User talk:67.165.216.16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Luna Santin 10:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on December 22, 2006 to English language

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 24 hours. Luna Santin 10:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be civil

Hi, please reread Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Vandalism if you haven't done so already; accusing people (who have made edits in good-faith) with vandalism is not nice. --Kjoonlee 11:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you made that edit in good faith, though. The Century Dictionary is an invaluable source and was used extensively in writing every English dictionary today. The Oxford English Dictionary was written about the same time as The Century Dictionary, and hasn't been re-written since. Does that make it useless? Much of the material inside the OED is from The Century Dictionary. How much have you researched this? "del link to old dictionary" is not a valid edit summary, so I have to assume the worst.--67.165.216.16 11:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
So link it from an article about the history of English dictionaries, if you like. I still think it's a bad idea.
The Wikipedia:Assume good faith guideline discourages assuming anything bad about other people's edits. If you think "del link to old dictionary" is not good enough, you should have said so at Talk:English language or on my talk page. --Kjoonlee 11:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Again: I want to know how much you know about The Century Dictionary. How many articles have you read about it? I've read three. How much have you worked with it? I use it all the time. It's invaluable in my work. How much have you studied English lexicography? Why exactly do you think that it isn't useful? You can't just do some research right now on it. I want to know exactly how much you knew about it when you reverted my edit. Your user page says that you specialize in physical science, so I look forward to your answer. Thanks.--67.165.216.16 12:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's relevant, and I don't specialize in physical science. Please make your comments at Talk:English language when your block expires, if you wish. Thanks. --Kjoonlee 12:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack

Please stop. 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. Thank you.

Nice that you removed your own insults, but that is no excuse. And please note that I did not revert your edits because you're anonymous, I did it because they are wrong. JdeJ 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling legitimate comments "spam" is very uncivil IMHO and is as bad as vandalism in my opinion. Please don't delete comments from your talk page, whether you agree or disagree with the comments. --Kjoonlee 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting comments

Edits such as this diff don't help anything. Please reread Wikipedia:Vandalism again for what is/isn't vandalism. --Kjoonlee 08:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Your incivility is a minor issue, mostly petulance — but it is still not acceptable; you need to stop. Note also that you are not allowed to remove warnings from this page. It is not your Talk page, it's the Talk page of an anonymous IP address. If you want your own Talk page, open an editing account. (Even then, removing warnings without comment is deprecated.) Your current behaviour could lead to your being blocked from editing; I suggest that you calm down, stop being so confrontational, and discuss the relevant issues with other editors. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptable sources

A claim about the accuracy, reliability, etc., of a book cannot be made on the basis of what the book says about itself (or of what its publisher's marketing people say about it). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[2]--67.165.216.16 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not revert without explanation, and don't remove templates until the required work has been done, or consensus has been reached through discussion. Continuing to behave in this way will lead to your being blocked for disruptive editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you're going through articles that I've edited, either blanking them under the pretence that they're copyvios, or peppering them with {{fact}} even though I've given sources. This is your last chance: stop, or be blocked from editing. Your choice. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that I'd block you; I said that you'd be blocked. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You're violating the three revert rule in this article [3]. Please have a look at this essay. It is better to use the discussion pages of articles than to engage in editing wars. JdeJ 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primetime

Given the evidence that you are banned user Primetime you are ineligible to edit, or in any way contribute to, this website. This account, like your original account and all others you have used or may attempt to use, has been indefinitely blocked per a ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. As per policy all edits you have made have been deleted. Every attempt you make to edit this site, while you are banned from it, will be reverted on sight as per Wikipedia policy.

You will only be eligible to edit or contribute to this site if the ban against your original account is removed. Until then you are not allowed under any circumstances to contribute to Wikipedia. Will Beback · † · 07:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)