User talk:Forward planning failure

March 2009

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 RentLaw.com, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not promotional Forward planning failure (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to World Multiple Sclerosis Day. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has sufficient context. Forward planning failure (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to RentLaw.com. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. William Avery (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a CSD notice isn't vandalism. Forward planning failure (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to World Multiple Sclerosis Day. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a CSD notice isn't vandalism. Forward planning failure (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RentLaw.com. 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. Toddst1 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas those readding the CSD notices were only tag teaming so that's OK? Forward planning failure (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four different people telling you to stop doing what you're doing might be an indication that what you're doing is wrong. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if those people seem not to understand the CSD criteria, as you clearly don't. I sugest you re-read them. Forward planning failure (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this user is NOT vandalizing. Anyone may remove CSD tags except the creator. Repeatedly adding them is considered disruptive. However WP:3RR still applies. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "brand new" editor whose only edits are to remove db tags is being disruptive. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an interesting experiment seeing how a New red link user is treated when they remove CSD notices in good faith. Seems they are labelled a vandal all too quickly, rather sad, though not surprising. Forward planning failure (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, now I wonder who you were before you started using the "Who then was a gentleman?" account? Forward planning failure (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages RobScheurwater (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RentLaw.com

Well, I did delete it under G11, except I used the default AfD deletion summary. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it was a G11? It certainly didn't read like irredeemable spam to me. Forward planning failure (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed, so I'm not inclined to restore it just yet. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone

On an unrelated note, it's usually better for administrators to decline speedy deletion requests (just noticed this). Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange idea that is Julian. Forward planning failure (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself

All right. Enough. Whose sock are you? And don't try telling me you are an innocent good-faith user. You are disrupting the project to make a point, and if you don't start talking, you will be communicating via {{unblock}}. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be blocking me for what exactly? Forward planning failure (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious sockpuppetry and disruption. Now tell me who you are. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What disruption and what sockpuppetry? Forward planning failure (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your readding CSD templates is disruptive. Forward planning failure (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for being a sockpuppet of User:RMHED, per checkuser evidence. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, now I'll have to just switch to one of the other 200+ accounts I've got. My what a hassle. Forward planning failure (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]