User talk:Shearwater63

Moving the complaints the company generated under its old names to another article would constitute a content fork, so that's not going to be an appropriate move. The past names under which the company has done business belong in the intro. The fact that your company is trying to distance itself from the past problems doesn't really matter for our purposes; the complaints are still a part of the company's history and still belong in the article.

Also, as you're an employee of the company in question, please see WP:COI. Any further discussion on the article should take place on the article's talk page. -- Vary | Talk 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Vary stated above, please take your concerns to the article's talk page. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit count | edit summary usage

Editing concerns

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not blank large swaths of text without explanation. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 15:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Vary | Talk 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Justin Eiler (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Affinion Group. 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.

52 Pickup (deal) 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After your block has expired, if you want to work on this article, discuss it at the article talk page instead of going directly after the editors involved. Setting up an account just to edit a single article is also not recommended.

Block evasion

Reverting once again [1] and contacting me [2] while blocked via an anon IP address is not acceptable. You were informed above about the 3-revert rule prior to your breach, and now you have breached that rule again and evaded your block to do so.

For evading your block in this way, I should extend your block even further. But, since you are relatively new I will let that slide this time, but will not lift your block. Come back tomorrow.

When you come back, start discussion on the article talk page as I said earlier. For all disputes, particularly POV, that is the only place to start. Reverting, reverting and more reverting is not the way to do it.- 52 Pickup (deal) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]