User talk:Infops

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Infops, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Safiel (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informatization

Hi. I like the work you are doing on Chinese Information Operations and Warfare. Well done.

With respect to ""informatization": (Personally, I intensely dislike the addition of "ization" to any noun to create another word, but as hundreds of millions of people do it, I guess it's my problem and I just need to accept the fact.) Of the three abominations "informatization", "informationization", and "informationalization", I personally think the one you chose, ("informationization"), is the least abominal / best choice. However, it was the only one of the three that was a red link. On the assumption that all three words refer to the same concept, I have linked it to the informatization.

If "informationization" is something different to "informatization", please advise. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism warning

These three edits are not acceptable behaviour, and are classed as vandalism. You have been asked to explain you position on the article talk page. (i.e. Talk:Chinese Information Operations and Information Warfare) Please do so. Any further such edits will also be treated as vandalism which will lead to you being prevented from editing wikipedia. You have been asked nicely, and you ignored the request. You are now being warned. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second vandalism warning

As has been explained to you, edits like this one are vandalism. It is possible to add new information without re-introducing errors. Pdfpdf (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's strike a deal here. Let me keep my page up through the 28th of April, and then you are more than welcome to revert the page to where it was before. You can throw in your edits with my referencing as I still have not learned the proper coding. What say you?

infops (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third and final vandalism warning

I came here to give you your third and final warning before initiating action to have you blocked for repeated vandalism. As you have added the above message, I will hold off on initiating action. But let me make it perfectly clear to you that vandalism on wikipedia is not tollerated, and any further unacceptable behaviour on your behalf will lead to you being prevented from editing.

As for "striking a deal", certain things on wikipedia are NOT negotiable, particularly the following which you have indulged in, and continue to indulge in, despite multiple polite and lengthy explanations:

not following wikipedia manual of style guidelines
vandalism - several forms including, but not limited to, undoing the corrections made by others
over-linking
quoting information out of context, and altering quoted information, thus giving a different interpretation to that stated by the original author.
attributing quoted information to someone other than the actual author of the information
making statements that are false
perpetuating inaccurate information
restoring inaccurate information that has been corrected
providing your own analysis - this is called "original research"
quoting old information and presenting it as current practice rather than historical information
quoting irrelevant information
presenting irrelevant information
not communicating via the talk page; not reading communications on the talk page; making significant changes to substance of the article without discussing it on the talk page first
duplicating information; restoring duplicated information
etc.

When you cease perpetuating these practices, it will no longer be necessary to talk about "striking a deal", because there will be nothing to strike a deal about.

But in case it is not clear to you, I (and wikipedia) are not going to strike any deals which allow you to contravene wikipedia guidelines. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That sounds very "Mr Grumpy". (Well, I guess I am a bit grumpy ... )

As I have previously said, I am more than happy to provide all the help and advice that you may want on how to conform to wikipedia guidlines. Just ask. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]