User talk:Mayormcgeez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I appreciate the following addition to my user talk page but only when you gain adminstration status then feel free to call my edits disruptive and use templates like this below

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia.

these should not be used unless the edit is indeed spam. Thank you for your time Sayswho 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

hahaha. that's funny. thanks for the good laugh.

Im glad you appreciate it, I took alot of joy into my copy pasting ;) Sayswho (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Edits to St Thomas Ontario

I have noticed through the talk page of St Thomas, Ontario that you have been asked to give a reason to why the local newspaper was spam. You have also consitantly engaged in reversion whenever this link has been added. what is troubling me also is that your user name and contributions to wikipedia only surround this topic of reversion or discussing that you reverted the page. I have sought out council from an administrator regarding this page and i believe a resolution will be made shortly and we can move on from this. For the time being no logical explanation to this has been given that this is indeed spam. I would ask you at an earliest convience to do so, as you have been asked before, to respond on st thomas talk page. This way your side of the arguement could be heard more readily.

My belief at this point is that your engaging in an edit war with individuals on this page and we need to avoid this. You need to clearly explain your position as why it is spam.

Take care and talk soon Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong with you assumptions, read the St. Thomas discussion page. The whole story can be found there. If you have anything to add to this topic go there. Everything is outlined there. Your Admin comment on my talk page is taken as threat, and is not welcomed by me. If you want to get an Admin, fine by me (I do think it is about time to seek admin help), but don't single me out, you can inform people about this in the St. Thomas discussion page where it belongs.

It's no secret that I created this account because users found it confusing to talk to an IP. I use it to discuss the st. thomas edits and anything related. This is the purpose of this account. Do you have a problem with this? If so, why?

Please dont take it personally if i was threatening you i wouldnt have told you to take care and such., by no means am i singling you out. I have asked an admin just to reslute for my own self whether the reversion was necessary on the page not about yourself. do not take it in that way. Its troubling when you are trying to revert suspected vandalism and you check a user record that only reverts one page as his/her only contribution to wikipedia. It paints a misleading picture of you the editor. What would be good would be to use your account for your other contributions to wikipedia. This way people will have a better understanding as to how you are as an editor and wont jump to wrong conclusions. Its good form. As far as the st thomas discussion page there is no standing ground to why the st thomas newspaper is spam. What i was wondering if you would be a bit more clear of this on the talk page. You seem very passionate about your position and perhaps you could elaborate.

My view of this paper is if a friend of mine passes away from st thomas i can view that link, if i want to know about poltics of st thomas its there., from the weather to anything to do with the city. This newspaper has been in existance for over 100 years as well. So logically i ask what is your view? and if it falls under spam what is it violating that makes it spam?Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying "you gave your reason", but to point it out, the only explanations we have had is that "it falls under the wikipedia guidelines of spam", and it is "plastered with banners". I already rebutted against your argument about it being "plastered with banners", saying that 'plastered' wasn't an accurate decription. Is this all the arguments you have to present? Or do you have more? Please make this clear Mayor, I find it absolutely ridiculous and petty that an edit war has erupted over this, even more so now that the page has been protected. -- Reaper X 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)