User talk:Petercrapsody69

A poor beginning

Perhaps, after insistently reinserting your photo at Fop, you will regain some sense of responsibility and make some positive contributions to Wikipedia. I certainly hope so. --Wetman 05:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, Wetman. However, I am making positive contributions to Wikipedia. What is your argument for a photograph illustrating a generic concept to be a negative contribution? If you would like to help out in improving the quality of the article, why don't you clean it up and cite some sources? The article's text needs far more attention than the instructive illustration I am providing. Please continue this discussion on the page's discussion page. This is a discussion that is intended to ultimately create a better article, so it should be on that article's discussion page. I'm sure you know the conversation we're having shouldn't be subtly critical of myself and confined to my own personal talk page. If you think about it, this discussion actually has very little to do with me. Petercrapsody69 05:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fop

Kindly do not keep inserting a photo of yourself into the article when it is against the decision of other editors. It is a blatant conflict of interest. If you carry on acting in this way, it is disruptive editing, which will lead to a block until you desist. Tyrenius 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I hope you will respond to the arguments described on the Talk:Fop page. Thank you.Petercrapsody69 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you edit for more than 5 days before you start lecturing others on the rules, as you see them, as you have misunderstood the way wikipedia works. These experienced editors know what they're talking about. See also WP:LAWYER and WP:POINT. Tyrenius 01:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing now for over five days, and reading the polices. Taken as a whole, it is very difficult to understand what to do, since there seems to be a policy to support any argument anyone would want to make. Someone had even cited a policy to me that said "there are no rules." What do you think about all of these conflicts? Petercrapsody69 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fop. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fop

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information of living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Fop2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Fop2.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR part 2

You have been reported here for breaking the three revert rule. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked 24 hours. 6 reverts in about 30 minutes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request. CambridgeBayWeather also had egregious number of politically motivated edits in same period. Petercrapsody69 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Fop revert war and Template:Unblock. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request reviewed and denied. In fact, I was coming here myself to make the same block. If you carry on edit warring and inserting material about yourself, you will receive a longer block. Tyrenius 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fop 3-rr, part III

Ok, so you've been blocked for revert-warring, I've read the thread on WP:AN yet here you go again, trying to paste the same badly-licensed, BLP-laden vanity picture into the same article as soon as your block expired. Please don't do that - Alison ☺ 09:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefblock

It's very obvious that your only purpose on this website is to add a photo of yourself to Fop. For this reason, I have blocked you indefinitely.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems the only solution. His presence has been very disruptive and no sign of such behaviour changing. Tyrenius 16:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]