User talk:Aussiebrisguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Aussiebrisguy! My name is Brisvegas. I see that you're new and just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia tries to encourage creativity and innovation, but there are some ground rules, such as using a neutral point of view in articles and producing original work - no copy-and-paste from other sites. Here are a few links to get you started. You don't HAVE to read them, but if you're bored, give 'em a glance:

If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you.

Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia, it's a community. One place you can join 2 weeks (and with at least 150 edits) after registering is Esperanza, whose members seek to help each other out.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia as much as we do. We can use all the help we can get! Enjoy yourself. All the best, Brisvegas 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Hi there, I noticed you have changed some links that were pointing to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to point to Queen Elizabeth II. The article is actually located at the former page (for many reasons including the fact that the current Queen of England is not the only Queen Elizabeth II in the world. I will revert any edits I find, but if you could change them back as well that would be much appreciated. -- Chuq 12:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Copyvio

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. Sarah (Talk) 09:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More copyright violations

I'm blocking you for repeatedly violating copyright and posting articles which you have not written yourself. The Queensland Arts Council was lifted in its complete entirety from their website. As you've been told before, this is absolutely unacceptable. Wikipedia operates under the GFDL licence and we cannot accept articles that you have copied from other websites, books, journals etc. If you have not written the material yourself, please do not upload it here. I've deleted the QAC article and I'm wondering about the other new articles you posted this week. Tell me, do I just assume that they've been copied from somewhere else as well and delete them all? Please stop wasting our time. Sarah 11:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wessexes

Dear Sir, your persistent reversals of edits on these pages do you no favour – I suggest you instigate a discussion so that an amicable compromise can be reached. Cheers † DBD 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had Lady Louise Windsor protected until we have some discussion about this. I suggest this page as a venue. † DBD 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring on numerous royal family articles

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

Incorrect. You have broken it several times over. † DBD 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 2007

Please do not remove sourced content from Wikipedia, as you did on Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. It could be considered vandalism and if it continues you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please also not that your signature leads to Aussiebrisguy, not to User:Aussiebrisguy, and should be changed to fix this. Thanks. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talk page: the fact of the matter is, these rumours have always been around, and are notable enough to be on the page, especially if they are sourced, as the one on this article is. Also, it is not libellous to mention a rumour, it is libellous to say, for instance, in the article "Prince Edward is gay", without providing a source for the information. However, to mention a persistant rumour with a source is perfectly acceptable.
I would also appreciate it if you would not mention me personally or try to drag me into your personal problems with another user; I am just here to see that perfectly good, sourced content is not removed again by you. Thanks. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. I understand the situation perfectly well, thank you very much, the fact that you can't seem to get your head round is that the information on that page has never been called fact, and has only reported a substantial rumour that is notable in relation to the subject of the article. The fact that rumours exist cannot be denied, and the source that proves this has been added to the article. Live with it.
  2. Why bring it to my attention when I can't do anything about it? It just seems like bitchiness and shit-stirring to me.
  3. Contributors on Wikipedia do not own articles. You need to understand, it isn't Danbarnesdavies' article - it's Wikipedia's article, to which anyone can contribute.
  4. Also, UpDown was perfectly within his/her rights to revert your edits, because the 3RR states that blatant vandalism may be reverted without the innocent contributor getting into trouble - which UpDown hasn't because they were reverting your vandalism - removal of perfectly good, sourced information from an article. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Though I found your diversionary reply highly entertaining, I would like you to actually address the four points above, instead of trying to focus the attention on how I put them across. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warning on Anna Anderson article

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

Hope you are happy with your one-sider lie. It's sad you have no other life than to vandalize the Anna Anderson article. It's actually pretty funny. I just hope unsuspecting readers can pick up a book at find the real info instead of believing in your fictional article that wikipedia has decided to endorse because they haven't read a book either.

Your account has been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for the following reason;

Please see our blocking policy for more information. — Xy7 12:15, 28 May 2007

[edit] Vandalism, edit warring, sockpuppetry, posing as an administrator etc

In light of your blatant vandalism, violation of 3RR, disruptive sockpuppetry and attempting (very badly) to pass yourself of as an administrator, I've extended your block. Your behaviour is disruptive and totally unacceptable. Please understand that you are not welcome to edit under any account or IP until your block expires. In the past, you have used dynamic IPs to evade your block. This is a breach of the block policy and may result in your block being reset and extended and all your edits rolled back, regardless of merit. Please sit out the duration of your block and when it expires, you may return and edit if you follow relevant policies and guidelines, but you should be aware that since your arrival, and particularly over the last week, you have managed to draw the attention of number of administrators. Any further disruption will result in far more lengthier blocks. Please read our policies and guidelines before editing anymore because you are currently wasting a lot of people's time and causing a lot of unnecessary disruption. Sarah 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your block has been extended due to your rampant sockpuppetry. You can create your articles and make legitimate edits when your block expires but in the meanwhile you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. Sarah 13:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wessex Children

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, † DBD 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)