User talk:Dchip12
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Tippx (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Tippx, I have been following the edits on Congressman-elect Allen West's article and there is no indication that the claim that you make against Dchip12 above is true. Also, your edits have been disruptive. Please stop.--Corbridge (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Be cautious. Even when we disagree, we must always remain polite. Edit summaries like this one reflect badly on you. In addition, be aware of Wikipedia's rules regarding edit-warring. In cases of disagreement, do not continue reverting one another repeatedly, but stop and discuss, and make the agreed-upon changes only after consensus is clear. WP:DISPUTE has some helpful advice on how to deal with deadlocks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just noticed this comment, which is a good example of how not to reach consensus with other users. Similar comments in the future are quite likely to result in a block. Remember, discuss the content, not other editors. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Administrator's Noticeboard /Incidents
[edit]Please note that I will not respond to, or read your User talk page. Wikipedia rules mandate that I post this message here.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Tippx (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
December 2010
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Dchip12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello I apologize for name calling. I didn't believe the word "troll" was that uncivil. I won't use it anymore. As a very rare user of Wikipedia, I see no reason to keep myself blocked. Check my history and it's not as if I'm a regular wiki user. I only used it for the 2nd time a few days ago and my intentions were noble and innocent but as a result of a user editing my work before explaining why he felt it should be editing, one thing has led to another, and perhaps I got a bit frustrated. Do I still feel my position on the edits on correct, neutral, and noble? absolutely. I've read the guidelines and there is nothing wrong. My frustration isn't with the fact someone disagrees, it's the fact he deletes my work, before giving a reason why and then when told why, he ignores what I have to say. At that rate it looks improbably a compromise can come about. But as far as name calling, I apologize. A user I feel has harassed me, got me upset, and I may have gotten carried away. The mistake won't be repeated. Dchip12 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Accept reason: