User talk:206.125.176.3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 206.125.176.3, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Contents

[edit] Jeet Kune Do

Please stop reverting the article. At least three other editors now agree that the section title that you insist on is not appropriate, and I gave my reasons why on that article's Talk Page. If you disagree, why not respond there to explain why these explanations are not valid? Thanks. Nightscream 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Does wiki work by mob rule? No. It works by consensus. It's one of the fundamental aspects of how edit conflicts are resolved on WP. That you disagree with my opinion is all fine and well, but it's not enough to simply say this. You must provide the reasoning by which your edit should be concluded as a better one. For my part, I provided my reasoning as to why "First and Foremost" is not appropriates. If you want to refute that, and perhaps convince others in the process, then do so. Rhetoric about "owning articles" (which can easily be asked of you thereby demonstrating its fallaciousness even further) does not serve this function. Lastly, please sign your posts. Thanks. Nightscream 05:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please stop. I went through making changes to the article (cleanup related) and removing some quotes (that's for wiki quote) and you went through and manually changed everything back. --businessman332211 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you re-added the quotes wasn't necessarily a problem (believe me I am a huge bruce lee fan as well so I know why you would want them there). What annoyed me was you ended up manually changing everything I had changed (I redid the headers so I could remove the "need cleaned" tag when I was fixing up backlog. When you rechanged everything I did (10 minutes of formatting on the article) I got a little frustrated. I have no problem with you re-adding the quotes. Generally I avoid conflict by making my changes and if it's not somethign I will come back to I just don't add it to my watch lsit and deal with it when I have time. IF someone is pissed about a change I just avoid the articles, but that time it was like everything I added got removed. So the quotes are fine. But you may want to put a notice discouraging other people from putting quote's or admins will start to get frustrated (if tehre are a lot of quotes someone will start edit warring eventually). I would put comments in there about adding anymore. I added welcome tags to your talk page, read over that and it should also help some. --businessman332211 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creepshow

Please don't remove helpful maintance tags which reflect policy, as you did here. The Evil Spartan 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miami Vice edits

You will note that you were asked to discuss your edits, and not simply expect them to be accepted, considering hte length. With all due respect, you've been advised about seeking consensus before, so if you somehow feel you are smarter than the rest of us, you are going to find your editing life here suddenly becoming a long and involved series of tragic misunderstandings. I said that you should discuss your edits with the other editors contributing to the article, and I meant it. As dor what policies I think you are violating, how about consensus and undue weight to begin with. And as well, you are at your 3-edit limit for the day, so one more revert will mean you are violating yet another rule. Consider that your only warning, anonymous user 206. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

he is not been on wikipedia long. it might be part of it. First off, I partially agree. If it's something "controversial" then seek consesus. Otherwise if it's something intended to be changes, you can go in and edit freely (look up wp:bold). There is no problem with random good editing. If you edit something and someone else has a problem with it (reverts it, complains about it) then that specific thing might need to be discussed. As far as consesus. Look inside the article for comments that mention to seek consensus on specific subjects, make sure. if you are just contributing you can do so in MOST cases without having to request the changes in the talk page. From beign from a random IP a lot of people will assume it's not good. If you are going to do a lot I suggest getting an account, as that will let you be able to edit more freely, without as much trouble. If you ever have any questions, don't be shy and feel free to ask. I can help answer whatever questions I have. Be willing to talk things out when they get bad. Other than that, Just keep in mind your not the only editor here. There are other people here that are willing to help you and/or answer your questions should you need. If you do edit's and someone reverts, chances are either the reverter was
  • Hard to get along with
  • Didn't believe it belonged.
At that point the best and really only choice (Without edit warring, getting into an argument, or whatever) is to post a mesage on the user's talk page asking why they reverted. See there motives, try to come to a mutual conclusion. If neither of you can be made happy present it to an administrator about what you want, what they want and let a third part administrator or 2 decide what will end up happening in the end. --businessman332211 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

About the removal of copyrighted images in this edit, please read WP:NFCC and WP:FAIR for the relevant content policy and guideline. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The logo of the program and several pictures illustrating the characters are relevant to the article, I will not edit war with you but if you break the WP:3RR I will block this account. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

They are not needed for the comprehension of the article. 206.125.176.3 17:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mustang

Please stop reverting. The other pic is of much higher qulity and does a better job at showing the details of the car. Karrmann (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

/\ What I said above. Karrmann (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Stop it. Quit reverting and see the discussion on the talk page. Next time you put that image in there without joining in the discussion, I will mark it as vandalism. Karrmann (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not going to work. Consensus is against the image you wish to add. Please discuss rather than add the image. Eventually this kind of edit warring will lead to page protection which is good for no one. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What a joke you and Karrmann are the consensus; whatever.

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:FrankWilliams, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. El Greco(talk) 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Miami Vice, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. El Greco(talk) 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Ford Mustang, you will be blocked from editing. BanRay 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
  • Please refrain from making any further edits to the article on the Ford Mustang. These have been idenfied as vandalism and the image serves no purpose, since the pictured body style is already present on the page. Adding an image of your vehicle or a friend's vehicle is unnecessary and against the rules of wikipedia, unless for purposes of showing what the vehicle looks like. However, a black background and customizations are generally not in accordance with the types of images of vehicles that should be on wikipedia. Additionally, we generally follow the "three revert rule" which states that if a given edit is reverted three times back to the original edit, further edits are considered vandalism. If this is a shared IP, please consider registering to avoid incorrect identification of the vandal. Thank you. Zchris87v 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Supercar. 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. --BSI (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to follow your own advice pal. You irresponsibly reverted back an article that was completely rewritten by assuming it was an early version. It's people like you that cause people not to contribute by not even reading the blasted article. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't assume it was an early version. I read it and noticed it was material virtually identical to an earlier version (which was declined in the talk page and on WP:CAR), and that it mostly consists of unsourced original research material. And, as you were told on the article's talk page three weeks ago, we cannot use unsourced original research for Wikipedia articles.--BSI (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Supercar, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. swaq 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)