User talk:GuyFawlks

Da Da Da dU ...-

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there GuyFawlks, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:GuyFawlks. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perez

Please find independent sources for this. Wikipedia is not a source. This is not important enough to mention unless a third part (like a newspaper) says "hey look at this". Do not edit war either. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't refer to my good faith edits as vandalism.GuyFawlks (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring to insert improperly sourced and included information while not using the talk page and then deleting the sockpuppet investigation template on your user page led me to not assume good good faith. Apologies if you have the best intentions in mind. As mentioned above, find RS for it and go from there. And I should have also deleted "2010, he was blocked from editing Wikipedia." Not sur eif I mised it or what but agree with the removal.Cptnono (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ken Wilbur. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. you've already broken this but no one has warned you yet. Continued reverts and you end up with a report and a possible block. I have suggested a different way forward on the talk page. I suggest you respond there. --Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the other guy is pure as snow??? Pretty brutal to block me for edit warring considering the other guy is edit warring too. Also, it should be noted that the other guy refused to discuss in good faith.GuyFawlks (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far from it, but he has kept within the limits. All you are going to end up with this way is a block. You haven't engaged on the talk page so he is treating you like a vandal. Use the talk page, then you at least approach a snow like purity. --Snowded ^TALK 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the other guy gets away with this and I get singled out. Your argument is a bit light.GuyFawlks (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have broken WP:3RR and {{WP:BRD]] he (and one other editor) have not. G is far too experienced to make that mistake. Net result you might get into difficulty and your case is weakened. I gave you a talk page opportunity, take it up. --Snowded ^TALK 16:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]