User talk:72.16.99.113

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Eyrian 06:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I was fixing an error, not vandalizing. YOU were the one vandalizing by reverting to an out-of-date article.
Please read WP:ENGVAR. That article uses British English, and will continue to do so. --Eyrian 17:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You appear to have not read the article yourself. The article states that the original style will be used only when either style is acceptable, and, for obvious reasons, British English is clearly not acceptable in this case. I apologize for favoring logic and rationality over lingual tyranny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.16.99.113 (talk)
I don't see any particularly obvious reasons. Please, enlighten me. --Eyrian 22:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, please, don't play dumb. Not even internet people could be so oblivious as to not realize the reasoning.
I'm not playing dumb. I just don't see any valid reasons. Perhaps I've simply dismissed something you see as important? Tell me, or this will go nowhere. --Eyrian 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
My God, you really are that dense. Do something for me, Eyr; go read the article again, and while you're doing so, think on this a little: why would British English not be suitable for this article? I had assumed no one would be ignorant enough to miss it, but I was apparently wrong.
Your personal attacks are unacceptable, and will result in a block if you continue them. Consider this a formal warning. Please explain your position now. --Eyrian 13:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks? I'm simply commenting on how thick you must be to have missed the massive shrine to apparency that is my point. Did you read the article yet? Give me some effort here, Eyr; don't just link articles.
(unindent)I've re-read the article, and I don't see what you're talking about. Stop this now; I will not take any more evasion. Tell me what you think is the problem, or we're done here. --Eyrian 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You... you still—you still don't understand.
This is just simply the greatest display of ignorance I've ever seen. I have no words.
That's it, we're done. Feel free to leave me a note when you've decided to discuss like and adult. I won't respond until then. --Eyrian 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


This is your final warning. If you continue to make disruptive copy /paste moves and ignore consensus on article naming, you will be blocked. Will (aka Wimt) 00:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious that British English is downright totally unacceptable for this article. Your preference of British English over a more appropriate style does NOT give you the right to revert a legitimate edit over and over.

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Armour, you will be blocked from editing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


What is wrong with you people? Does everyone on Wiki claim vandalism if they don't like an edit?

I suggest that you read our three revert rule which you are well in violation of and how to move a page, since copy and paste moves are entirely unacceptable as they do not preserve article history. Will (aka Wimt) 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a number of reasons; what you did was borderline vandalism, as described above. You repeatedly moved articles by copy/paste, which is not the proper way to move or rename an article as the edit history gets messed up. But the primary reason is that you were revert-warring by constantly switching back to your version without stopping to discuss it, and you were doing so on two articles. You went well over the three-revert limit - Alison ☺ 01:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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. Alison ☺ 01:17, 15 August 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: "As far as the three-revert-rule and the copy-paste moving, I apologize, and I was in error for not reading up on the rules. The editing, however, was entirely justified, and I had assumed no one would contest it because the article was in dire need of it."

Decline reason: "No, your edit warring on Armour was not what the article needed. When the block expires, discuss such changes on the talk page first, please. — Sandstein 05:41, 15 August 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.

I think an unblock will be more likely if you explain specifically why you have a problem. --Eyrian 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought we "were done." I don't want to bother explaining the specifics when the reasoning is as apparent as why editing an entire article to "jim is gay" over and over is vandalism.

[edit] Talk pages

Talk pages are for discussion of the related article, and nothing else. Adding nonsense to talk pages is vandalism, and you may be blocked if you persist in disrupting conversations. Please edit constructively, or not at all. Kafziel Talk 07:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made during January 13, 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Category:Songs about fame page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make the edit(s) to which this warning refers. John254 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Please stop introducing jokes into articles, such as those you created at Caps lock. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to you being blocked from editing. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah? Well, see if I fix the wikimarkup in my vandalism next time. I COULD'VE just used <div style="text-transform: uppercase;"> like the last guy. No respect around here.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:72.16.99.113, you will be blocked from editing. Oxymoron83 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I vandalized my own page. How dare I ruin all the hard work I put into making it! Why, I ought to be hanged for such behavior. This is why we can't have nice things.
And furthermore, the policy I listed clearly specified that you must type in uppercase, which you are obviously not doing. You're the vandal here.