User talk:Jspugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Signing your posts

Hey man. When you sign your posts, can you please not capitalise the JSPugh, just make it Jspugh the same as your username. Then people don't have to hunt around wikipedia to find your talk & user page. THE KING 01:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

It is my understanding that you have admitted that you are an MLM distributor. As such, you need to read and abide by Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.

In addition, you have reverted the article three times in the past 24 hours.

This is your first and only warning that if you revert again within 24 hours of your first revert, you will be automatically blocked for violation of Wikipedia's three revert policy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Broughton means you will be blocked for 24 hours if you revert more than 3 times per day. This is a general rule to avoid edit warring, actually. And you will not be automatically blocked: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. --Aminz 07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three times

You wrote You said I reverted three times in 24 hours, in actuality it was two times. Jspugh 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the edits I'm referring to. Which one do you think is not a revert? Or are you saying that one of these wasn't yours?

More importantly, it really doesn't matter (now) if it were three or two - it's four reverts in 24 hours that can get you blocked. What's important now is that you've been warned. If you violate this rule, you can't claim that you were unaware of it.

(And by the way, the correct spelling is "edition", not "addition".) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic edit summaries

Your edit summaries, undid rv, already established it was not neutral, and rv -going to a later, neutral version is not censorship, are extremely problematical. You are reverting a version of the article (mine) that included elements from both versions of the article that were in dispute, as well as new information that I added from the cited sources. No one has "established" that my version was not neutral. If you want to do so, please post to the talk page of the article with specifics. And you have been reverting to an earlier version of the article that is disputed, while my version was intended to be a consensus.

Worst of all, my version uses footnotes, not embedded citations, the preferred way of citing things. If you believe that my version included inappropriate information, you should make the case for removing that information, not revert to a version that is clearly inferior. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the rewrite you have done, it is not what I reverted from. The article I reverted was an old, disputed article, originally written by Zora. I changed to a later version that fixed her heavily slanted article. Jspugh 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)