User talk:Isotelus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 07:22, 29 June 2006

1. Hi Isotelus, and welcome! Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Rachel Marsden. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thanks! Wiederaufbau 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Hello again. Please stop blanking large portions of Rachel Marsden. It is considered vandalism. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wiederaufbau 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. If you disagree with the inclusion of some sections in the Rachel Marsden article and want them removed, take it up on the talk page and explain to the other contributors why they should not be included. Simply blanking material will lead to reversions and most likely treated as vandalism. Ianking 02:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wiederaufbau 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT vandalize the page. I believe the verson I revert to is by far the best. Today I nominated the page for deletion, so a real discussion could take place, as opposed to the bogus "Speedy keep" that was used to stifle debate March 4. The page with the reversion notice was deliberately reverted by Bucketsofg to hide the fact that the deletion isssue is not settled. Isotelus 15:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Isotelus' first, second, and third edits to Rachel Marsden. All blank large portions of content. Wiederaufbau 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The attempts at deletion from are more likely to be labelled "bogus" after two speedy-keeps in three days. A fourth edit today does the same thing -- in fact, it not only blanks verifiable information, introduces inaccuracies regarding Donnelly's settlement from SFU and the resolution. In addition, the article version that Iso/Mark/Ceraurus is reverting addresses the retractions and clarifications posted on the talk page (conviciton versus discharge; end of Grewal work). Between Isotelus and Ceraurus/, there's been at least four reversions in the past 4 hours. WP:3RR anyone? Ianking 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR March 7

I have reported the 3RR here, others may want to comment.

3RR violation at Rachel Marsden

Hi, you violated WP:3RR at Rachel Marsden. I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page instad of engiaging in pointless revert warring. —Ruud 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check user confirms 'Isotelus' = 'Ceraurus' = 'Mark Bourrie'

The 'Check User' search on Isotelus confirms here that (now Cerarus) is identical to Isotelus.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 . Hi Isotelus, and welcome! Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to [[:Rachel Marsden]]. It is considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. If you want to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Thanks! [[User:Wiederaufbau|Wiederaufbau]] 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
@@ Line 14: / Line 15: @@
 : See Isotelus' [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=prev&oldid=42262923 first], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=prev&oldid=42334734 second], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=prev&oldid=42565847 third] edits to [[Rachel Marsden]]. All blank large portions of content. [[User:Wiederaufbau|Wiederaufbau]] 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-::The attempts at deletion from are more likely to be labelled "bogus" after two speedy-keeps in three days. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=42717962&oldid=42710866 fourth edit] today does the same thing -- in fact, it not only blanks verifiable information, introduces inaccuracies regarding Donnelly's settlement from SFU and the resolution. In addition, the article version that Iso/Mark/Ceraurus is reverting addresses the retractions and clarifications posted on the talk page (conviciton versus discharge; end of Grewal work). Between Isotelus and Ceraurus/Mark Bourrie, there's been at least four reversions in the past 4 hours. [[WP:3RR]] anyone? [[User:Ianking|Ianking]] 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
+::The attempts at deletion from are more likely to be labelled "bogus" after two speedy-keeps in three days. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=42717962&oldid=42710866 fourth edit] today does the same thing -- in fact, it not only blanks verifiable information, introduces inaccuracies regarding Donnelly's settlement from SFU and the resolution. In addition, the article version that Iso/Mark/Ceraurus is reverting addresses the retractions and clarifications posted on the talk page (conviciton versus discharge; end of Grewal work). Between Isotelus and Ceraurus/, there's been at least four reversions in the past 4 hours. [[WP:3RR]] anyone? [[User:Ianking|Ianking]] 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 ==3RR March 7==
-I have reported the 3RR [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Isotelus here].
+I have reported the 3RR [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Isotelus here], others may want to comment.
+== 3RR violation at [[Rachel Marsden]] ==
+Hi, you violated [[WP:3RR]] at [[Rachel Marsden]]. I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page instad of engiaging in pointless revert warring. —''[[User:R._Koot|Ruud]]'' 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
+==check user confirms 'Isotelus' = 'Ceraurus' = 'Mark Bourrie' ==
+The 'Check User' search on Isotelus confirms [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Results here] that  (now Cerarus) is identical to Isotelus.