User talk:Roseindela

June 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mollusca. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A p3rson ‽ 01:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Rodhull andemu 20:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dmerkurev, once again I must take the time to council you. Can you not see that you are never—not now, nor are you ever—going to succeed in adding anything to the George Harrison article? I see now you are only playing a sad game. That is so dishonest, Dmerkurev. And you know we will always recognise you. Are you not ashamed?

Dmerkurev, you must go away.

Should you try to return, you know already what is waiting for you. You will simply be identified, and your edit reverted. Again. Are you not tired of that?

Dmerkurev, there is an alternate idea. You could consider creating a new blog on [1]. They have them set up so that you can place a shrine about the guitarist anyway you want. No one would bother you! I hope you consider doing that.

Other editors: Thanks for your diligence. Rodhullandemu, thank you for your wisdom. —Prhartcom 15:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to laugh at some of the comments!! Once again stop accusing me of being a stalker. Once and for all let me get this straight. I AM NOT INTERESTED AT PUTTING A SHRINE on GH or anyone else for that matter. Where you got that idea I don't know. I just wanted to add two award that GH received that should be on the page. That's all!!!!!!!! Apparently that's a problem for some people. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a neutral source where everyone should get the recognition they deserve. The editors are being meaner to me than I have ever been. I was told to discuss some changes on the edit board. I followed that direction. There was no response. Is this how everyone gets treated? First learn the lesson: expect to be treated how you treat others. Roseindela (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. if I may seem disrespectful in my tone, but I people don't seem to understand it any other way. I just wanted to post two award, not much change at all. I have legitimate sources. I NEVER POSTED anything without a source. I have posted it on the edit proposal page. None responded. No one, except for two editors, had trouble with it. I don't think the opinion of two editors should matter in an addition that may have a benefit to other wikipedia users. If it's not that important, then so what? There is a lot of information on wikipedia that people can live without. Maybe it's not important to one person, but another one may find it useful. Don't you think deleting everything that's added is a little disrespectful to the person who is trying to add something useful? It can be very frustrating. Roseindela (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When two other editors are removing your additions, it's for you to justify their inclusion on the article's Talk page not edit-war them back in. That's all. Rodhull andemu 20:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dmerkurev, as you did try to justify your edits on the article's talk page, and as no one responded there, I will state again for the record:

Your edits do not merit inclusion in the article as the information is not notable, the references you provide are not reliable, authoritative sources, and they certainly do not meet consensus. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are looking for encyclopedic information.
Your user account has been recognized as a known sock puppet that has performed disruptive editing, tries to game the system, and has been repeatedly banned from Wikipedia (certainly banned from this article).

—Prhartcom 21:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]