User talk:Dale-swiss

Switzerland

Please stop adding the same stuff to the Switzerland article again and again. There is a reason why it keeps getting removed. --Kabelleger 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale-swiss, before you reinstate your edits again, I would like to encourage you to discuss your edits first on the talkpage and reach a consensus on including them. Please read this linked consensus policy page, it describes the editing process we are following here on wikipedia. --Van helsing 13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from just reverting edits by other users. Articles in Wikipedia are constructed by consensus. Also, I see a number of problems with your edits: please source your statements and mind keeping in the frame of our "Neutral Point of View" policy (for instance [1] is unacceptable on this regard); and try to maintain courtesy towards your fellow contributors (I fail to grasp what warrants your accusations of vandalism in [2] for instance).

Thank you for your understanding. Rama 09:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland, Again

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Switzerland, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Lostvalley 13:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please be aware of WP:3RR. If you persist in simply reverting back (as opposed to seeking consensus on Talk:Switzerland), you may be blocked from editing. dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 14:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Also, please refrain from insulting your fellow editors by calling them "vandals". The dedication of Dbachmann to improving Wikipedia is beyond questioning, as far as I know. Rama 16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reiterated you reverting on Switzerland [3] without making any attempt at discussing the matter with the users who have contested this very same edit before. You are thus blocked for 2 days. Rama 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? I have not made any reverts at all and fail to see why you insist on victimizing me and my input. I have only added useful and interesting material and sourced it. I have also replied where possible to criticism on various pages focussing on the CH/Swiss issue. Instead of blocking people willy-nilly you should give people the time to get their work/posts up and explain their edits and get to grips with wiki. Abuse of power is pathetic, uncalled for and senseless. You should examine your conscience. Dale-swiss 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a careful examination of my conscience, I fail to see you discussing anything prior to making the revert which I have pointed above. Rama 18:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you obviously did not examine your concience closely enough:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale-swiss (talk • contribs)

Uhh, "have not made any reverts at all". What do you call these - [4][5][6][7][8][9] (that's just in the last 10 days or so). Each of them removed content and messed the references badly, so other people including myself were forced to fix it back. You did not communicate on the talk page, despite being given at least 6 chances to "explain your edits". If it didn't look like you're doing it in good faith, you'd be already banned several times over. Please understand that it's impossible to create a good encyclopedia when people remove sourced statements and replace them with unsourced statements, however recent. That's just not how it works. • Maurog • 12:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah whatever!! in any case re the comment by dab: I wasn't even online during the 2 blocks, so it didn't serve any purpose!! also, i'm using the talkpage because someone told me it existed not bacause of any block. And for Maurog: I was referring to the accusation of there being reverts after the first block. Also any reverts have only corrected info, nothing more. If you guys want to sit and stare at old data about a place you know nothing about the that's not my problem, you can do as you please!! At least I know, and have access to fresh, correct data. Dale-swiss 09:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Rama 15:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and again

what is wrong with you? Have your previous blocks not taught you that you will have no effect on the article unless you collaborate with others on talk? dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 11:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Rama 11:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Rama 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 : )  Thank you for reading   : )

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. 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.

Rama 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]