User talk:Monty53
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This user is a sock puppet of Webapp, and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy subsection may also be helpful. Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs |
Contents |
[edit] License tagging for Image:Webappnet.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Webappnet.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits to WebAPP
Please do not remove tags if you wish to be taken seriously. Discuss changes on the talk page of an article first if your edits are controversial or substantial. Thank you.Pedro1999a | Talk 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:WebApp
The entry you deleted was by User:Pedro1999a, as you can see from the page's edit history. He is not a sysop. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please do not remove
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with WebApp. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Robertissimo 14:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Three-Revert Rule
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Robertissimo 17:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverting tags on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WebAPP
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Robertissimo 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding your edit to WebAPP:
Your recent edit to WebAPP (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism, link spam, or test edits to the page. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't add messages to the article, thanks. We use the discussion pages for that, as I have explained several times now. Thanks. --Guinnog 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- For the second time, stop adding complaints about users, especially such unfounded ones, to articles. It will be regarded as vandalism, and will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Take it to the article's talk page, or to a talk page of the user in question. Thank you. - Mike Rosoft 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is your final warning; the next time you add such commentary to an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Use talk pages to make comments about articles or user conduct! - Mike Rosoft 23:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just in case you have not noticed, Guinnog has apoligized for him revering the article page, he kept deleting an entire links section (by mistake) and it was reverted back. There was no need to get upset and block me or anyone else because of his mistake. No one is perfect we all do mistakes, and it is very clear he did not do it because he wanted to harm the article, probably because the the links section was at the footer and was not so clearly seen. But either way, I do not see any reason for you to ban me because of that. I also do not request that you ban the admin that made this mistake. Monty53 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is your final warning; the next time you add such commentary to an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Use talk pages to make comments about articles or user conduct! - Mike Rosoft 23:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- For the second time, stop adding complaints about users, especially such unfounded ones, to articles. It will be regarded as vandalism, and will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Take it to the article's talk page, or to a talk page of the user in question. Thank you. - Mike Rosoft 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please use talk pages
It appears that you've been using WebAPP as a discussion forum of some sort -- please note that we have talk pages for that purpose. Please direct your commentary to Talk:WebAPP or the admin noticeboard. Thank you. Luna Santin 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- And please note that repeated personal attacks on Talk pages will also lead to your being blocked from editing. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is only part of the truth for the entire story kindly browse under and see the appology from the admin that started the blocking procedure. According to this appology provided by the admin whom banned me for reverting the content, while it was him (mistakenly) doing so. Everyone can do mistakes, he simply did not see that in addition to the top message in which you are all right in notifying about, he also deleted an entire links sections, and he kept doing so several times, I tried to compermise by changing the message to something non offensive and also kept asking him no to delete the links setion, but I guess he did not notice it and thought that I was automaticly reverting it. This is a copy of a talk I got from user Webapp:
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 immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Guinnog 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
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 immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (Review me!) 20:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't put messages like this on articles. That's what the talk page is for. Neither do we throw the word vandalism around like that. If you add this again I will block you. --Guinnog 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 3 hours. --Guinnog 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I pooped the links you were trying to add back onto the article as I didn't notice they were part of the revert, which was my mistake. Sorry. I will unblock you if you tell me you will not add messages to articles or abuse the term vandalism again. --Guinnog 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I see. I accept your appology for this mistake, no one is perfect we all do mistakes and besides the links were in the bottom of the page and hard to see, but I do not understand why despite of that you are saying you are sorry, de facto you insisted on deleting these links until the last moment.
I understand that the group dynamics are very important, and sysops/admins help eachother often more than helping guests, but what does these group dynamics worth if it compermises dignity and human values of others. The webapp article was started because it was requested by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application they meant that since they used the Webapp redirect link that we should start WebAPP you can read about it in the discussion page there. The first article was not perfect but it went through evaluation by several sysops and survived for 2 months! Until one sysop dsicovered that one sentence was barrowed from www.web-app.net site, he meant it was copyvio, but latter he changed his mind as it was not copyvio! I wrote the original article myself in www.web-app.net and I can not violate any copyvio by copying once sentence from it myself! Besides it did not justify instant delete. I am not interested in having wars with teh sysops but I know that injustice was made here and the requests that came later for notability was just an excuse to satisfy one or another, there were written 3 articles about webapp and there are several reviews about this script, Rofer Moore ( http://www.roger-moore.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=ver ) and his work for children (unicef), Tony Curtis and 5000 other sites are using this script for free. I \You know that such a script "deserves" an article, but you made your choice, making one or two sysops happy was more important.
No hard feelings on my side, have fun. Webapp 13:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Monty53 18:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
