User talk:Df747jet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Danger of violating WP:3RR 2 Civility 3 Deleting warnings 4 Archive your talk page 5 Baitullah Mehsud‎ 6 Historical definition of race 7 Get a clue 7.1 HP SPaM 8 For the record 9 Please preview your edits

[edit] Danger of violating WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Xbox 360. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. --Just James ^T/C 07:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please refrain from such uncivil comments as found here and here.
Insulting people is considered a personal attack. And calling people 'fanboys', just because they want that particular article to be held to the standards as every single other article in wikipedia, isn't constructive.
Sources need to be both verifiable and reliable. It isn't simply a matter of "real" and "fake", or "right" and "wrong". Even if the 360 had a 33% failure rate (ie. 3.8 million bad units), we still couldn't include that figure until it had been reported on by a reliable and verifiable source. A few people in best buy or EB don't cut it.
And, again, insulting people as you did in that first link, will almost certainly get you blocked. Bladestorm 17:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting warnings

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Df747jet. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.--Just James ^T/C 04:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive your talk page

See these pages for more information regarding talk page policy:

• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - Specifically, "Behavior that is unacceptable" and "Editing Comments".
• Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Editing_stuff_on_your_user_talk_is_vandalism.3F
• User_talk:72.94.188.92 - This user was blocked for removing warnings.

I would recommend that you archive this talk page. You DO NOT own your talk page. I speak from personal experience. When I first joined Wikipedia, I was involved in a similar editing war with some other users. I was warned, but I blanked my page. Those changes were reverted in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. I have archived all of my old discussions on my user talk page. If you'd like, you can see the warnings I received about my editing war. They are located on the first archive page.

Believe me, I know the warnings don't reflect well on you (which is why I tried to get rid of mine as quickly as possible). So take a few seconds to archive you page. See Help:Archiving a talk page for help on archiving this talk page.--Just James ^T/C 12:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baitullah Mehsud‎

Please do not restore passages supported by blogs, as blogs are very rarely considered to be reliable sources. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical definition of race

Why didn't you bring up your issue in the talk page first before reverting? That paragraph didn't make any sense, had no sources, and was essentially irrelevant. One of the footnotes (#15) linked to "Insert footnote here". I fail to see how removing that is not a "constructive" edit.

Tasha Tjshermer (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, looking at it again, the quote at the bottom was in a huge box making you have to horizontally scroll to see the entire quote. My resolution isn't tiny, either. So how is that not constructive? Tjshermer (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The change from "extrememe" to "extreme" is not constructive? Did you even read that? Tjshermer (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Get a clue

I am not a vandal. Is it possible that some of the other editors out there not only have the ability to read, but that they actually exercise this skill before throwing around accusations of vandalism? Please read this sequence of posts:

[edit] HP SPaM

Hi, the recent edit you made to HP SPaM 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. Loren.wilton (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the note that I left on your userpage. In fact, what I was doing was exceptionally constructive; I was fighting a major vandal, which is what you purport to spend your time doing. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the fact that that link became a redlink so quickly vindicates my actions. Apologies accepted. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at what you're reverting. This article is a nonsense article created by a vandal, and I was just calling a spade a spade. Who's the vandal, the guy who does the graffiti or the guy who washes it off the wall? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hum. It is a very well done spoof, but on reading more than the first part it becomes obvious that it is a put-on.

Blanking the article is really not the right solution here, since that tends to look like vandalism at first glance (and why I bit you by mistake here). The thing to do is either request speedy deletion by putting a {{db-nonsense}} tag on the front of the article, or by proposing deletion of the article with a {{prod}} tag and a description. This article is perhaps a little large for easy consumption as nonsense, so I'll try for prod and nonsense both. ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren.wilton (talk • contribs)

I have restored this article because, upon the request of the article's creator, I found sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to me to assume that the topic actually exists. I suggest that if you still have problems believing in the existence of this entity, the way to go would be to submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What sources? There are none listed in the article. Oh wait, there's one external link, and in the article it links to, there is not one single solitary reference to HP, Hewlett-Packard, SPaM, or anything like that. This is total bullshit, and you're being scammed, giving some punk vandal the laugh of a lifetime. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a dedicated editor. I'm a reader, and only take action when I see something obviously aggregious like this. I have absolutely no idea what the procedures are for getting an article deleted, nor do I have the time or inclination to learn. You, however, are supposedly an expert, with superpowers. Isn't it your job to take care of people so obviously vandalizing this encyclopedia? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you're walking. Thanks for sharing -- I don't really need you to tell me what my job here is. By the way, the word you were looking for is "egregious". Accounting4Taste:talk 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM, you will be blocked from editing. Df747jet (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

* Notice that none of these Johnny-come-latelies has provided that they actually read the content of the discussions that preceded my edits. One editor's thoughtful response consisted of correcting my spelling error on a talk page. How petty can you get? Talk about avoiding the real issues. Another of these "editors" took the time to remove my reply from his talk page--I guess he doesn't like it when discussions get "intense". I will give Accounting4Taste credit for at least pausing and thinking about the issue, even if he did get totally punked by this vandal. But everyone is calling me a vandal, when I'm the one removing the graffiti. Could you people please get a clue and look into things before you label someone a vandal? I'm the only one here actually defending the sanctity of this encyclopedia; the rest of your are mucking around in procedural crap while you allow this vandal to make a laughingstock of you all. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For the record

The comment below is the one that supposedly constituted a personal attack.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. I am no vandal. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody explain this to me? I may come across as harsh, but why should I not be when I have been falsely accused of vandalism? All I do is make a terse suggestion that the editor do some more investigation before accusing another of vandalism. This is a "personal attack"? What is going on here? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please preview your edits

Your spelling changes in Royal Air Force were disruptive. "Defence" is the spelling used in Britain and lots of other places. Also, by changing organisation to organization you created two redlinks. I've fixed them, but please do a preview of your edits before clicking on save page. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)