User talk:76.31.249.88

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, the recent edit you made to HD DVD has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks – Gurch 20:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please review the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines along with Wikipedia:Verifiability before putting fraud accusations into the NH primary article. All statements in Wikipedia need to be verifiable using good sources. Personal blogs are not appropriate sources. Thanks. Rhobite (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

Message boards and blogs

Please see WP:RS. Anonymous message boards are completely unacceptable as sources and Wikipedia is not the place to post your message board rantings about a rival's forum. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about living people can and will be removed on demand (and that applies even though you don't refer to the board hosts by name) under Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. I am also greatly concerned about edits like [1]. Adding unsourced claims of any kind is rarely helpful. If you can't source things like this to something external to the blogs themselves, then it probably isn't worth including in an encyclopedia article. --B (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Removing every message you receive with the edit summary "rv vandalism" or "undid vandalism" is highly incivil [2]. You are, of course, free to remove most kinds of messages once you have read them, but you should use an appropriate edit summary. --B (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and mis-use of templates

Throwing around a template does not make your edits any less of a vandalism. Your edits have been reverted once again, and if you continue to vandalise articles as well as inappropriately use templates, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The359 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To add to this, two more warnings. First, stop, you're not fooling anyone. Second, don't remove warnings from your user page. The359 (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've realized what is going on now, I had my edit summaries confused and believed you were adding the vandalism, and not removing it. My mistake.

However, it should still be noted that you shouldn't remove warnings under the claim of reverting vandalism, especially when things might have been concluded quicker had you actually discussed things rather than tossing around templates. The359 (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This page

I have added back every comment that you have removed from this page, several of which were warnings, and all of which that you removed as "vandalism." If you persist in blanking this page, it will be protected such that you will not be able to edit it for a period of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:76.31.249.88. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 10:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This page has now been semiprotected, such that you cannot blank it, again. Not every edit is vandalism. Please read WP:VAND and WP:AGF.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)