User talk:Spot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Spot, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 
Yours, Smeelgova 04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Fractal compression has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Alexfusco5 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Fractal compression constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

calling that edit vandalism is absurd. i removed a totally irrelevant claim from the article. if you think it should be included, please justify yourself on the discussion page. the page was marked by Ronz with all kinds of problems i'm trying to fix them. Spot (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact was sourced and true. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't true i said it was totally irrelevant. They got a grant 15 years ago to develop this tuff.... what was the result of that? nothing. Please compare this article to Jpeg for the kind of information that should go here.

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:WBOSITG. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

i edited his talk page to discuss the above matter with him, in the proper section (apparently i'm not the only person with this problem). it's a good faith edit. i am happy to discuss it here but i don't see what's wrong with what i wrote there, please show if there was.

[edit] TruDef

I would recommend you list the article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It's a bit more of an involved process, but if you nominate the article for deletion on the basis of what you said on my talk page, the article will probably be deleted with community consensus, or fixed up and referenced to the proper standard if that is possible. --Canley (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TruDef AfD

I don't think your comments "The company btw is a "pink sheet" penny stock with a history of fraud." and "It should be removed forthwith, and the editor banned" are helpful. Would you consider removing them? --Ronz (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and removing the two sentences indicated above. Revert if you like. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind if you remove them, but fyi my accusation of fraud is based on [1] (ditto here: [2]). Finally consider the stock activity: [3] that corresponds to the beginning of Editor5435/Technodo's editing of the page. Spot (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI

Thanks for your contributions to the ANI. Following up on the conflict of interest concerns: I don't have time right away to go over your edits for you. I definitely recommend you read WP:COI before you decide how you want to proceed. In general, the safest way is to contribute mainly to the talk pages of the articles where you have a coi, asking others to review and make edits for you. Minor edits to articles should be fine. It's all explained fairly well. If you want to be more aggressive on getting this settled quickly, you could start a discussion in WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Scott Draves

An editor has nominated Scott Draves, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Draves and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fractal compression. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kevin Baastalk 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. If someone reverts your an edit of yours, be sure that you've explained yourself on the talk page before considering reverting the other's revert. If you do decide to revert, it's best to do it only once, then just discuss the problem on the talk page until some consensus is reached. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New 3RR posting about Fractal compression

Hello Spot. You've been mentioned at WP:AN/3RR in a new complaint by User:Jakespalding. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the note. the result was no violation. Spot (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)