User talk:JonathanMcCormack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. -- Francs2000 
22:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Most of what you added to the LRGS article was obviously patent nonsense and adding this kind of material to Wikipedia is considered vandalism. I am also not fooled by being contacted several times by different IPs or different users: your modus operandi demonstrates clearly that you are all either the same person of friends of each other. This stops NOW or I will block all IPs or users who have been adding nonsense to this article. -- Francs2000 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- The edit, however, the pastoral support and non-traditional subjects are woefully underappreciated violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view for a start, but the information about Chris Mead is unverifiable by any readily available sources (I have checked). There is a slim possibility that you have nothing to do with the other users involved in the article's vandalism this evening, however that all of you chose the same time on the same night to start questioning my actions as an administrator, and that you were all adding opinionated edits, nonsense edits or unverifiable edits to the article at the same time as each other leads the third party observer to believe you are all known to each other. The article has now been protected from editing due to continued vandalism, and if I find any evidence that all users involved this evening are linked, I will start blocking people from editing wikipedia. -- Francs2000 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The edit, however, the pastoral support and non-traditional subjects are woefully underappreciated violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view for a start, but the information about Chris Mead is unverifiable by any readily available sources (I have checked). There is a slim possibility that you have nothing to do with the other users involved in the article's vandalism this evening, however that all of you chose the same time on the same night to start questioning my actions as an administrator, and that you were all adding opinionated edits, nonsense edits or unverifiable edits to the article at the same time as each other leads the third party observer to believe you are all known to each other. The article has now been protected from editing due to continued vandalism, and if I find any evidence that all users involved this evening are linked, I will start blocking people from editing wikipedia. -- Francs2000
-
-
- OK, provide me with a single externally verifiable source from a reliable third party that says that the information you have provided is correct, and I will ensure it is noted in the article itself. Information in Wikipedia should be easily verifiable and traceable so that people using the encyclopedia for research can check our sources: telephoning the school for the information is not therefore an option. -- Francs2000 23:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, provide me with a single externally verifiable source from a reliable third party that says that the information you have provided is correct, and I will ensure it is noted in the article itself. Information in Wikipedia should be easily verifiable and traceable so that people using the encyclopedia for research can check our sources: telephoning the school for the information is not therefore an option. -- Francs2000
-
Then I apologise for the accusation, you just chose the wrong time to try and add to the article. -- Francs2000 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
