User talk:RipplingBeast

October 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Omniarchy. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Shicoco (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Omniarchy. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Shicoco (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omniarchy

The article is not neutral, does not have a good source, and has poor layout. Wikipedia is for neutral, factual information. Shicoco (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Omniarchy. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Shicoco (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was describing a process of a government under omniarchy, not omniarchy itself. Shicoco (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing this article! This is the first of the required warnings to stop vandalizing this article before I request that you be blocked. This article describes a form of governance, in all the detail one would expect in an encyclopedia. The previous definition, a blog entry by a sockpuppet, is in violation of Wikipedia editorial standards, and is quite properly relegated to "second definition" status, as it was published after the first entry was published in the real world, and it is pure opinion.

This article is no more a "decription of a process" than the entry on the US Federal Government is a "description of a process" when it relates how the Congrss works. You're vandalizing a good article, and you MUST stop or you will be blocked. RipplingBeast (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please comment on content in the future, not on contributors, as you did in this edit summary. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 18:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making excuses to revert omniarchy to your unverified essay that has little to do with omniarchy. That is not what started the controversy; it is being considered for deletion because it is a short article and there aren't many sources for it. Shicoco (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the essay material again. Please stop it. Everyone is perfectly capable of reading your version from the article's history.—Largo Plazo (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I third that, especially since it isn't relevant for the discussion about deletion of the topic, and since it's a strong violation of the WP:OR and WP:RS policy/guideline (and probably a copyright violation) so it can't remain in the article no matter what. --Amalthea^Talk 11:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to omniarchy, you will be blocked from editing. Shicoco (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 15:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting up that essay violates wikipedia:OR. You have been told numerous times to stop. It does not even have to do with omniarchy, it's just an example. However, if you do wish to share your beliefs, create a new article. However, do not put the essay word for word, as personal research and unsourced material is not allowed. Shicoco (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the reason you're putting up that essay is because you want to show off your beliefs and start an argument. Wikipedia policy does not say to leave it up until it is resolved; it is against the rules, therefore, it is vandalism, and should be removed. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I am not here to argue with the essay; I haven't read it, so I neither agree nor disagree with it. I've only read enough of it to know that it does not belong in the omniarchy article. If are still in that stage of your life where you have to express yourself, then you may want to do it elsewhere; Wikipedia does not express any opinions or ideas, it merely states the objective facts. Clicking on the link above will bring to a Wikipedia policy page, where it states that original research and personal essays are not what Wikipedia is about. If you would like to express the thoughts in that essay, you are free to do so on your user page, and also, I don't think anyone would object if you put a link to that essay in the "see also section of Omniarchy" :P If you created a new article though, it would have to be objective. Shicoco (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AVS Video Editor

I really liked your edit of AVS Video Editor and I would have loved if you had contributed to the Delete Proposal;-) --Regression Tester (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw your comment on Regression Tester's talk page, and I'd like to explain a couple of important things.

The problem was that your edit was totally unencyclopedic and anyone with an understanding of the basic Wikipedia rules would delete it quickly. If Regression Tester wouldn't do it, I would. It violated just about every Wikipedia policy and guideline you could think of, like Neutral point of view (you cannot present your own opinion in the articles, you can only quote notable opinions from reliable sources), No original research (you cannot make conclusions based on your own experience with the product), Verifiability (no references at all), and numerous violations of the encyclopedic style and tone like shouting in ALL CAPS, or writing in a highly personal, emotional style (you cannot present your feelings about the topic—you, as the Wikipedia editor, must be "invisible", your writing style must be depersonalized and up-to-the-point), in an essay-like style with dramatic twists ("From there, it gets worse" etc.) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a place to write opinion pieces about anything. The content must be dry, factual, and attributable to reliable sources.

However, I agree that the AVS products are one of the many highly questionable pieces of software that spammers promote on Wikipedia. But the proper way to deal with that is either improving the articles so that they only contain verifiable, notable information, or if it's not possible, nominating the article for deletion, or at least voting in the AfD discussion (the Notability guideline is a must read for anyone voting in an AfD discusion). Dealing with spam on Wikipedia is particularly difficult because when spammers are blocked from editing, they just continue spamming under a new account, and when their article is nominated for deletion, they vote for keeping it, often in disguise, using single-purpose accounts or anonymous IP addresses. But patience is the key. Wikipedia has many policies for dealing with spam and advertising. You can help, too! ;-)

But please, get familiar with the basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines first, it is really necessary for understanding what Wikipedia is and how it works. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]