You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:De Broglie hypothesis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:86.83.155.44 is engaged in edit-wars on a dozen or more wiki's at this moment, for all the same reasons he was blocked for a month on nl-wiki in the first place:
adding references to Mr. Vallée's book, which is known to be doubtful to say the least
adding his own name (d.a.borgdorff), as a "translator", which is not relevant at all, and conceived as self promotion
making useless edits to old talk pages
creating useless links like [[dAb]] and [[D.A.Brogdorff]]
He is also blocked on a couple of other wiki's now, and a number of pages is locked - that seems to be the only way to stop his vandalism... :-( - Erik Baas (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'll have to warn you for the first time - here - to stop with editing into my texts ever again. I really expect you, after a long friendly endurance, to understanding consequences. The only visible vandalism came from you as well as your brutality. And my name is not: "D.A.Brogdorff" (wrongly set up) but forever: D.A._Borgdorff (etc.) via 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Sue Gardner, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above mentioned, I did warn you for the first time not to reverse my edits or restauration of vandalism et cetera. I herewith repeating so with attention to your unnecessary bias. For discussion on talkpages, your contributions are still welcome, but Erik Warmelink made so clear of your disruptive behaviour. Hoping you to understand this second warning for correct editing, I'll remain D.A. Borgdorff = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have undone your edit to User talk:86.83.155.44. Although you are right that that is a link that goes nowhere, it was made their by 86.83.155.44, and it is frowned upon here to edit comments made by other editors on talkpages. Also, I am afraid that edits of that nature will only aggravate this editor more. --Dirk BeetstraTC10:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of his many ways to abuse Wikipedia for his self promotion, not just on nl- and en-wiki, but on at least ten others as well; can't you do something about that ? - Erik Baas (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, editing other editors comment is something that is here frowned upon, if it was in mainspace, then indeed, that is a revertable edit. I know the issue, and it has my attention (as have a couple of similar cases). Although I do indeed not agree with the nature and the form of the edits they performs, I did see that he seemed to be followed here, as he was mainly reverted by 3 Dutch wikipedia editors (one of them seemingly having here as single edits doing that). I do also not like that behaviour. The IP seemingly has a Conflict of interest, and should edit accordingly. But that does not mean that that should be so violently by a couple of editors who (probably) first encountered his edits on the Dutch wikipedia, it is then better to bring this situation to the attention of local administrators. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it may be blatant self-promotion, that does not mean that it is not a good statement. Although I am not a specialist in this subject, I'd like to see input for reference from a English WikiProject. COI edits are discouraged here, and should preferably be discussed on talkpages, the guideline does not forbid it. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this user, I have left a message on User talk:Robotje. In short, I am not happy with the way this situation is handled, as I say above, the confict of interest guideline does not forbid edits to own work (though encourages discussion first). You two were involved in removing references which stood for over 8 months and over hundreds of edits (latter in one case). It may have been blatant self promotion, and it could worded differently, still if it is correct information (and the user may be a specialist .. are specialist not allowed to edit anymore?), then unexplained removal of such data can also be seen as vandalism. --Dirk BeetstraTC13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Erik Baas, almost a week ago, around the time when Beetstra unblocked dAb, that admin wrote on my talk page:
"I would like to hear your side of this, and I may invite User:Eric Baas [sic] to this discussion as well. In all cases, I would like to invite all three of you to discuss the edits." [3]
The edits he was writing about were edits where dAb inserted self references in the articles List of town tramway systems and Tram while you and me were removing those references. In the quote above Beetstra was inviting three users: dAb, you and me to discuss those edits. As a result of that invitation I asked dAb some questions on Talk:Tram. Since Beetstra specifically invited you too, I hereby ask you to get involved in the discussion on that talk page so we can work towards a consensus version. After that, we can continue on the talk page of the other article. - Robotje (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you. I am sick and tired of this troll and the endless discussions with him and about him. Anyone can clearly see how he is using Wikipedia's in dozens of languages for self-promotion, annoying people with numberless useless edits, and being blocked on 12 (!) wiki's for long periods of time ! - Erik Baas (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Fixed; the problem was in {Row2}, where the width of both columns was specified (30%/70%), and it only showed on pages having a value in "platforms". You may need to purge the page for the fix to show; I checked this on De Vink railway station. - Erik Baas (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:De Broglie hypothesis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Sue Gardner, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
