User talk:71.107.186.223

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did explain the reason very clearly.
You've failed to address the issues in the tags. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I haven't. Jack Merridew has. For hypocrisy by Jack Merridew, see Senang Hati Foundation and Smile Foundation of Bali.
Whether or not he is a hypocrit has nothing to do with the tags. You have not countered the issues raised by the tags themselves. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If he can remove tags for no good reason, then so can I. But I do have a good reason, anyway: the "problems" he proclaims the articles have are false. They do not have those problems.
No one may remove tags without discussing them first. The problems he identifies are valid, esp those to do with references. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, sorry, you're wrong. Apparently Jack can, and with support from administrators, too. See Senang Hati Foundation and Smile Foundation of Bali.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I suggest you leave that trolling warning on Jack's page, too.
I will look at his contributions, but you really need to work within the framework of WP, ie go to the talk pages when you have a problem with templates. Summarily deleting them is not an option. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Marlith T/C 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Ghost Tower of Inverness. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. —BoL @ 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

You have made three reverts in The Ghost Tower of Inverness. One more revert and I will have no choice but to report you to the 3RR noticeboard, but I've also reported you to WP:AIV. —BoL @ 00:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. 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. Jmlk17 00:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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: "I was just blocked by a vandal. To be fair, the vandal should block Jack Merridew, Carl.bunderson, Blow of Light, and himself for also edit warring."

Decline reason: "No reason for unblocking provided; 3RR violation is obvious. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:22, 21 December 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.

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's also obvious with those others. You should block them as well or unblock me to be fair."

Decline reason: "Tu quoque is not an excuse. Explain yourself first before pointing fingers at others. — Kurykh 01:16, 21 December 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.