User talk:Wartortle28

Welcome!

Hello, Wartortle28, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! treelo _radda 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Saint-Laurent-les-Églises 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. Alansohn (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YO wtf I rewrote the sentence and you give me a vandalism warning Wartortle28 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to User talk:Alansohn constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. TopGearFreak 18:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOUR PROBLEMS? Yes I know capitalization counts as shouting, but I am shouting. NEITHER of those were vandalism, if either of you actually read the edit before reverting it to try to assert your authority over me, you would realize that. Wartortle28 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't shout at other users. Ask them nicely and they will help you. Versus22_talk 18:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously these nice men won't respond when I ask nicely, instead choosing to revert my talk page edit and give me another warning. And yes I already addressed that, I meant to shout. Wartortle28 (talk)

You mightn't have meant it, but in the first edit you were warned about you changed 'census' to 'consensus'. I'm not saying it was vandalism, but vandals often rework sentences to make them nonsensical. One way to give your edits a better chance of being left as they are is to provide an informative edit summary. TopGearFreak 18:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah see ty man for responding I appreciate that, and for pointing it out, even re-reading it on Alan's page I didn't notice I changed "census" to "consensus," my bad bro. Wartortle28 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Nigger (disambiguation). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly haven't learned to read an edit before reverting and calling the editor a vandal, huh? Wartortle28 (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's like, because I'm new, and because my name is red, you're just reverting my edits and calling me a vandal. Please assume good faith. Wartortle28 (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing; who says we're not girls? (friendly reminder, nothing bad intended) TopGearFreak 19:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned how to read. And I hope you can understand my tremendous wariness at an edit that changes the word "census" to "consensus' in a sentence that needed no changes and in disambiguating the country "Niger" as being a reasonable misspelling of "Nigger". Alansohn (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained that the first one was a mistake on my part. I had used my spell checker because I misspelled the word. The reason it took a direct comment about it from TopGear is simple, haven't you heard that humans recognize words based on the first and last letter? Don't try to change this around. You obviously didn't read my edit to the disambig page of Nigger, and reverted the edit while assuming bad faith without even reading it, because the time of your revert was literally 10 seconds after the time of that initial edit. Even if you did read it, you'd still be assuming bad faith in trying to give me another warning (obsessive much?) when it is completely reasonable to assume I added the country "niger" to the see also in good faith. Wartortle28 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop using patronising terms towards Alansohn, it's no good saying "assume good faith" when you don't seem willing to assume good faith towards Alansohn as I don't think he has any agenda against you specifically. The Niger/nigger edit I think was inappropriate because whilst some might misspell Niger by adding one too many g's it doesn't mean every misspelling which makes a word into another word should be on their disambig pages. I can see why you would but I wouldn't say it was the right thing. To me you've been uncivil completely and assumed as much bad faith as you say others have who've reverted you. Your recent edit to Talk:Jimmy Wales [1] seems a bit ironic given you told Alansohn to learn how to read and also got my sockpuppet senses tingling. Your violations of WP:BATTLE don't really make me feel you're that new at all also. treelo _radda 21:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You've been uncivil and have assumed as much bad faith as those who reverted you" No, I was only upset because this guy gave me two warnings when I had no intention of vandalizing. And about the "niger/nigger" thing, okay, I can agree with you, but is there any reason to give me a warning? It was like the 7th dang page I ever edited. I don't know what a sockpuppet is supposed to be. And yes I am new, what is with these random accusations? Wartortle28 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you're upset about this then you might be in the wrong place but eitherway cool down, it's as if you were a prolific vandal! When you get warnings about vandalism, it doesn't always mean you vandalised and could have been just editing a little blindly and made bad edits. I'd be annoyed if I was slapped with three warnings in rapid succession but they didn't all come from one person so it's most likely not them who's at fault. I'm figuring you're a sockpuppet as it just seems a little odd you'd find yourself using talkback templates and asking really odd questions on Jimbo Wales' page about his notability, not usually the sort of thing someone just getting to know the place do on their first few days editing. I'm not stating "oh you're definitely a sock" but rather being a bit cautious about something which seems a bit off. Anyway, cool down, don't let this sort of stuff get to you and just keep editing. treelo _radda 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wartortle28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to contribute to the encyclopedia Wartortle28 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Tough. You shouldn't have made about a hundred vandal page moves then— Jac16888 ^Talk 20:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.