I don't see any violation of the 3RR, and if you did I'm not the WP:AN3 board where you would actually get something done about it. I don't consider them meatpuppets and I feel that your really stretching your claims here. MrMacMan Talk 02:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
d to do some looking, in this case, to locate your new messages and only found
You suggested that the demand by one editor of another (for funds, in the amount of $10,000.00, to be placed in an escrow account as a precondition for the former filing for mediation) was most likely not serious and that it was probably made "in the heat of the moment". While that speculation might seem plausible to someone who is not familiar with the situation, it is flatly contradicted by what Akliman Akliman ( talk · contribs) wrote on his own user talk page and on the talk pages of J.smith J.smith ( talk · contribs) and MrMacMan MrMacMan ( talk · contribs). In all cases, he defended what he wrote. In blanking the offending paragraph, he was unrepentant and said that he was "compelled" to do so "under threat" of blocking. This is clearly not an acceptable resolution of the issue. Watchdog07 14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not a guideline or a policy. It has no bearing whatsoever and only reflects the opinions of those who have written it. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
To J.smith J.smith ( talk · contribs) : You suggested that I write another RFC. Yet, we have just seen Andrew Kliman repeatedly delete the RFCs which I have authored. What makes you think that, given his past history and an apparant unwillingness by yourself to confront him about that slap in the face of the entire Wikipedia community, that he wouldn't delete another RFC if I were to write one? If someone can get away with deleting the RFCs of other editors then that undermines the entire dispute resolution process at Wikipedia and thereby threatens the integrity of the overall project. Watchdog07 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 13:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
You have actually performed four reverts in less than 24 hours to an earlier version of Temporal single-system interpretation, which is a blockable violation of the rule. Since you are a fairly new user, I am merely warning you, but please review the 3RR to avoid breaking it again. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Hi. Two things: I don't know if you saw my reply to you at ANI. [1] [2] Do you know how to produce the diffs everybody's asking for? Would you like a short explanation? And secondly: you might find it useful to enable your wiki e-mail. You'd do that through your preferences (top right on the screen). It would enable people to e-mail you, but not to see or harvest your address. It's also a precondition for you to be able to e-mail others by using the link "E-mail this user" in the left sidebar. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
You have placed {{NPOV-section}} and {{hoax}} tags on the subject article. As a new editor, you may not be aware of the groundrules for this. However, if you read the text of the hoax tag you placed on the article, you will note that it says:
Similarly, for the NPOV tag the following instruction appears:
Perhaps I've missed something, but I see no such justification on the article talk page, Please provide your rationale. In the meantime, I am removing the tags. Sunray 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07
12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, posting a private email in a public forum is unethical... but thats not what you really want to know, is it? --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Watchdog07,
Please see my reply to user:sunray's query about translations of articles from other language Wikipedias, which I posted on his talk page. Comments are welcome and I have suggested to Sunray that these are posted on his talk page - he may have another proposal. I am endeavouring to contact other active editors who might be interested in these proposals and would welcome your suggestions on who these could be. I intend to post this identical message on the user talk pages of andrew-the-k, Haemo, Watchdog07, and M.Posner
Alan XAX Freeman
08:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Alan XAX Freeman 17:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog, I replied to Kliman on the Paul Bairoch talk page in preparation for possible arbitration. User:Jurriaan 23:00 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My dear Watchdog07,
Bon Voyage! andrew-the-k 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Do not post anything or remove anything from my user talk page. Please cease your harassment. Watchdog07 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 12:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Watchdog07 12:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Watchdog07 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I like your idea of going through the article paragraph by paragraph. However we need to discuss the reason for any tag. I will leave the neutrality tag on the article if you agree to either put forward your rationale or point to a rationale previously given (with a link). Sunray 05:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Project has not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. Jame § ugrono 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I was using an automated program made to revert vandalism: I saw that a paragraph of referenced information was replaced by a sentence, and that the user who did that had previously been reverted. If the change had been agreed upon, by all means, revert to the short version (that I thought was vandalism, sorry). · AndonicO Hail! 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any violation of the 3RR, and if you did I'm not the WP:AN3 board where you would actually get something done about it. I don't consider them meatpuppets and I feel that your really stretching your claims here. MrMacMan Talk 02:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
