User talk:Londo06/Archive 33
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
[edit]The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Keale Carlise and Beaver
[edit]hi why do you keep on changing the info boxes? which i have edited? (User talk:MadBullsFan) 15:16, 9 October 2008
does that apply to Michael Worrincy and Rikki Sheriffe? (User talk:MadBullsFan) 16:10, 9 October 2008
glen stewart
[edit]I see what you mean about the follow on sentence... good point! - what do you think about the whole preliminary squad and full squad announcement thing? - I've been removing the former as redundant, but wondered what you reckon? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
3RR
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anthony Laffranchi. 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. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Londo06. I notice you are one of the more active editors on this article. Through the vagaries of the noticeboards, the recent edit war has been posted at both 3RR and RFPP, so now we have a 24-hour block of User:Chaldeaan as well as 3 days of protection on the article (that I put on). An outsider who comes to look at the Talk page will probably be very puzzled as to what the various disputes are about. It would be helpful if you could put in your two cents at Talk:Arabian Peninsula on what you think the consensus is. This might help avoid a resumption of the edit war when the block and the protection expire. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Block
[edit]See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf. You have been blocked 1 week per this checkuser case. The socks indef. FYI, three CUs conferred on this case. Do not sock again, at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fair dues, I had a sock-puppet CorleoneSerpicoMontana, one named Come on the Mothers, one for uploading pictures and I did co-opt Alexsanderson83 after he left work. I offer my humble apologies to my peers.Londo06 14:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Humble ? -Sticks66 20:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- "I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do." But seriously I have let myself down, and in the eyes of my peers; the likes of yourself, MDM who has such a body of work in the new infobox, SpecialWindler who is a driving force within the community and Jeff79 whose all round edits on articles are moving the section forwards. I feel like a gambler who has been forced out into the open and I shall lay all of my cards on the table; I did it out of frustration. I felt the community was moving in a direction that I could not concur with. I have since warmed to the idea, and embraced many of them. However when many of my concessions were accepted and then dismissed at a later stage I felt I had no option but to create accounts to losing further concessions. I have the utmost respect for a great many editors here, but with the stigma attached to wikipedia it probably isn't such a bad thing, and I shall obviously be taking a much less active role within wikipedia. My apology is both ingenuous and humble and can be considered an open apology to all wikipedia editors, with a few exceptions.Londo06 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- "I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you."Londo06 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- "I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do." But seriously I have let myself down, and in the eyes of my peers; the likes of yourself, MDM who has such a body of work in the new infobox, SpecialWindler who is a driving force within the community and Jeff79 whose all round edits on articles are moving the section forwards. I feel like a gambler who has been forced out into the open and I shall lay all of my cards on the table; I did it out of frustration. I felt the community was moving in a direction that I could not concur with. I have since warmed to the idea, and embraced many of them. However when many of my concessions were accepted and then dismissed at a later stage I felt I had no option but to create accounts to losing further concessions. I have the utmost respect for a great many editors here, but with the stigma attached to wikipedia it probably isn't such a bad thing, and I shall obviously be taking a much less active role within wikipedia. My apology is both ingenuous and humble and can be considered an open apology to all wikipedia editors, with a few exceptions.Londo06 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Humble ? -Sticks66 20:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW I am not Fronsdorf, Chris Kelly, Gareth Davies or anyone else.Londo06 12:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have volunteered all the accounts that I have used. This should bring up my ip address if that is any help in bringing the issue to resolution.90.205.49.253 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)