User talk:RSimione

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, RSimione!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 16:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. DGX 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Han Solo connection

Hi, there's no verifiable connection between the Star Wars character Han Solo and the Hanso Foundation. I believe that's the response I made on the talk page. Thanks, -LeflymanTalk 18:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Labriola

I removed this name from the pimp article, as Wikipedia has no article about him. If he really is a well-known and documented pimp, feel free to write an article about him and re-add his name to the list. You might want to read over this page first, though. Joyous! | Talk 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism 2

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Islam in the United States, you will be blocked from editing. NapoleansSword 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (please stop)

I see no evidence of vandalism. Please refrain from the use of the term "vandalism" unless actual vandalism has taken place. Remember to assume good faith! Padishah5000 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Lets see. First on July 1, the user removed a sourced statement abruptly saying "inflammatory statement from unreliable source". It was clearly sourced from fox news and pew research center. This by itself constitutes vandalism but I didnt give him any warning assuming "good faith". After that he started pushing his pov in the same sentence although it was reverted by other editors. This was done without any discussion on talk page. I had put in a direct quote from a reliable source and discussed this on the talk. however the user just went ahead and reverted it without replying to me or asking for consensus. In fact, he vandalized more than once and was given only one warning by me. NapoleansSword 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't call putting an unexplained vandalism tag as "good faith." How about by assuming good faith I didn't put the same tag on your user talk page for repeatedly deleting constructive edits to the article. RSimione 04:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. I had put in the particular statement that you seem to have issues with (which by the way is fine). My statement was well sourced with reliable sources. You just suddenly walked in and deleted the sourced statement saying "inflammatory statement from unreliable source" without any discussion. This is considered vandalism. By doing this you did violate the good faith. Such a deletion of a sourced statement is not considered to be a constructive edit. hence i was forced to revert your edit. Then you added something else to push your pov which was reverted by other editors. I then added a direct quote from the article to take care of the issue of interpretation and leave it to readers judgement which you reverted again. All this time you didnt discuss on the talk page. So please decide who is vandalizing...me or you. Again now, I observed that you are pushing for your graph when clearly there is no consensus on the talk page. I do feel that you deserve another warning for this, but i am leaving it in good faith. Hope you understand and work as a team in improving the article.


[edit] Three revert rule

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. SefringleTalk 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The three reverts had to do with different incidents. RSimione 02:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't understand the policy. It is three reverts to the same article.--SefringleTalk 03:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for violating the three-revert rule on Islam in the United States. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "First reason is that there were only 3 reverts. Anything else was an addition to the article. Second reason is that the matter has been moved to the article's talk page"

Decline reason: "3RR does not guarantee you three reverts. — Yamla 13:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I might have come to that same conclusion as well, but you acknowledged (in the post date 02:56, July 3, in this section) that you had made three reverts prior to the latest revert. -- tariqabjotu 04:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Away

I won't be able to reply to anything for a week. Take care! RSimione 12:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fashionable Nonsense

I noticed your name on the Sokal talk page. I'd be interested in your thoughts. MarkAnthonyBoyle 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)