User talk:E343ll

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Steven Fossett, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. 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. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Steven Fossett was changed by E343ll (c) (t) score equals -424 on 2007-09-07T16:12:02+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot 20:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Fossett

I did not blank the page; I restored the redirect to the real article which is Steve Fossett not the article you have been editing. MKoltnow 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely looked up Steven Fossett and started writing. Don't mean to accuse you of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E343ll (talk • contribs)

Please stop trying to create a content fork of Steve Fossett at the location Steven Fossett, or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you have anything to contribute, please edit Steve Fossett. Sandstein 22:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up "content fork" which you provided the link. The first sentence of the article says "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation .." I did not create the article but just made some changes. Please do not threaten me. I do not like to be threatened, do you? E343ll 17:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies. I jumped to conclusions. It seems someone else copied the content of Steve Fossett to Steven Fossett and you edited it, thinking that you were editing the real article, when in fact you were editing a fork. Again, sorry. Sandstein 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My improvements on wikipedia

A lot of articles for deletion are plain junk. I found two that I significantly fixed so they may be candidates for keeping. I also found a few (just a few) very good or good articles among many not very good articles. E343ll 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Downtown Kansas City, Kansas

The talk page of the admin who closed the AFD isn't actually locked. Go into the first subsection of his/her talk page and follow the instructions to post a message.--Danaman5 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hello - Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to suggest here that you consider your edits a bit more carefully, and see what other editors say in their edit summaries and on Talk when they revert you. I assume you know what "profession" means - if not, please look it up - Clinton receiving an honorary medical degree in no way makes her profession a physician, even with the "honorary" added on. Further, it's already in the awards and honors article. As for your comment on my talk page, we're not writing this article to help or hurt anyone - we're writing a neutral encyclopedia article. It's always welcome to have a new editor join in, but please participate with sourced additions that follow a neutral point of view. Partisan additions - pro or anti the subject - can be considered vandalism. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 21:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will echo what User:Tvoz said. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a high-profile article, already at GA status and hopefully soon to be pushed to FA status. You had better study the article, and the other articles on HRC, well before trying to make significant changes. Your edits already show a lack of understanding of proper article structure, proper wikilinking, and other editing fundamentals. Wasted Time R 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from the Hillary Rodham Clinton talk page) This is a joke... right? Adding a section called Gay rights and unfounded rumors of lesbianism is patently ridiculous. Why would we have a section on unfounded rumors? There have been so many unfounded rumors about Hillary Clinton that I find it rather suspect that this is the one you feel has to be added in. I also find it odd that you make clearly controversial edits followed by unnecessary "wikifying" of irrelevant words like child and seat. E343ll, I'll assume good faith and point you in the direction of the policy about undue weight. These rumors aren't relevant at all, and should without question be left out of the article. AniMate 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Hillary Rodham Clinton, you will be blocked from editing. Unfortunately, you've used up the benefit of the doubt I gave you a few hours ago above - it's become clear that you are deliberately editing in a manner which is tantamount to vandalism. Your excessive wikilinking to common words like "seat" after it was pointed out to you, your insistence on adding material that has been removed by three editors and requested that you discuss on talk instead (and the concurrence of 3 uninvolved admins who commented on your AN/I post), and other reasons suggest that you are not editing in good faith. Please stop now.Tvoz |talk 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Random linking of common words, as you have done here, clearly is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I only recently became aware of this situation so my block has been pre-empted by the warnings from other users given above. Rest assured that I am monitoring the situation closely and that there will be no tolerance whatsoever for further disruption. Raymond Arritt 01:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]