Wikiteur
Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Wikitage) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Hatch68 19:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hatch68 is a disingenous editor and should have his editing priviliges revoked.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't so-called Deletionists a higher class of Wikipedia users (read: editors) that are bound to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia by only deleting articles based on genuine principles of fairness, etc.? I didn't think that just anyone can delete a page. Thus, if someone is able to delete an article, he is supposed to do so only to protect and serve the interests of Wikipedia and not to sabotage (wikitage) the article.
Remember, wikitage borrows from both its root words, i.e. it's not just about sabotage in a generic sense (which would include destruction or deletion as tools of sabotage). Instead, wikitage is defined by viewing sabotage through the principles of Wikipedia, which include the editability/wikibility of articles and fact that deletion powers are limited to the Wikipedia editors.
Note: one who wikitages is a wikiteur, not a "wikitager" (sic). If wikitage stands as an article, such confusion can be minimalized via Wikipedia. - Hide quoted text -
On 2/7/07, J. Alan Hatcher wrote:
I find your narrow interpretation of Wikitage to be insulting and exclusive. Deletion has long been part of the arsenal of a well-rounded Wikitager, and we Deletionists demand our place among the brotherhood.
On 2/7/07, wrote:
Precisely. Wikitage is strictly the malicious editing of an entry so that the article remains in a form that is not what was intended. The motive (spirit) is clearly not the suppression of true information, but rather the propagation of misinformation.
Editing an entry and deleting an entry are entirely separate actions. Deletion is not a subset of editing.
On 2/7/07, J. Alan Hatcher wrote:
So you're saying the speedy is not "in the spirit" of wikitage?
On 2/7/07, wrote:
Hey man,
Don't be such a hater on wikitage. It's not nonsense.
Could you please take off the speedy deletion tag? You won't lose any credibility (or sleep) over it!
Thanks.
According to WP:ENGVAR, British terminology can be used for articles on British subjects. There is no need to change it. ... discospinster talk 03:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
November 2008
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Quantum of Solace. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ... discospinster talk 03:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have made ZERO reverts. Wikiteur (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Quantum of Solace. ... discospinster talk 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- What a baby. Wikipedia editors have no sensibility.
- I have opened a discussion on the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. ... discospinster talk 03:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
editYou are blocked for disruption. When your block expires, please discuss your changes on the talk page of the article if you are serious about making the changes. —— nixeagle 04:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)