d to do some looking, in this case, to locate your new messages and only found
You suggested that the demand by one editor of another (for funds, in the amount of $10,000.00, to be placed in an escrow account as a precondition for the former filing for mediation) was most likely not serious and that it was probably made "in the heat of the moment". While that speculation might seem plausible to someone who is not familiar with the situation, it is flatly contradicted by what Akliman Akliman ( talk · contribs) wrote on his own user talk page and on the talk pages of J.smith J.smith ( talk · contribs) and MrMacMan MrMacMan ( talk · contribs). In all cases, he defended what he wrote. In blanking the offending paragraph, he was unrepentant and said that he was "compelled" to do so "under threat" of blocking. This is clearly not an acceptable resolution of the issue. Watchdog07 14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not a guideline or a policy. It has no bearing whatsoever and only reflects the opinions of those who have written it. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
To J.smith J.smith ( talk · contribs) : You suggested that I write another RFC. Yet, we have just seen Andrew Kliman repeatedly delete the RFCs which I have authored. What makes you think that, given his past history and an apparant unwillingness by yourself to confront him about that slap in the face of the entire Wikipedia community, that he wouldn't delete another RFC if I were to write one? If someone can get away with deleting the RFCs of other editors then that undermines the entire dispute resolution process at Wikipedia and thereby threatens the integrity of the overall project. Watchdog07 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 13:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
You have actually performed four reverts in less than 24 hours to an earlier version of Temporal single-system interpretation, which is a blockable violation of the rule. Since you are a fairly new user, I am merely warning you, but please review the 3RR to avoid breaking it again. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Hi. Two things: I don't know if you saw my reply to you at ANI. [1] [2] Do you know how to produce the diffs everybody's asking for? Would you like a short explanation? And secondly: you might find it useful to enable your wiki e-mail. You'd do that through your preferences (top right on the screen). It would enable people to e-mail you, but not to see or harvest your address. It's also a precondition for you to be able to e-mail others by using the link "E-mail this user" in the left sidebar. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
You have placed {{NPOV-section}} and {{hoax}} tags on the subject article. As a new editor, you may not be aware of the groundrules for this. However, if you read the text of the hoax tag you placed on the article, you will note that it says:
Similarly, for the NPOV tag the following instruction appears:
Perhaps I've missed something, but I see no such justification on the article talk page, Please provide your rationale. In the meantime, I am removing the tags. Sunray 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07
12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, posting a private email in a public forum is unethical... but thats not what you really want to know, is it? --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Watchdog07,
Please see my reply to user:sunray's query about translations of articles from other language Wikipedias, which I posted on his talk page. Comments are welcome and I have suggested to Sunray that these are posted on his talk page - he may have another proposal. I am endeavouring to contact other active editors who might be interested in these proposals and would welcome your suggestions on who these could be. I intend to post this identical message on the user talk pages of andrew-the-k, Haemo, Watchdog07, and M.Posner
Alan XAX Freeman
08:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Alan XAX Freeman 17:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog, I replied to Kliman on the Paul Bairoch talk page in preparation for possible arbitration. User:Jurriaan 23:00 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My dear Watchdog07,
Bon Voyage! andrew-the-k 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Do not post anything or remove anything from my user talk page. Please cease your harassment. Watchdog07 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Watchdog07 12:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Watchdog07 12:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Watchdog07 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I like your idea of going through the article paragraph by paragraph. However we need to discuss the reason for any tag. I will leave the neutrality tag on the article if you agree to either put forward your rationale or point to a rationale previously given (with a link). Sunray 05:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Project has not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. Jame § ugrono 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I was using an automated program made to revert vandalism: I saw that a paragraph of referenced information was replaced by a sentence, and that the user who did that had previously been reverted. If the change had been agreed upon, by all means, revert to the short version (that I thought was vandalism, sorry). · AndonicO Hail! 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)