User talk:User06201/Archive01

TRYING A FEW THINGS. COME BACK IN A FEW DAYS. LOL.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pifactorial 23:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message left on my talk pages, first of all, you are not in a position to delete warnings on your talk pages as they serve as a record of your conduct on wikipedia. Secondly, even though it was not myself who reverted your edits having looked at them, to you they may be fun, but to me they are WP:NPOV and they are racist. Please do not continue, or you will find your 'editing fun' rights will be removed. Rgds Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your latest on my talk pages. Good night. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 00:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. MER-C 13:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No man, no war. PEACE. 219.91.203.71 21:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk

I'd like to clarify something. This is not, in fact, your "User" page. This is the "User talk" page. Short of slander, blatent personal attacks, and removing information, there's no such thing as vandalism on a "User talk" page. When you go around putting POV nonsense into articles, it's our obligation to send you a warning, in the hopes that you'll get the message and stop. It is against Wikipedia regulations to remove warnings from your talk page, whether you agree with them or not. I didn't make the rules, but I'm warning you that you can get blocked for doing so.

I'm hoping that you have "gotten the message". If you insert poorly written rants full of POV and weasel words into articles, you will eventually be blocked. If you post blatant personal attacks against other Wikipedia editors, you will eventually be blocked. If you remove warnings from your talk page, you will eventually be blocked.

If you do none of these things, all will be well, and you will be left alone. Peace. --π! 19:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA. Same goes for you too PiFactorial. Peace. 219.91.203.71 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:219.91.203.71. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- H·G (^words/_works) 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the page on Vandalism:

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.

You can see how your removal of that conversation could be construed as "removing a warning" and an attempt to "mislead other editors." Additionally, I'd recommend you leave it as is--it tends to imply the likelihood that you did not understand that the actions in question were POV issues, etc, and generally give a good impressions of you. -- H·G (^words/_works) 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

The use of a username of your choice, provided that it is appropriate.
The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you.
The ability to start new pages.
The ability to rename pages.
The ability to edit semi-protected pages.
The ability to upload images.
The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website.
The eligibility to eventually become an administrator.
Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it. --Nearly Headless Nick 16:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making it more encyclopedic

You definitely want to make things a bit more encyclopedic. That includes watching your language usage, plus I felt that I had to make your pointers "more encyclopedic" that's why I tried to condense it and make it look a bit more professional-looking. In fact, it should look a bit more business-like. Don't try to invoke a cliched environment on an article or you might make it look very bad that it might turn people off. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 05:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely want to make things a bit more encyclopedic.

Isnt that what everyone wants to do on wiki? lol. 219.91.203.71 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That includes watching your language usage, plus I felt that I had to make your pointers "more encyclopedic" that's why I tried to condense it and make it look a bit more professional-looking.

Language usage? lol. Learn what painstakingly means.

If you are talking about condensing then you should checkout my latest edit! I made it even more "professional looking" than where you left it. Hope thats even "more encylopedic" for you. Its very even more business-like now. 219.91.203.71 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to invoke a cliched environment on an article or you might make it look very bad that it might turn people off.

Dude, are you talking to yourself and that too without context? lol. And thats no cliche. Please restrain from making things look bad and turning people off. Thank you. Cheers. 219.91.203.71 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Good work on catching POV addition on Narendra Modi. Why don't you create an account? --Nearly Headless Nick 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will think about creating account. 219.91.203.71 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Create an account

I really liked your edits to the Apprentice 4 page. I'd really encourage you to make an account. If you do, please leave a note on my user talk page with your new name. Sue Anne 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

It seems to me that you have acted in an uncivil manner on User_talk:Vesther#Re:Final_Take_on_Apprentice_4. It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --Crossmr 22:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like "useless tralala", "inane tralala" and "Please keep your tralala and useless chit-chat..." are incivil. Please refrain from using them in the future.--Crossmr 01:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against WP:CIVIL. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Roy A.A. 01:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roy, what are you talking about? Where did u come from? I was just talking to crossmr to sort out the civility message he left on my user page, so where did u come from? We were having a chat!!!! Talk to him? Hello!? So, whats this block for? I never even wrote any guy a message right now!!!!!!!!!!!! I demand immediate unblocking. This is 100% an abuse of power of admins and I will certainly complain.

Wow, and even crossmr is wrong, the 'tralala' and 'useless' words i used are the words the other guy used when he left his message on my user talk page. I was just REPLYING to him using HIS VERY WORDS and they give ME an uncivil warning instead of HIM!!!! DID YOU EVEN READ HIS MESSAGE BEFORE YOU READ MY REPLY USING THOSE WORDS?????? This is ridiculous. How come he didnt get a civility message and block. Guys, you got it wrong, hes the one u should block and not me. This is ridiculous. I think wiki is going down the drain because of admins like these. WOW. LOL.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.203.71 (talk • contribs)

Considering your unacceptable level of rudeness, no. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest Mr. 219.91.203.71 that you get a proper login, come back here and identify yourself. You have ideas and input to offer that is for certain, but your approach can sometimes be a little sharp. I've seen what you think of me in some of our previous exchanges, but I think if you could take 15 mins before you reply to other editors, then you would find the exchanges far more productive and not confrontational. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just left a message on Royboy's talk page telling him that I don't agree with his block. I'm not going to unblock you because I can see where he's coming from.

I do believe that Crossmr was wrong to call you uncivil while not saying the same thing to Vesther and either not knowing or ignoring the fact that it was Vesther that started with all of the Tra la la stuff.
I also agree with you that Vesther thinks that he WP:OWNs the articles that he's working on, especially the Apprentice articles.
Finally, I agree with you that your edits to the Apprentice 4 article made it significantly better.
However, I do feel that your message on Crossmr's talk page crossed the line from sarcastic to uncivil. I think that both Crossmr and Royboy should have discussed the issue with you more before applying a 24-hour block. Specifically, your hypothetical statement really crossed the line. This is the statement I'm referring to -- I am tempted to write a message to him saying "Hey, stupid, how can people accept your stupid dumb utterly wrong criticisms and how can people not respond to ur dumb comments when u leave them on other's user pages!"

Even if the unblock doesn't happen, wait out the time and come back. Sue Anne 03:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's not incivility, I think this is. --π! 06:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or this Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Sue Anne. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Crossmr 05:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.....................YAWN. LOL. 219.91.203.71