User talk:RAmesbury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, RAmesbury. You have new messages at Businessman332211's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

Welcome!

Hello, RAmesbury, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --VectorPotentialTalk 13:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Help desk

I have replied to your last message. Let me know if I can help further. Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You had problems downloading http://www.spiritwritings.com/cwleadbeater.jpg and http://www.cwlworld.info/assets/images/CWL-Sydney-wellknown.jpg as jpg files. www.spiritwritings.com appears down currently but I have no problems with the latter. How to download an image is browser dependent but this probably works: Right click on the image and look for a point called save or download. Do not select a point called copy or cut (maybe this is what you did before). Note: Some websites block this download method, but it works for these images. PrimeHunter 16:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recurring indentical edit to 4 of the relativity pages

This really is not how Wikipeadia works. Pick the main article's talk page and propose your edit. But first, check Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and specially Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I reverted your edits again. Also have a look at wp:3rr. Continue like this, and you'll probably get banned for vandalism. DVdm (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I encourage you to start dispute resolution

I encourage you to start dispute resolution. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recurring indentical edit to 4 of the relativity pages - revised

Refering to [1], [2], [3], [4]. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Status of special relativity, Introduction to special relativity, Special relativity and History of special relativity, you will be blocked from editing.

[edit] Previous block notice restored

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for gross incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Addhoc (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blocked again

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you remove this block notice as you did the other, your talk page will be protected. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leadbeater

Hello RAmesbury; I've responded to your concerns that you left on my user page after moving them to the Leadbeater talk page. In the future, please leave your comments there or on my talk page, and please sign them. I apologize for the confusion caused by my temporarily blank user page.

Also, I took the liberty of removing the comment you made on SmackBot's talk page, as it appears they were preventing the bot from editing. Accounts with Bot in their names are nearly always computer programs that carry out a variety of menial tasks. In this case, SmackBot was just automatically adding date information to various tags being added to the article. The changes weren't really anything that mattered. Being a non-sentient being, the bot can't really respond to your comments, and the bot operator wouldn't have any knowledge of the issue. --Philosophus T 14:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your claim of immunity from reversion

I notice that you have asserted on several user talk pages that “No editor has the right to revert the good faith contribution of another editor.” While this may be true of posts to article talk pages, it is absolutely false for posts to articles. Indeed editors have a duty to revert posts to articles which violate the minimum standards for content. Please read Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research.

If after reading these policies you still want to post your content, discuss your changes first on the article talk pages—(article talk pages not user talk pages). If the other editors cannot explain to you the changes needed to make your posts acceptable, then go to dispute resolution. --teb728 t c 01:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)