User talk:Anarchopedia

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! BD2412 T 04:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Physics
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Physics. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

EFF page
(I don't work for the EFF.) I'd hate for the EFF page to get to a WP:3RR violation. However, your reverts/edits aren't correct. I don't care so much about the blue ribbon, however the following things are incorrect (I can source all of this):


 * EFF defends legal threats that are without base, misdirected or factually incorrect. To just say "legal threats" is not correct.
 * EFF as a 501(c)(3) can only spend 10% of its efforts on lobbying, so that's not as big of a part of what they do. Plus, you can't "lobby" a court; you can write an amicus brief.
 * EFF doesn't support all new technologies... AOL's Goodmail and DRM are examples of new technologies which EFF has lobbied against.
 * I don't know what to say about the revert of the fair use as that is a stated goal of EFF and can't be seen as "self promotion". -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * EFF claims that they defends legal threats that are without base, misdirected or factually incorrect. Anarchopedia 01:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I could produce a mound of evidence that shows they defend against these types of threats. -- Joebeone (Talk) 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * then do present.Anarchopedia 01:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Physics
Stop vandalising this article with witten rubbish:


 * Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  SFC9394 11:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm simply quoting WIkipedia, if you don't like it, go change it. Anarchopedia 01:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your explanation makes no sense - this is wikipedia, you can't "quote" it. This is not going to continue indefinitely.  Over the period of the last 2 and a half months this piece of nonsense has been vandalised into the article numerous times - all vandalism has been perpetrated by new accounts.       being just a few examples of the vandalism.  On every occasion the content has been reverted by other editors (at least 9 separate established editors have reverted the content) on the basis that it is out of place or simply overt vandalism.  This article is on one of the fundamental sciences, and its quality is of high importance, it is not a place to have a laugh or play games.  This is an informal final warning - if you want to explain why the content that has consistently been rejected by every other editor should be in the article then post your reasoning on the physics talk page - until that happens and consensus is reached continual editing in of the rejected content will be taken as purposeful vandalism, and will likely end up with your account being blocked. SFC9394 11:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Windows Genuine Advantage
Stop editing this page so that every single statement relating to WGA that is not Microsoft official policy is reverted. You have done this a number of times and it is puerile and out of step with what Wikipedia stands for. Tzsch 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 01:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)