User talk:Df747jet

Miracle of Lanciano: Italian medical article

Some more information about the link that was removed ([Quad Sclavo Diagn. 1971 Sep;7(3):661-74. Links[Histological, immunological and biochemiccal studies on the flesh and blood of the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (8th century)]]): There is a record of the article existing on this website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4950729, however this website does not provide an online version of the article. The PDF copy linked to above is the result of discussion on this website: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=360530. I'm not sure what more verification is needed. 129.120.41.191 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danger of violating WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Xbox 360. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Just James ^T/C 07:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please refrain from such uncivil comments as found here and here.
Insulting people is considered a personal attack. And calling people 'fanboys', just because they want that particular article to be held to the standards as every single other article in wikipedia, isn't constructive.
Sources need to be both verifiable and reliable. It isn't simply a matter of "real" and "fake", or "right" and "wrong". Even if the 360 had a 33% failure rate (ie. 3.8 million bad units), we still couldn't include that figure until it had been reported on by a reliable and verifiable source. A few people in best buy or EB don't cut it.
And, again, insulting people as you did in that first link, will almost certainly get you blocked. Bladestorm 17:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting warnings

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Df747jet. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.--Just James ^T/C 04:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive your talk page

See these pages for more information regarding talk page policy:

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - Specifically, "Behavior that is unacceptable" and "Editing Comments".
Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Editing_stuff_on_your_user_talk_is_vandalism.3F
User_talk:72.94.188.92 - This user was blocked for removing warnings.

I would recommend that you archive this talk page. You DO NOT own your talk page. I speak from personal experience. When I first joined Wikipedia, I was involved in a similar editing war with some other users. I was warned, but I blanked my page. Those changes were reverted in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. I have archived all of my old discussions on my user talk page. If you'd like, you can see the warnings I received about my editing war. They are located on the first archive page.

Believe me, I know the warnings don't reflect well on you (which is why I tried to get rid of mine as quickly as possible). So take a few seconds to archive you page. See Help:Archiving a talk page for help on archiving this talk page.--Just James ^T/C 12:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baitullah Mehsud‎

Please do not restore passages supported by blogs, as blogs are very rarely considered to be reliable sources. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical definition of race

Why didn't you bring up your issue in the talk page first before reverting? That paragraph didn't make any sense, had no sources, and was essentially irrelevant. One of the footnotes (#15) linked to "Insert footnote here". I fail to see how removing that is not a "constructive" edit.

Tasha Tjshermer (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at it again, the quote at the bottom was in a huge box making you have to horizontally scroll to see the entire quote. My resolution isn't tiny, either. So how is that not constructive? Tjshermer (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The change from "extrememe" to "extreme" is not constructive? Did you even read that? Tjshermer (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a clue

I am not a vandal. Is it possible that some of the other editors out there not only have the ability to read, but that they actually exercise this skill before throwing around accusations of vandalism? Please read this sequence of posts:

HP SPaM

Hi, the recent edit you made to HP SPaM has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Loren.wilton (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the note that I left on your userpage. In fact, what I was doing was exceptionally constructive; I was fighting a major vandal, which is what you purport to spend your time doing. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the fact that that link became a redlink so quickly vindicates my actions. Apologies accepted. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at what you're reverting. This article is a nonsense article created by a vandal, and I was just calling a spade a spade. Who's the vandal, the guy who does the graffiti or the guy who washes it off the wall? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. It is a very well done spoof, but on reading more than the first part it becomes obvious that it is a put-on.

Blanking the article is really not the right solution here, since that tends to look like vandalism at first glance (and why I bit you by mistake here). The thing to do is either request speedy deletion by putting a {{db-nonsense}} tag on the front of the article, or by proposing deletion of the article with a {{prod}} tag and a description. This article is perhaps a little large for easy consumption as nonsense, so I'll try for prod and nonsense both. ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren.wilton (talk • contribs)

