Bacteriophage
Welcome!
Hello, Bacteriophage, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ~ UBeR (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
December 2007 edit
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Global warming. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
3RR edit
You have broken 3RR on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change so I suggest you cool it for a while. Brusegadi (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Your latest edit[1] on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change broke 3RR (after a warning had been submitted to you), since it is a partial revert of this [2] - may i suggest that you self-revert - so that you do not get blocked? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Sock blocked edit
It was fun for a while, but bye-bye William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- pardon me, but where are the sock reports? i see none. Anastrophe (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who said they were necessary? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- you're contending that either this user is a sockpuppet (of whom?) or this user is employing sock puppets (who are they?). either way, it's a serious charge, and it's inappropriate to make either claim without a transparent process. otherwise, how are we to know you're not simply blocking the user due to parti pris? i wasn't aware admins could just block users without following process. Anastrophe (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear. You need to read the sekret kabal manual, page xiii William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hilarious! Brusegadi (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- that's cute. unfortunately, it's dismissive and uncivil. i'm asking in good faith. i was under the impression that there was an actual process involved in blocking users. if i'm mistaken, a civil redirect to where this is explained would be appreciated. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, I'll go ahead and file the RFCU if you insist. But it's obvious that we're dealing with yes another incarnation of User:Obedium. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear. You need to read the sekret kabal manual, page xiii William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- you're contending that either this user is a sockpuppet (of whom?) or this user is employing sock puppets (who are they?). either way, it's a serious charge, and it's inappropriate to make either claim without a transparent process. otherwise, how are we to know you're not simply blocking the user due to parti pris? i wasn't aware admins could just block users without following process. Anastrophe (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- thank you. what may be obvious to those in the thick of a dispute may not be obvious to casual observers. i still believe some sort of formal statement of the rationale and basis is appropriate when blocking a user, rather than simply tossing out sarcasm and colloquialisms, which hardly seems "adminly". Anastrophe (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Having been bounced on checkuser requests a few times with "stop wasting our time and fix it yourself" I'd agree the practice is to block obvious socks. However I am not keen on educating obvious socks on avoiding detection.. WP:BEANS comes to mind. Single purpose accounts which arrive displaying advanced knowledge of WP policy and detailed knowledge of an article history, and try to do the same things as before though are pretty clear. --BozMo talk 22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Judge. Jury. Executioner. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Its an obvious sock, and it has already reincarnated. This one is not trying to avoid detection, it just wants to be annoying. Brusegadi (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)