User talk:Bangkokbasher

Thank you for experimenting with the page Geoffrey Giuliano on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Goochelaar 07:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to remove valid, sourced information from the article about you. Editing your own article is bad enough. Even if you weren't violating WP:COI, though, this kind of editing could not be seen as a good-faith attempt to improve the article -- not after the multiple explanations you've been given about Wikipedia policies. Because it's not a good-faith edit, it's vandalism, so you now get another vandalism warning:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Geoffrey Giuliano, you will be blocked from editing. JamesMLane t c 02:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Null edits

~~Please don't make empty edits to the article in order to leave comments for other editors with the edit summary.~~ Take it to the talk pages. I've actually spent hours trying to retype the mess of good reviews you left, and I'm only about 1/8th of the way through it. When I've finished, I plan to repost a link that might be easier for everyone involved to navigate. I don't necessarily think the bad reviews need to be in the article either. Maybe you could suggest a statement along with one or two of the positive reviews on the talk page. Please try to do it without accusing the rest of us of having anything against you personally. ...and I'm not quite sure what my name having 'ONO' in it has to do with anything. --Onorem Dil 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking out the first line because it appears your second edit actually removed an extra period. The first had removed a valid comma, and I guess I didn't look carefully enough at the second. A useful edit summary instead of some rant about part of my name and a witch hunt may have helped to avoid the confusion. --Onorem Dil 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make the same comment. You've demonstrated that you know how to post to the Talk page. Put your general comments there, followed by four tildes.

You aren't writing your own book here, where you can do pretty much whatever you please. This is a collaborative project with established policies, guidelines, and customs. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you really will have to do things our way, in matters large and small. Otherwise, you're wasting a great deal of your time and everyone else's. JamesMLane t c 16:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

Let me remind your about the Three-revert rule: please read that page, but in a nutshell it says that Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing. Greetings, Goochelaar 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued blanking

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Take your concerns back to the talk page. One editor making a comment about not liking any reviews in an article is not a justification for your continued blanking of material. Several editors have made that clear to you. --Onorem Dil 12:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Geoffrey Giuliano. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More blanking

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
Use the talk page. That means participate in a discussion, not just proclaim that all reviews will be left out in all caps. --Onorem Dil 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:G2HIGHCONTRAST.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:G2HIGHCONTRAST.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]