User talk:Weierstrass

Spam in Bonkersfest

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bonkersfest, by Joyous!, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bonkersfest is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bonkersfest, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Bonkersfest itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Number of the Beast. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mr R 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

The recent edit you made to User talk:Andrew c constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Poeloq (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Number of the Beast. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Poeloq (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Poeloq. Please could you explain why this edit is considered vandalism. It is not offtopic, nor is it nonsensical or defamatory. It adds information relevant to the article which is supported by sources. It is not mispelt, nor does it mangle English grammar or syntax. It has been written by someone who has read the whole of the article being edited, who is familiar with the subject at hand, but who has taken the time to seek independent, reliable confirmation. It would be a good thing for Wikipedia if every other one of its sentences lived up to this standard. Weierstrass (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be something to do with the fact you added controversial and dubious information that wasn't backed up by the sources.

Just a thought. --Mr R 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Poeloq. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Number of the Beast. 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. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please do not label other editors "idiots", as you did here. Due to the large number of warnings for a range of different sorts of infractions, I am moving to have you temporarily blocked. Please use this downtime to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so that your participation here can be more productive. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you specifcy which edit are you referring too as I have been making many eidts on wikipedia and almost always they are constructive or fixing of errors. Weierstrass (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, edit summaries like this, this, this, and this are examples of slightly unhelpful edit summaries. Neil probably put that notice as a general warning to keep edit summaries non-inflammatory. --clpo13_(talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Slightly unhelpful is a very polite way of putting it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neil. The first summary is extremely helpful as it summarises the difficulty in accurately translating the term the entry is about. It could be described as sarcastic. The second summary is very sarcastic, but still entirely appropriate to the edit, questioning several extremely dubious statements made in a context where potential libel is an issue. The third uses the word 'fuck' but is nonetheless helpful as it replies to the question in the previous edit summary regarding a difficult to track down formatting bug. I am prepared to acknowledge that the fourth edit summary represents an inappropriate venting of my feeling about people who use obscure words they do not understand in the place of simple words that they do. Weierstrass (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why this user is not blocked, with writing profanity on AfDs, raising disruptive AfDs, and a Talk page full warnings about vandalism. Seriously, if you're an admin and you haven't blocked a User like this, but User:Jimbo will block User:Allstarecho for a snippy remark, then nothing was learned from that "lesson" --David Shankbone 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Shankbone. My reference to the Gay Nigger Association of America cannot with good faith be described as a use of profanity on an AfD. This was an important case in Wikipedia history I mentioned it in this context. Weierstrass (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology (2nd nomination): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cirt I wish to answer you here as well as on the Afd where I have replaced my comment. My comment was in no way intended to be a personal attack. Being a channer is just a choice of webforum. It really wasn't meant as an attack. However, I thought that you were very reasonable in your response(s) to me AfD, then I was quite surprised by one particular conversation on your talk page which I took as meaning that you were conversing with other 4chan members on Wikipedia. I accept that I may have misinterpreted this conversation. Weierstrass (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology (2nd nomination)‎ , you will be blocked from editing. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cirt. You are censoring my comments on a discussion page and abusing anti-vandalism templates to do so Weierstrass (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments were made after an AfD was closed, and blatantly violate WP:NPA as they focus on a particular editor and have zero to do with the actual AfD, or the article. You have been warned multiple times. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

time to get a new account.

n/t

or maybe just wait one week

You have been blocked

Your edit summaries and other language are clearly unacceptable, and you've been warned or blocked for this several times previously. I don't see any reason to drag this out, nor to believe that you'd suddenly turn over a new leaf, so I've blocked this account from editing indefinitely. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]