User talk:Dcmcgov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Dcmcgov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] UPCI Page

I was not aware I had to discuss content changes on the discussion page of the UPCI page. My apologese to you. I was not trying to get into revert-war with you. I simply felt that the Globe Logo was blurry and not legible and replaced it with a cleaner logo. While the Globe Logo is on our letter head the UPC uses many banners for there websites and events. When I am unblocked from making edits I will be glad to discuss content Issues. I apologize and hope you can forgive me. Sincerely Ninety9


[edit] Oxnard Plain

Thanks for Oxnard Plain and other recent contributions. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] America's Army

Hello Dcmcgov,

Would you happen to play America's Army, or at least have played anytime recently? Your Wikipedia account name sounds like someone I have played that game with, but I can't remember if it was your account name verbatim. --Lan56 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United Pentecostal Church International. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UPCI page

Thanks for your input. However, I am not in a revert war, I am attempting to stop one. Look at the history page. I have repeatedly asked user Mikkirose to engage the discussion page, but this user ignored me and continues to revert back to edits that are unnaceptable. I have asked 4 times. I'm not a novice to Wikipedia. Thanks for your help, perhaps there is something you could do. Dcmcgov 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you know and understand the WP:3RR then report the user when it is violated, and don't violate it yourself. That's about as much as I can help you with. And I know the feeling of someone not listening... but to be fair I put the message on both your pages. Gscshoyru 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You've technically violated WP:3RR now on this page - as I said to Mikkirose, please take it to the talk page, as I'd rather not have to start handing out blocks. ELIMINATORJR TALK 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, Dc

I'm looking back over the history of the page and I have to wonder if perhaps you got caught in the line of fire (by the way, I did respond on the discussion page before your last edit, so feel free to check that out). There are a couple of guys who persistantly blather nonsense about not needing anything negative on the page about the UPCI, but, upon review, I can't see that you were one of them. Their ideas are a clear violation of the NPOV rule on Wikipedia, but I think from your note you would agree that there is a place for criticism of organizations.

To me, it seems that the best solution is for you to write up a criticism section. You seem to know what you want it to look like, and then maybe I will see the superiority of your plan. Actually, the section isn't my writing anyway, so it's not like I'm sentimentally attached. It just seems to me that the solution to having a poorly constructed criticism section isn't just to remove all criticism, but to write a better one.

What do you think?