User talk:Shoebucket

October 2009

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page March 14 worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. CardinalDan (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to March 14. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CardinalDan (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have not committed any acts of WP:VANDALISM. CardinalDan (talk) has repeatedly deleted/reverted my updates without just cause, quoting non-relevant rules when all I was attempting was to add a pop-culture reference to March 14 regarding Steak and BJ Day. In order to avoid the Three Revert Rule (WP:3RR) himself, CardinalDan decided to log out and anonymously do reverts via his IP address. I'm not sure what his personal vendetta is against me; I simply attempted to add to the information regarding the date March 14. However, I am choosing to end this pointless back-and-forth right now. Congratulations, Dan. Although, one would think from your talk page, that this is not an isolated incident and wonder why you are allowed to continue deleting legitimate edits under the guise of vandalism. Shoebucket (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

False accusation. I'm a IP editor who doesn't use an account. A quick review of my talk page has plenty of evidence to that effect, for those who take the time to look at it instead of trying to add non-notable joke events and claim it's not vandalism. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are truly not CardinalDan, then I apologize, but one must admit it's a rather remarkable coincidence of timing. I still do not see how my edit failed to meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements and instead falls under WP:VANDALISM. I simply added a valid reference to a pop culture observance; it is not fake, it does not "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", and since it is an addition/reference for an existing article (and not an article in and of itself), it would not seem that the WP:NOTABILITY restrictions apply. Shoebucket (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, your actions seem to border on censorship rather than actual enforcement of rules, as every request I have made for validation of why the edit was deemed non-notable has been met with circular logic and avoidance rather than an answer. Shoebucket (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on March 14. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Barek, I gave up. CardinalDan and 98.248.33.198 (if they are two separate people) have continuously reverted my edits and claimed WP:VANDALISM without actually explaining why they consider it vandalism (see above for my reasoning). I see that my contributions are not only unwanted and unneeded, but discouraged. I therefore withdraw from the Wikipedia project. I'm sure they/he feel(s) justified. Good day. Shoebucket (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)