User talk:92.12.169.253

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of HarveyCarter.
Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy subsection may also be helpful.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs
Warning Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

[edit] June 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James Stewart (actor). 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 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. ~~ [Jam][talk] 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] June 2008

I have started a new thread on the Talk page, with my opinion on the matters in dispute. "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war", as they say. --Rodhullandemu 16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption and persistent edit-warring. I gave you a chance to negotiate. You should have taken it. As of now, my WP:AGF of you is zero.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Rodhullandemu 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly unjustified, all I have been doing is adding referenced, factual material to James Stewart's article and I don't know who this "Harvey Carter" is. Please tell IP42 to get a life, or a job ... or perferably both. (92.12.169.253 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Persistently reverting other's reversions of you using provocative edit summaries showing only that you WILL have your way is not constructive. Explaining on the articles talk page, as I invited you to do, is constructive. But you chose not to do that. The essence of editing here is cooperation, not unilateralism. I suggest you invite another Admin to unblock you. --Rodhullandemu 17:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I was taking a bath at the time, which is why I couldn't discuss it on the talk page. I'm glad you agree that everything I had added to the article was indeed relevant.

I did not, if you read my comments carefully. And yet, when you came back from your bath, and saw the "new messages" banner, you still didn't avail yourself of the opportunity to negotitate. If you still think you should be unblocked, as I say, please use the {{unblock}} template. --Rodhullandemu 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were you I would put back the reference to Nixon and Reagan with the NYT source, and remove the pointless "Jimmy" line in the intro. It is not worth mentioning since James Cagney and James Dean are also widely known as "Jimmy", proving that it is not something unique to Stewart. (92.12.169.253 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC))