User talk:70.73.4.197

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~). GreenJoe 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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. GreenJoe 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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 may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. GreenJoe 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Vandalism is unnacceptable here. Please read the wikipedia rules before editing any articles further.

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. GreenJoe 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saskatchewan Party

Please don't remove cited material. That's vandalism. GreenJoe 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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. GreenJoe 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. GreenJoe 17:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I will go and check the source. You should check your spelling though. In your reverts, you spell byelection as "bielection." GreenJoe 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Leader-Post isn't just a blog. They have to be careful what is published. It is a reputable source. GreenJoe 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Even an editorial has to be careful what is published for fear of being sued, but nothing in the brief article indicated that it is an editorial. This would be a lot easier if you would create an account and discuss it on the article's talk page. GreenJoe 17:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring, making personal attacks on other contributors, and continuing the long-term abuse of adding unattributed information to Suki. 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.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The "SUKI" issue is just tiring, but the block (which has now expired) was also for your edit warring over other articles such as Saskatchewan Party. I think you've made some constructive edits there, but constantly reverting other people and accusing them of "vandalism" when you disagree with them is not at all helpful. I welcome you to go back to the constructive sort of editing, and to attempt to work with other editors. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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. GreenJoe 14:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conduct

Warning

Edit summaries are not a vehicle for personal attacks [1] 86.140.110.174 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you have exhibited pro-Sask Party and anti-NDP before, so take this warning seriously. Your anti-leftist bias will not be tolerated just as an anti-right bias is not tolerated. Please read WP:NPOV throughly, and do not make any more edits until you have done so. If you continue to not adhere and conform to NPOV (which is required by this website at our five pillars and foundation issues), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed and know both policies extremely well, but am not a member of the NDP, only a supporter (not a paying member, not affiliated in any way other than supporter, ect). You have tried to cover up several things and have used weasal words to shed a better light on things (Stral using "ministerial power"? Just like the Queen uses her power to dismiss Parliament on her every whim?). Please also read WP:BLP, which states that you may not make accusations against any living person without a credible source (like CBC, not a think tank). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Warning

This is the final warning. Do not make personal attacks in your edit summaries like you did in this one. Attacking people, whether they be wikipedian's or not is explicitly forbidden. You will recieve a block if this behaviour continues. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop removing content from Grant Devine that has been agreed-upon by consensus should remain. --Hiddekel 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your only warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Brad Wall, you will be blocked from editing. --Hiddekel 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to The Greatest Canadian, you will be blocked from editing. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 01:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Regina Manifesto, you will be blocked from editing. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia 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.--Anthony.bradbury 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "it seems that a few certain users, in particular, CJCurrie, are abusing the block process to settle political scores. I have not vandalized any pages. Please review all edits and act accordingly. the blocking process is a completely innappropriate way of dealing with matters such as these."

Decline reason: "Long history of violations, multiple warnings from independent editors. — Yamla 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

to settle political scores
Well, you can count me out of that; I'm not from Canada, and have no emotional investment in differences between regional political parties.
is a completely innappropriate way of dealing with matters such as these
Maybe. What would you suggest as an appropriate way? This continual dispute (and I'm not just pointing the finger at you) is a PITA for everyone editing, and as the standard spiel says, edit warring never, ever, gets articles into a form that either of the warring parties wants. You asked elsewhere whether there were any standard ways for tackling contentious political topics. I don't think there are, except a strict commitment to NPOV and mutually agreeable non-partisan sources, and everyone avoiding exacerbating factors (such as edit warring and hostile/facetious edit summaries) that heat up the confrontation. Tearlach 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)