User talk:MaxForce

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is MaxForce). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that removing all reference to Ford's drunken hockey enthusiasm constitutes whitewashing, for one thing. CJCurrie 04:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The office expense information was including in an obviously partisan manner. There might be grounds for returning it in an improved form, but the older version was unacceptable. CJCurrie 04:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ford

The article was protected recently due to your edit war with CJCurrie. Once the protection was lifted, you went right back at it and repeated your edit war. In my book, that's vandalism.

I reviewed your edits and have a few comments:

You should be careful with the word alleged. I reviewed the cited articles and they don't allege anything.
The Howard Moscoe edit is a copy of the text on the Moscoe article. Unless you can expand on the context in the Ford article I don't think it needs repeating here.
I like the point about office budgets. Should be kept but reworded. I don't see why Holyday needs to be mentioned.
Councillors frequently change committees during council terms so I don't think it worth mentioning them unless their committee work is notable. If you want to include something about the taxi drivers, you need to provide a citation.
Removing text from a current article is bad editing behaviour, especially if it is properly cited. If something isn't cited you should add the ^{[citation needed]} tag. If it isn't updated within a reasonable period, say 6 months, then I think it is OK to remove it.

Atrian 15:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rob Ford, you will be blocked from editing. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Doug Holyday, you will be blocked from editing. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Galaxy of Terror has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Martin451 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Turner, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles, as you did to John Turner, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dl2000 (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "last warning" haven't you figured out? Stop removing ^{[citation needed]} tags from the Mike Bossy article. The claims regarding Al Arbour and Bill Torrey in the article require sourcing. Do not remove them again. --Yankees76 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Parliamentary leader, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Yankees76 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please do not add inappropriate material to Robert Kiyosaki. The correct placement of this material has been discussed extensively and it was decided that the Rich Dad article, dealing with the licensing and franchising of the "Rich Dad" brand, was the correct location for critical material about a licensee which did not directly involve Kiyosaki. This is in accordance with our biographies of living people policy. Yworo (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary leader

In response to the message you left on my talk page, I highly doubt that anyone is actually here just to give you a hard time. Don't you think that just maybe the fact that you were removing fact tags and unreferenced templates without adding any references had something to with the reverts? Cmr08 (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a quick look at WP:Civil, as civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Just because you have a problem with another editor is no reason to insult them in an edit summary. Reverting while telling an editor to "get a life!" because you disagree with them is not really appropriate. That editor has explained on several occasions the reason for reverting, which is because you keep removing fact tags without actually adding any references. If you don't want to add references, you should leave the tags so that other editors know that the article still needs references. Cmr08 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Fences&Windows 22:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]