User talk:ATOTHEJPiano

ATOTHEJPiano (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

not an actual proposed building
A proposed building section is only for actual proposed buildings. The 2009 downtown master plan recommended that downtown Missoula try to attract a 150-175 room hotel, that has not happened yet, there is no proposed building. You put a floor count on a building that is nothing more than something the city was recommended to try and attract, making it pure fantasy. If you want a proposed building section find some real proposed buildings and put them in the section..Missoulianette (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To you this may seem like a "Fantasy", but I see this as a vision. I am sorry but as long as It is "proposed" in the future outlook I will continue to edit it back into the article.

ATOTHEJPiano (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you undo it again you will be edit warring and I will have to report you. Missoulianette (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you undo it again I will report you as well... It goes both ways.. Just leave it alone. It does not hurt you in anyway, and it is relevant. Period.

ATOTHEJPiano (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC) if people don't play by wikki rules it hurts all of us. You cant just add any old thing you want, there are rules. I am really only trying to help you with you editing don't be defensive. Now I recommend you undo your edit and take it to the talk page or I will have to report this.Missoulianette (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. QU TalkQu 21:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I realize there are rules. I stated sources, and it is not false information. If what I have stated as a vision is "false, and un-true" then hundred's of articles such as the Xseed 4000, or the Ultima tower should be deleted. They are based off vision's, and that is all I am trying to add to this article. ATOTHEJPiano (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

and by the way, you just fully threatened to block me, and if you did actual research you could see that edit blocking in retaliation against users is against Wikipedia guidlines... so in reality you should be the one blocked. You broke the rules, I did not.

look closer
That was not me that threatened to block you. I hadn't even reported you yet, your reverts were most likely noticed by an administrator Missoulianette (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

advice
If I were you I would change things back to the way they were. I was not the one that warned you about being blocked. I am also not the one that made the edit you just undid, check the edit history. You are messing with people much more in charge then I.

Just a friendly piece of advice and I don't know why, you have been a jerk. Missoulianette (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)