User talk:Cityzen451

July 2009
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your message
Huh? I never called your edits vandalism nor did I revert you edit. What are you talking about? Abce2 | Free Lemonade  Only 25 cents!(Sign here)  16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's okay
We all make mistakes. One time I all most got blocked by a anti vsndal system. Abce2 | Free Lemonade  Only 25 cents!(Sign here)  16:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re arbitration
Just spotted via the Dyslexia discussions. I don't recommend you ask for arbitration at this stage. Check out the scale at Dispute resolution: arbitration is a nuclear option that you shouldn't take unless you've exhausted other lower-key possibilities, such as Request for Comment. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Looking at this further, another problem is that you appear to have a conflict of interest, which means you shouldn't the one making the call for inclusion of this book. That's not to say these editors are right, but the advised procedure is to step back, get wider input, and let others make the decision. I'm posting a note to WP:COIN. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope just used the companies domain as my username, my usernames is the same one used on the website agreed, I created a hotmail account using the domain name

Thank you for your input

--Cityzen451 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can tell you right now, as somebody who's been turned down on a few arbitration cases, that this will not succeed. For "evidence of earlier dispute resolution steps", you only give two talkpage links. No evidence of RFCs, Mediation, third opinions... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Cityzen451: There is no problem if the arbitration is rejected then it is rejected. Nothing to lose
 * What is lost is everyone else's time in dealing with a request that hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I thing this is all a little unfair and having read the article on disputes the is no obligation to RCF, mediation or other options if it is gross misconduct, you do not delete the a users contributions, especially under the circumstances, without discussion or approaching a third party, it is just clearly unacceptable. Consider that this is wasting my time as well.

--Cityzen451 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lists of external links to software
We specifically do not allow large lists of links to software such as the one you restored to Mouse gesture. See links normally to be avoided #14 and Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files for more details. - MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mouse gesture/MrOllie
Looking at the links that you restored to Mouse gesture, it does seem unnecessary. Although I wouldn't agree that they were "promotional", it seems too much for any article. By looking at MrOllie's talk page, you should be able to see his long history of reverting other user's contributions. If you need anything, just message me. Cya around! PS: Your edits keep showing up on my Huggle feed, that's how I came to know of this disagreement. Netalarm 14:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

They are to classes code base that are used in computer science, and these are common in computer software based articles, all depends on the context of the article. I've lost patience with the whole thing now and I bored of it, no point contributing when faced with this, that speaks a lot for the Wiki experience. The best way to have proceded would have been to mention it to the editors and have it pruned or left it alone, tweaking is the right of any contributor, but to delete whole rafts of works is just unproductive. If anything to have deleted the offending references he was so upset about.

The real issue is having the content of my work deleted not the links, they were restored because they all should not have been deleted, only pruned, a pruning which yes should include some of the links I added, but hey ho this is apparently the acceptable way to proceed. Thanks for commenting.

Oh and what's a Huggle feed?

--Cityzen451 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:HG should explain what Huggle is. --  At am a chat 18:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed edit
Re: your question here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=300806008

The log shows that the disputed edit was made from your username, at the listed time.

Please note that a record of all of the contributions made under your username can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cityzen451

Regards, --67.183.232.99 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

why post this anoymously, and no I did not make that contribution to the conflict of interest article. Cityzen451 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You did make that edit. The only other way that edit could have been made is if someone hacked into your account and did it. One of the features of Wikipedia is that everything you do is logged, that's why people are allowed to blank their talk pages to try to hide previous warnings; it won't do them any good because anyone curious can just look at the history. That edit to the COI report was made by someone who was logged in as yourself. Just a warning, if you do want to claim that your account was hacked into, administrators might be prone to block your account permanently to prevent further abuse from a compromised account, so be careful before making those claims unless you know for a fact that you didn't do it yourself. --  At am a chat 20:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Look i realise the gravity of what i am saying, and I really do appreciate the consequences of that. But I didnt do it. I do have a degree in computer science and do understand the mechanics of what I concluding. I have actually considered that I was losing my marbles, YES. As for the account being blocked it essecially is! read the diff comments below. This has all stemed from my misguided attempt to add a further reading section to the dyslexia article, with a bad reference, my mistake, YES, I am now realising the error. What is the problem has been overly officious and over zealous editors, deleting my contribution, all my contributions and refusing to discuss it, show me how to get involved and letting me tread water. I could have initiated a lower form of dispute, but considering that I have all my contributions deleted, they would always be deleted and having looked at MrOllie's talk page this seems to be what he does, it is not just my interests, I am thinking of all the contributors work he has destroyed. He has a history of not lsitening to people because he has a perspective of how the guidelines should be interpreted, and is going through articles without any consideration, not just my own. Im not worried about losing my account because as everyone is making clear your edits will be followed and summerily deleted, it is gone

The latest "Comment" I recieved clearly shows that this is what has and will happen, you are not welcome, we'll block you, you'll soon not want to bother... read it yourself. I dont even see why some of the contributors even pretend to be following the rules and best practice when there is this kind of illogical behaviour

Oh and looking at my spelling you've prolly guessed why I have an interest in dyslexia. can we just drop this now and leave me alone, I can see you are concerned but I can clearly see Im banging my head against a wall, im really just going through the motions, as is the aim, Im losing interest rapidly. I appreciate your concerns

Cityzen451 (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WLU&diff=prev&oldid=300854476

Just a bit of fun..... Err? Close the account because it has been compromised:/ What did someone drill a hole in it... crack the outer seal?? it's not a Safe box... come on...

Would they actually close an account that had been compromised? Would seem a little odd wouldnt it, considering how accounts actually work

Cityzen451 (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's actually very common. The first time I saw it happen I was taken aback, but then I realized the logic behind it. Usually it's in cases where a person is accused of vandalism, and their defense was that they walked away from the computer while still logged in and their "brother" or "friend" made the edit. The response in those cases is usually to block the account because it is compromised, and to allow the person to create a whole new one with a different name. Another reason for such blocks is that shared accounts are not allowed, there is a very strict rule of one account per person, and if it's suspected that an account is being used by more than one person it can be deleted as well (so be careful to not refer to yourself as "we"). By the way, that might not be a terrible idea in your case, to request a name change if your current account name is causing you such difficulty. Just a thought. And I'm not unsympathetic to your frustrations at seeing your edits reverted, but if the person doing so can defend those reverts with policies and guidelines there's not much you can do about it. Hopefully my comments at the COI noticeboard will help, to basically ask everyone to just drop the matter since you're accepting the removal of the references. People do make mistakes and the mistakes you've made aren't terribly awful, and I don't think you're even near the risk of being blocked or banned just because of the edits you've been making, for what it's worth. --  At am a chat 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:DoingGesture3.jpg


The file File:DoingGesture3.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned personal image, no foreseeable use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)