User talk:71.237.2.198

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, I'm going to give you a vandalism warning because I get the feeling that you will just keep deleting that image. You're going against consensus, this has been explained to you, so please back off or face the consequences.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see "Consensus" below.71.237.2.198 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please consider this a civility warning. You should really think twice about putting personal attacks in edit summaries,[1] because what's written in edit summaries and logs is basically written in stone - it will stick around to bite you.
As for your accusation that Duke is on an POV mission, I should tell you that he is not the only one to have brought this matter forward. Hence my use of the term "consensus". Check the talk page, check the article history, check the talk archives. You will find plenty of evidence. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I did infer that Duke53 was an idiot but that is fact not POV. You obviously have not read through his talk or discussion page.71.237.2.198 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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. Duke53 | Talk 12:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And I forgot this - my apologies:

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. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to patronize.71.237.2.198 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/Archive 8, you will be blocked for vandalism. --Jackaranga 11:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Duke53 | Talk 11:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

For those having difficulty seeing what the group consensus on this topic is, I've compiled a list for you. Remove the unnecessary pictures: Abeo Paliurus, 63.166.224.67, Pontificake, 4.154.53.242, Phefner, Bytebear, Zora, myself. Keep the clutter: pschemp, Duke53, Haikupoet, Eloil. Neural: Rodparkes That's 8 for removing them, 4 for keeping them. Please don't distort what you think the consensus is.71.237.2.198 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, first point is that consensus is not a vote. Secondly, you omitted me from your list (would that be a really obvious mistake, I wonder?) You've not come up with any argument for how these pictures are any more unnecessary than any other pictures on the page. Describing underwear without pictures would be very difficult indeed. Your position cannot be described as anything other than censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored.
We're quite familiar here with the persistence of Mormons in advancing their cause based on the last time that you tried. Your only edits here on Wikipedia have referred to this cause, so I'm afraid you have quite obviously revealed yourself to be a Mormon, no matter how much you wish to deny it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

It's a process where rational arguments are brought to the table, and the objective is to find a solution that is acceptable for everybody. Note that this is different from compromise, which implies that concessions were made. You may have missed the fact that the image you are trying to remove has actually been edited as part of a previous consensus-finding process. I'm sure you can see why there would be resistance to your side (your classification, not mine) pushing your point again. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)