User talk:Jaydinia

Thank you for experimenting with the page Unicru on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ... discospinster 01:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is very important that you do not make legal threats against other users on Wikipedia. Also please note that any editor may edit a page, you do not own the Unicru page. Your edits do not appear to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy or stick to a neutral point of view. If you have a disagreement about the content of a page, please reach a consensus on the talk page, rather than simply trying to force your viewpoint into the article. Thanks, Gwernol 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have looked in more detail at the edits you made to Unicru and they are not, I'm afraid, encyclopedic. In particular they push a very one-sided point of view and are not verifiable. It would be legitimate to add a "Critisisms of Unicru" section to the article, but it must be written from a neutral point of view. Please work with other editors on the talk page to reach consensus on what that section would be. Simply reverting to your earlier edits and issuing legal threats is not acceptable and if you continue I'm afraid you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. That would not be in anyone's interest, least of all yours if you wish to add a section discussing critisisms of Unicru.

By the way, I will declare an interest here: I am a former employee of Unicru. But I recognize the company has critics and that at least some of what they say is valid. If you can find a way to present this in a neutral way I will absolutely support it being added to the article. Gwernol 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Message left on my talk page

Hi, I assume you are referring to the conversation about your edits to Unicru from May 8th.? You added highly inappropriate content to the Unicru article that expressed your point of view without providing reliable sources. I removed that information and politely asked you to refrain from reposting it. You continued to repost that information, thus vandalising the page. You also posted talk page conversations to the article page and made personal attacks against me. I absolutely stand by my comments and the removal of your material. If you believe they were inappropriate, I strongly urge you to pursue one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution avenues as I have confidence that my actions were appropriate.

You accusation that I did not explain my edits is also unfounded, as the conversation immediately above this and on the Unicru talk page shows. Good luck, Gwernol 19:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left the follow message on my userpage (as you can see from the fact that I've left you messages on your talk page, that's the appropriate way to leave messages to users):

"Hi, I assume you are referring to the conversation about your edits to Unicru from May 8th.? You added highly inappropriate content to the Unicru article that expressed your point of view without providing reliable sources."

And what do you think all the links on the bottom were that I provided? How did those not count as reliable sources? Get a clue.

Sorry but those are not reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. The words "reliable sources" are a hyperlink (probably shows in blue on your browser), which means they link to the a Wikipedia article, in this case to the guidelines on what makes a reliable source.

"I removed that information and politely asked you to refrain from reposting it. You continued to repost that information, thus vandalising the page."

Hey, clueless one, vandalising isn't vandalising merely cuz Gwenol or his cohort said so, get a dictionary, stop redefining words.

I agree I don't define what counts as vandalism. Vandalism is defined in Wikipedia's policy here. Please follow that link and red the policy which was reachd by the consensus of the Wikipedia community.

"You also posted talk page conversations to the article page and made personal attacks against me."

What did you change your id? So ur not discopetitnernerneern or whatever his name was? And as for personal attacks, should I shout out some clouds? What do you think repeated deleting of my edit is without explanation about how to contact you back about it, no clear ones at least, and saying thanks for TESTING when I wasn't testing? That comes across as an insult to me, a personal attack.

I did not change my username. User discospinster is an entirely separate person than I am, which is why we have different usernames.

Personal attacks are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. You are continuing to make personal attacks on myself and discospinster. Please read, and take seriously, the warning you will find at the foot of this page.

You can contact me as you can any user by clicking on the link in my signature and leaving a message on my talk page.

"If you believe they were inappropriate, I strongly urge you to pursue one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution avenues as I have confidence that my actions were appropriate."

Let's see how do I go about doing this... Oh, you didn't say, again.

Yes I did. I left you a link to the dispute resolution page right there in my comment. Again, follow the blue links to the appropriate policy pages.

":You accusation that I did not explain my edits is also unfounded,"

Oh you explained, but didn't give evidence, just huffed. Again, what were the links on the bottom, just imaginary in your mind? Did you bother to check out those links? Furthermore, ever heard of common sense? Lord willing, next time, I am going to post the test questions, and EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE VAGUE AND INAPPAPROPRIATE IN ACCESSING A PERSON'S PERSONALITY, AND YOU SURE AS HELL ARE NOT GONNA ERASE BASED ON, "WELL IN MY OPINION UR WRONG CUZ ITS UNFOUNDED", sir, that is not EVIDENCE, REASONING, LOGIC, HARD EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, not "well cuz I feel". Is that getting through your head now? I hope the hell so.

No I'm going to revert such edits because they violate Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view and because you are using unreliable sources to make ill-founded accusations. If you continue to do this despite warning from myself and other editors you will be blocked for disruption of Wikipedia.

"as the conversation immediately above this and on the Unicru talk page shows."

Again I wish you good luck, Gwernol 17:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was that about highly inappropriate content without providing any references as to what was highly inappropriate <personal attacks removed>:

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

By James Doran

NEW YORK — Wikipedia, the controversial online encyclopedia, is planning to ask its army of faceless Internet editors — known as Wikipedians — to verify their credentials after one of the most prolific of their number was exposed as a fraud.

The online reference work was dealt a serious blow last week as it emerged that EssJay, a Wikipedia editor understood by the site and its users to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law, was in fact a 24-year-old from Kentucky called Ryan Jordan with no higher educational qualifications to speak of.

What is more, Mr. Jordan's expertise and dedication to the site seemed so great that he was given a full-time job at another company run by Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia founder.

Predestination

Sorry, I can't tell you why that page was reverted, I haven't touched it myself. Gwernol 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Gwernol 17:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

Gwernol 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Jaydina. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Unicru, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 01:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]