Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Bruce. Please Wikipedia policy on reverts, the three revert rule, which prohbits more than three reverts in a single 24-hour period. You have now re-added the same content to Antichrist 7 times in 24 hours, through this account and IP 12.5.63.8. That content has been independently removed by at least five Wikipedia editors, one of whom has made several constructive suggestions, but which you have not accepted. Your account may be blocked if you continue; it could be blocked for your recent reverts. Please accept that personal essays like this-- no matter how sincere or well thought out-- do not belong on Wikipedia. Thank you. Kablammo19:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
(Note to other readers: I am one of the five reverters referred to above, and Bruce1333 asked me on my talk page for my reasons.)
I reverted your edits to Antichrist for the same reason that the previous reverter reverted them: they violated Wikipedia policies. It does not matter how true or important your edits are: if they violate fundamental policies such as WP:NOR and WP:V they have no place in Wikipedia. I would particularly point to the fact that your edits contain many assertions, without a single citation of a reliable source. Now, I have done you the courtesy of saying which policies you have violated. You claim (in your edit summary of your revert of my revert) that I have violated policy. Perhaps you would be good enough to say which ones? Philip Trueman20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Bruce: I believe you have placed your comments in the wrong page on the RFC page. (Like you, I have never participated in one of these before.) You should move your comments from where you placed them, down to the Response section, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bruce1333#Response.
Please understand that content cannot be written from a personal, first-person point of view, and must be sourced. While quotes from the Bible are appropriate for what they say, interpretations of them must be sourced to reliable third party sources. Look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style and Citing sources for more information. No one here is doubting your sincerity; we are just trying to comply with policies. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Regarding this edit:[1] Please reconsider this. Calling claims "false or ignorant" will not help your case; if you can provide reasons why you dispute the statements, by all means add them. But unsupported statements like this, in this type of language, will not help. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am just stating my case, you should maybe see what the word "ignorance"
means. It's not meant as personal at all, and you should not be taking it in such a way. Personally I hope they expand the wikidictionary so that it can properly be used to to make such statements. Go look up the word
"discussion" to see what it means. Unfortunately you can't cite Wiki
to do so, so go use merriam webster if need be.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Antichrist, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Master of PuppetsCare to share?05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bruce1333. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Master of PuppetsCare to share?06:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It's quite obvious that you are not here to constructively build an encyclopedia but are just here to push forward your point of view on a particular topic. As such, you have been blocked indefinitely until you realize what this website is for and what its WP:NOT.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I could really care less. If you let people like Master of Puppets run the show here, you won't have any objectivity at all. It's obvious to me that he is getting paid to do what he is doing here. Other people have jobs besides this one he doesn't have any. He clocks in and clocks out, just as if he were on a time clock. Who do you suppose pays him? I'll give you one guesss, and only one guess.
Wikipedia is being USED by people like Master of Puppets. If you think he is a singular entity, you are being USED too! Like I said, I'll give you
one guess by whom! I can see the handwriting on the wall, and it is very
obvious to me what is going on here. It's no conspiracy theory either,
it's a fact. I'll give you a hint, somebody just got finished suggesting
that consensus of the people be no longer tolerated. Why do you suppose that is? Connect the dots fellas, connect the dots.. ..I suggest you review my logs.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Antichrist, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
