Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!
HagermanBot
23:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have read the back-and-forth discussions between you and some of the Wiki administrators regarding the Christian / Newson murders article. I agree with much of what you say. I am still horrified and shocked that this crime has (still to this day) not received the media attention that it warrants. I am wondering ... is there anything at all that the "average Joe" can do to change this situation? Please advise. Thanks. ( JosephASpadaro 04:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)) User talk:JosephASpadaro
Please do not add content without
citing
reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Shoessss
23:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Simplemines 23:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Simple, great work on the discussion page. Your contributions have brought some much needed rational, objective insight. The frustration of arguing with the internet mutants is very draining (and ultimately an exercise in futility), and I do need to get back to work so I can get some bucks together to land some pussy this weekend; but before I go, do you know how to report an admin for abuse of authority? -- Douglasfgrego 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I received your note on my Talk Page. Thanks. Yes, I will check out the page that you suggested. Thanks for the heads up. ( JosephASpadaro 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)) user talk:JosephASpadaro
You know that this sort of baiting and assumption of bad faith is not helpful, right? I understand you're frustrated with some of Wikipedia's 'limitations', but accusations of a cabal among administrators and other editors is far from the optimal way to achieve your goals. Please reconsider the acid wit, eh? -- nae' blis 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Shoessss talk
The above article has been temporarily protected due to edit warring. Wikipedia has a strict policy against edit warring, and more than three reverts in any 24 hour period is grounds for a block. Continued edit warring after the article is unlocked may result in further page protection or user blocks; nobody wins when that happens, so please take this time to continue participating on the article's talk page, and remember to keep your cool in all discussions. Thank you. Kafziel Talk 00:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Shoesss, you want comments on your editing? Well, candidly: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! And then there's AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Along with AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Hope this helps. :) Simplemines 10:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Simplemines 05:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thought you may want to read up on this.
The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring:
Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.
The rule applies per editor. The use of multiple accounts is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and reverts by multiple accounts are counted as reverts made by one editor. The rule otherwise applies to all editors individually.
The rule applies per page. For example, if an editor performs three reverts on each of two articles within 24 hours, that editor's six reversions do not constitute a violation of this rule, although it may well indicate that the editor is being disruptive.
The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an " electric fence". [1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Take care. Shoessss | Chat 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!
HagermanBot
23:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have read the back-and-forth discussions between you and some of the Wiki administrators regarding the Christian / Newson murders article. I agree with much of what you say. I am still horrified and shocked that this crime has (still to this day) not received the media attention that it warrants. I am wondering ... is there anything at all that the "average Joe" can do to change this situation? Please advise. Thanks. ( JosephASpadaro 04:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)) User talk:JosephASpadaro
Please do not add content without
citing
reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Shoessss
23:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Simplemines 23:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Simple, great work on the discussion page. Your contributions have brought some much needed rational, objective insight. The frustration of arguing with the internet mutants is very draining (and ultimately an exercise in futility), and I do need to get back to work so I can get some bucks together to land some pussy this weekend; but before I go, do you know how to report an admin for abuse of authority? -- Douglasfgrego 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I received your note on my Talk Page. Thanks. Yes, I will check out the page that you suggested. Thanks for the heads up. ( JosephASpadaro 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)) user talk:JosephASpadaro
You know that this sort of baiting and assumption of bad faith is not helpful, right? I understand you're frustrated with some of Wikipedia's 'limitations', but accusations of a cabal among administrators and other editors is far from the optimal way to achieve your goals. Please reconsider the acid wit, eh? -- nae' blis 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Shoessss talk
The above article has been temporarily protected due to edit warring. Wikipedia has a strict policy against edit warring, and more than three reverts in any 24 hour period is grounds for a block. Continued edit warring after the article is unlocked may result in further page protection or user blocks; nobody wins when that happens, so please take this time to continue participating on the article's talk page, and remember to keep your cool in all discussions. Thank you. Kafziel Talk 00:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Shoesss, you want comments on your editing? Well, candidly: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! And then there's AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Along with AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Hope this helps. :) Simplemines 10:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Simplemines 05:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thought you may want to read up on this.
The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring:
Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.
The rule applies per editor. The use of multiple accounts is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and reverts by multiple accounts are counted as reverts made by one editor. The rule otherwise applies to all editors individually.
The rule applies per page. For example, if an editor performs three reverts on each of two articles within 24 hours, that editor's six reversions do not constitute a violation of this rule, although it may well indicate that the editor is being disruptive.
The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an " electric fence". [1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Take care. Shoessss | Chat 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)