User talk:Greenman/Archive2009-06-05
I noticed a recent edit removing a direct link. The link in question is to a software whose page has been deleted. If this edit does not help improve Wikipedia, might you please consider reverting it? Dandv (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see the battle you've had trying to keep the article :) I would personally have voted to keep it, as this excessive deletionism is just a waste of energy, destroying articles that some people think are worth keeping. But adding a link is probably even more likely to be removed, even if not by me. I think the best option is to get its name out there, and Wikipedia will catch up eventually when it's seen to be notable. Greenman (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Xhosa Wikipedia, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Zulu Wikipedia. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
May 2009
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Patrick Holford. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Greenman (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Patrick Holford. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Verbal chat 21:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is rich coming from you :) Greenman (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Patrick Holford. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please inform me what uncited information you are referring to? Greenman (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Patrick Holford. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Ryan Delaney talk 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Greenman, you are dealing with an experienced editor (Verbal) who can and very well might act effectively to get you blocked over the four reverts you made today. (Ryan Delaney also warned Verbal, please note.) I highly recommend that you state, immediately, that you will not edit war over this, I would suggest that you voluntarily limit yourself to no more reverts pending resolution of this problem, until and unless you are supported by another editor, and even then that you limit yourself to no more than one revert per day, unless you really know what you are doing, which, since you reverted this editor on his own Talk page, I suspect you don't. Such a statement could avoid a block over your already established violation of the very firm 3RR rule, compounded by the allegations that you are adding material violating WP:BLP. I am not taking any position on the content issue, but am warning you of the seriousness, administrators in a situation like this may shoot first and ask questions later. Be careful. --Abd (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You have reverted a user on his user page twice in 24 hours.[1][2] Except in unusual situations, a user has the right to remove material, including warnings, from their user page; when they do so, it is evidence that they saw the material. Edit warring with a user at their own take page can be considered a violation of WP:HARASS. Don't do it. If you need assistance, please don't hesitate to ask. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:Patrick Holford, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Verbal chat 08:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- No link was provided. While caution against personalization is certainly warranted, discussing editor behavior that is affecting an article can also be warranted. I briefly reviewed the page and did not see a personal attack. Therefore, while I suggest you review your own behavior, it's always a good idea, you may otherwise disregard the above warning. It's actually more of a "personal attack" than what I saw on the article talk page. ("your disruptive comments.") Which still isn't enough to pursue, in my opinion. If disruption continues, though, there should be response. Proceed with care and caution, and your stated intention not to edit war should help. Be patient. --Abd (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Greenman, stop the edit warring. Your edit at Laundry ball has been reverted. Your edit summary is also an inaccurate attack on Verbal. He was not at 3RR as you stated. He had only made two edits there on that day. You don't seem to be up to much good and you need to stop or you'll get blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with you 100%
[edit]The German colonial empire article is very biased and POV. It includes nothing almost on the atrocities, brutal exploitation and colonial policies that later were transfered to Europe during WW1 and WW2.--Molobo (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)