If you revert my deletions again, I am going to report you. Staff has already pointed out multiple times that I can delete anything, as it is MY talk page. Your harassment is NOT appreciated.67.163.193.239 06:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Hu12 06:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Talk page vandalism- Modifying users' comments - [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning--Hu12 07:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights

Hi. You comment here suggests that you don't completely understand the conditions under which Wikipedia does host images. Those that happen to be under copyright are only used when valid fair use claims can be made. See our copyright policy, image use policy and fair use rationales for more information. Also, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric a bit. Thanks. Not a dog 20:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Talk:Rule of Rose, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 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. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 18:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for reverting this edit. However, I believe it is better etiquette to retain the warning in order for the editor to retract it, since it was given in good faith. By striking this warning, other editors will appreciate that it is no longer valid. However, your removal of other warnings from this talk page suggests that your deletions are made in bad faith: it appears that you are trying to remove evidence of past behaviour. None of these editors have a vendetta against you: we are simply trying to keep the encyclopedia running. I hope that you appreciate this. Please discuss any further issues with me or another editor. Thank you. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanking the page and removing all of the warnings (including my apology above) is very bad etiquette. Please do not do it again or I will report you for breaking the three revert rule. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already replied to this on your talk page. Please read it and respect my wishes, since the guidelines state my right to delete content on my own talk page.67.163.193.239 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, doesn't everyone involved here have more important things to do? This is a serious candidate for WP:LAME on all parties, as far as I can see. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen Up

From this point on, anyone who reverts my deletions on my talk page will be reported to Wikipedia. This is my talk page, and according to the staff, I have the right to delete anything on it. People are spamming it with fake warnings and offensive comments, so I have to keep deleting stuff. Please STOP reverting these deletions that I am perfectly within my rights to make, or you WILL be reported.67.163.193.239 22:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This statement itself appears to be in breach of No Personal Attacks as a personal threat. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 22:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: This is insane!!

I apologize for the inconvenience -- however, in my view the intent here is to stop and endless and pointless edit war so that people can move on to other matters. I don't have any stake in this issue, beyond stopping an edit war (I might remind you, the alternative involved blocking a lot of people, probably including you, so I think protection is gentler). I anticipate unprotecting, if people go about their business for awhile; if you can talk any admin into unprotecting in good faith, I don't anticipate having any strong objection. Sorry for the trouble, but I couldn't think of any better solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If I preferred a particular version, I wouldn't be a neutral party. I don't at all intend for this to be permanent -- only long enough to escape the attention span of some of the people in this edit war. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I really had no idea which version I'd be protecting. Suppose I can't prove that, but it's worth saying, and it's the truth. As I said, the alternative (handing out a gaggle of blocks) seemed far more disruptive, so temporary protection until the issue blows over should calm things down. I will not be taking either side. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misreading my intentions, here. Once I'm fairly confident people have moved on (they inevitably will), I plan to unprotect the page, at which point you'll be free to do whatever you like, as far as I'm concerned. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's acceptable to remove warnings isn't actually a clear-cut answer -- every time it's come up for discussion, there's a lot of debate without any one-size-fits-all answer. All of my experience indicates to me that this is the fastest end to the revert war, and that's why I'm doing it. In any case, you should probably direct further requests to the thread on WP:AN/I where you'll get a wider audience. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)