Nnoppinger

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Cleanup resources
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• Wikipedia:Five pillars

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

August 2006

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to George Felix Allen. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 00:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR allows for numerous reverts within a 24 hour period if the reverts are done to repair vandalism. Blanking of verifiable, referenced content without discussion on an article is vandalism. Thus, I am not "in danger of violating 3RR." · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The proper course of conduct if you believe the article does not conform to neutral point of view is to discuss it on the article's talk page or edit the text such that it will conform, not blank the allegedly offending content entirely. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; I would appreciate it if you would not threaten to ban other editors or bring arbitration cases against them if doing so is not appropriate under this policy. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you've chosen a reasonable course of action in regard to the George Allen article. I disagree with you that the section is not neutral as a whole (though perhaps it should be tweaked a bit), but tagging the section as you did is far more conducive to discussion than blanking it. I trust we can discuss this further at the article's talk page. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making inaccurate charges of vandalism and threats of blocking, particularly after a series of obvious violations of the three revert rule on George Felix Allen. Also, please realize that you lose any sort of creditbility when you violate rules on Wikipedia. Stirling Newberry 04:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)