User talk:Donny417

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Userpages, signatures, etc 2 Your 3 May 2007 blatant advertising edits to the Billiard ball article 3 My revert 4 RE: 5 Userboxes 6 Arabian horse 7 re:your comment about Acroterion 8 Warning

[edit] Userpages, signatures, etc

Well, you can put anything you want on your userpage, really, as long as it's not offensive, and as long as you're not focusing on your userpage as main activity :) A lot of people write a short paragraph about themselves and have a few userboxes, along with their favourite articles, or articles they've written/helped to write.

As for signatures, if you want something fancy you'll need a little bit of CSS or HTML. So, say you want your signature to look like this: Donny417, you would enter [[User:Donny417|<span style="background:lightblue;color:orange;">'''Donny'''</span>]][[User talk:Donny417|<span style="background:orange;color:lightblue;">417</span>]] into the signature box in your preferences (located on the top right corner). Click 'raw signature' so that the HTML displays correctly, and voila! Help:Wikitext examples and Wikipedia:Cheatsheet are good places to learn about Wikitext. Hope that helps, and feel free to ask more questions. Cheers, – Riana _ऋ 17:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Donny417 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your 3 May 2007 blatant advertising edits to the Billiard ball article

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. By the way, a company's own marketing materials do not qualify as reliable sources for information about that company, its products, or its competitors. Please read the reliable sources, conflict of interest, wikispam, and verifiability policies and guidelines. Furthermore, hostile edit summaries are generally interpreted as disruptive editing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My revert

Frankly, I fail to see how it is nearly notable enough for inclusion. That said, I've have reverted myself, as my original reason for reverting was that I had misinterpreted your edit as vandalism, having seen only your top edit (adding a peculiar link to Zoophilia). Apologies for any inconvenience. Martinp23 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:

First off, that section was a WP:BLP nightmare. Secondly, the sources weren't reliable, and thirdly, making accusatory statements when asking about an edit is likely not to help. –Animum 20:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean it was a very big infraction of that policy, and if something violates BLP, it is either removed or, if a whole page is an infraction, deleted. –Animum 20:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after a lengthy discussion on IRC, the section was not a BLP vio. However, such a statement that "both men and women are attracted to horses" needs to be sourced with a reliable source, not something from everything2.com. Regards and happy editing! –Animum 20:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

I suggest using Template:Userboxtop for better structure. Isaac Pankonin 05:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arabian horse

Since this article is very, very thoroughly cited, and since the talk page doesn't show the signs of "other editors challenging the objectiveness of the article" that you claim, and since your claim of "the biased opinions of this specific breed" is nonsensical (horses may well have opinions, but very few of them read Wikipedia), your comment on the talk page of this article is disruptive. Based on your history of disruption in this and other horse-related articles, it was a suggestion that was a very bad idea; if such a review is called for, you should let some editor who has not disrupted the article call for it. Are you planning, in the future, to make well-sourced, neutral, useful contributions to Wikipedia, or are you planning to continue disrupting the encyclopedia? It would save me a lot of trouble if you let me know in advance, so I can go ahead and block you indefinitely if that's what you need. Thanks! -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:your comment about Acroterion

With regard to your comments on User talk:VanTucky: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did I personally attack someone on User:VanTucky's talk page? Donny417 22:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please refrain from posting possible personal information about your fellow editors, or you will be blocked. Thanks, Crum375 04:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure the editor in question is aware of this. Sorry, but your posting such information in a Talk page for all to see cannot possibly be helpful—quite the contrary, so please refrain from doing so again. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user, as his contribs indicate only harassing and attempted outing over the last couple of days, despite being warned. Crum375 02:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)