User talk:Oopsie poopsie

Oopsie: " I don't even like the guy but he had SO many hits and successes and TV shows" - Rather like saying Fred West was very good at his day job.

Or Oscar Wilde wrote great plays. Oopsie poopsie 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"and just because this most recent drama is such juicy stuff" - Yes, I too would call child abuse "such juicy stuff"

Child abuse? Wasn't he convicted of consensual sex with 14 and 15 year olds? Oopsie poopsie 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you've actually communicated with him through his website too? Ohh-kay...Be lucky, mate.

Not directly but in order to get an answer. Oopsie poopsie 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi oopsie - i noticed your edit summary on the Jonathan King article (here) and thought it was a bit unnecessarily rude - you're comparing my edits with clear vandalism, or claiming that i'm behind the vandalism - both of which aren't really on. Please stop. Purples 11:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Jonathan King, you will be blocked from editing. Trusilver 06:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Jonathan King, you will be blocked from editing. Do not arbitrarily take out reference to an article without comment. Trusilver 06:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merely removing the constant POV additions by Purples and others - unless Wikipedia should reflect opinions as well as fact, words like "disgraced" and "exposed" have no place in an encyclopedia. COMMENT and explanations for changes are always made. Oopsie Poopsie

Jonathan King

This is just a friendly word about a couple of things you need to get the hang of if you're to remain in good standing (ie. not blocked from editing). For starters, you need to be aware of WP:3RR:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Apart from specific instances mentioned at the linked policy page, you can't simply revert and revert if you don't like what's being done; and it can quickly lead to being blocked. Secondly, there was this edit[1]. This, to me, looked like a breach of WP:POINT:

If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked.

In other words, protesting what you see to be a bad edit by making a worse one is not good practice. This is not how we do things. Ok?

Right, that said, here's the standard welcome message. It provides a number of useful links for newcomers to the community. Enjoy.

Welcome!

Hello, Oopsie poopsie, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mark; very useful pointers. But you can see the frustration when you agree with Purples that it's fine to quote JON RONSON at length but not when I quote Carol Sarler and Matthew Norman. It makes me wonder why ONE viewpoint is acceptable and the other not? I'm not really interested in becoming a Wiki Editor and wouldn't even have gotten into this but the slant and bias on the King page were so blatant and so tabloid that I became incensed. I don't even like the guy but he had SO many hits and successes and TV shows and just because this most recent drama is such juicy stuff it shouldn't dominate a career view. your contributions

King

Nice work on the certificate. I don't suppose he has proof of being producer of the year for '71, '72 and '73, does he? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only ask though I don't want it to seem like an interrogation! Oopsie poopsie 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working together

Thank you for recent thoughful posts on the talk page of the Jonathan King article. File:Dainsyng.gif It's been a pleasure watching the article take shape as you and the other editors there began working together. Take care, FloNight 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]