User talk:GardmanVS

Linking to disambiguation pages

You just linked a whole load of articles to resourcing. Unfortunately this isn't a correct link as it redirects to Resource (disambiguation). You should go back and undo all your links and point to a specific article e.g. resource which you can redirect to resourcing. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you see my message? I see you are still adding the same link. You really should stop doing it. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding these links to Wikipedia. You do not add links to disambiguation pages within the body of an article - use specific links. I am very puzzled why you keep doing this as you know that the page is a disambiguation - obvious because of your comments at Talk:Resourcing. In the meantime I reverted all your additions. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still puzzled by your continuing addition of these links and refusal to acknowledge messages on your talk page. As you don't want to engage with me, perhaps you'd like to defend your actions on the Administrators noticeboard, where it has been suggested your actions and vandalism and should be subject of a ban? --Simple Bob (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

Your editing has been raised for discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_with_user_persistently_adding_links_to_disambig_page. I suggest that you read and respond, and in the meantime please stop adding these links. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 11:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: please stop

You really must stop making those edits and start talking with people, here. I'll have to block you if you don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you wouldn't listen, I've blocked you for a short while. During this time, you will hopefully be prepared to listen to people who will explain to you why those edits were wrong, and together find what should best be done with them instead. Sorry it had to come to this. You can of course be unblocked as soon as you agree to edit according to consensus and proper guidelines. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improper linking

You appear to be changing many occurrences of "resourcing" to "resourcing" in edits like this. That change makes the text read "encouraging and resourcing the Church in parishes and dioceses" and the link you introduced makes it appear the "resourcing" has some special meaning, and suggests to the reader that clicking the link will reveal information useful to an understanding of the topic (Archbishops' Council). That misleads the reader.

I note also that following an ANI discussion you have already been asked to stop adding these links. Please reply here to explain your plans. Do you intend to add any more links like these? If so, why? Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. You have been repeatedly advised politely by numerous editors above to stop adding a link to the Resourcing dab page. It is an inappropriate link not inline with the MoS and you are linking multiple times on each page. As such your editing amounts to being disruptive and continued editing in this way will result in your account been reported to AIV Tmol42 (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Enough of this. You clearly have not learned from your previous block, since you have carried on without discussion, explanation or acknowledgment. I have therefore blocked you indefinitely for your continued disruptive editing. This is not a permanent block, but a block that any administrator is free to lift without further reference to me if he/she considers that you understand why other editors are objecting to your behaviour and that you are prepared to discuss and listen. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]