I have restored this article because, upon the request of the article's creator, I found sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to me to assume that the topic actually exists. I suggest that if you still have problems believing in the existence of this entity, the way to go would be to submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? There are none listed in the article. Oh wait, there's one external link, and in the article it links to, there is not one single solitary reference to HP, Hewlett-Packard, SPaM, or anything like that. This is total bullshit, and you're being scammed, giving some punk vandal the laugh of a lifetime. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a dedicated editor. I'm a reader, and only take action when I see something obviously aggregious like this. I have absolutely no idea what the procedures are for getting an article deleted, nor do I have the time or inclination to learn. You, however, are supposedly an expert, with superpowers. Isn't it your job to take care of people so obviously vandalizing this encyclopedia? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're walking. Thanks for sharing -- I don't really need you to tell me what my job here is. By the way, the word you were looking for is "egregious". Accounting4Taste:talk 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM, you will be blocked from editing. Df747jet (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Notice that none of these Johnny-come-latelies has provided that they actually read the content of the discussions that preceded my edits. One editor's thoughtful response consisted of correcting my spelling error on a talk page. How petty can you get? Talk about avoiding the real issues. Another of these "editors" took the time to remove my reply from his talk page--I guess he doesn't like it when discussions get "intense". I will give Accounting4Taste credit for at least pausing and thinking about the issue, even if he did get totally punked by this vandal. But everyone is calling me a vandal, when I'm the one removing the graffiti. Could you people please get a clue and look into things before you label someone a vandal? I'm the only one here actually defending the sanctity of this encyclopedia; the rest of your are mucking around in procedural crap while you allow this vandal to make a laughingstock of you all. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

The comment below is the one that supposedly constituted a personal attack.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. I am no vandal. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody explain this to me? I may come across as harsh, but why should I not be when I have been falsely accused of vandalism? All I do is make a terse suggestion that the editor do some more investigation before accusing another of vandalism. This is a "personal attack"? What is going on here? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please preview your edits

Your spelling changes in Royal Air Force were disruptive. "Defence" is the spelling used in Britain and lots of other places. Also, by changing organisation to organization you created two redlinks. I've fixed them, but please do a preview of your edits before clicking on save page. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi there DF747jet. I've just seen your warning on my userpage, and if you'd be so kind, I'd like an explanation please because I'm genuinely baffled. As far as I'm aware, I haven't removed or blanked any content from any page. All I did was to put back on to the talk page from the archives an ongoing discussion, which appeared to me to have been archived solely as an attempt to win the argument before a true concsensus had been reached. Furthermore, I cannot see on the page history any edit of yours 'correcting' any supposed damage that I did. So if you could explain what your warning was about, I'd be very grateful. Thank you. 77.102.254.186 (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, thanks for pointing that out, I seemed to have pushed the wrong button and "warned" the wrong person. You were correct in reverting that post. I meant to warn the other guy. I will remove that post from your talk page, thanks for telling me. Df747jet (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a time honoured internet phrase: lol! No worries, and thanks very much. 77.102.254.186 (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatum

That is MY page, so I have the right to edit it as I see fit. I removed the warnings at MY sole discretion. If you interfere again, we will have it out at ArbCom or possibly at a remedy outside this page, outside arbitration or whatever other legal and proper remedies are available. 68.236.155.129 (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am sorry, but you do not own your User Talk page. You do not have the right to edit it. Df747jet (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have it out then, right now. I hereby appeal to ArbCom effective immediately. Be prepared to receive service of notice of hearing. We'll see what they say is correct between us before I decide whether to appeal over to outside remedies outside Wikipedia. If this happens, I wish information where to send service of process. I will provide an email address to that end. spendrick@hotmail.com 68.236.155.129 (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also have YOU on a technicality, you being a patroller you did not comply with the Be Nice doctrine of your Recent Edits Patrol regulations. I may use that in my arguments against you either before ArbCom or an outside authority. 68.236.155.129 (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel that way. Nobody is against you, but I have run in to the same issues when I tried to blank my userpage when I got in my first edit war. I didn't like the way the warnings looked on my page, but then I understood the rules stated that I do not own my talk page. Df747jet (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the Bots you are using a Shared IP address, so these warnings may not have been directed at you specifically, if you want to avoid this problem/loophole, please create an account. Df747jet (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that a user is completely entitled to remove whatever he or she pleases from his or her own talk page. Although s/he may not "own" the page, per se, s/he certainly does have the "right to edit it". I am curious which rules you cite when you say "the rules stated that I do not own my talk page". Also, thank you for dealing with this "ultimatum" civilly. As you may or may not know, the user has been blocked for an additional month for continued vandalism. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 08:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Df747jet. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]