User talk:CompScientist

November 2007
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.  Alex ' fus ' co5  18:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do fewer, more complete edits
Hi there.

Could you please try and make fewer, more complete edits? Rather than editing a statement again and again and again until you like it, please use the "preview" button to review your edit and then make any necessary changes before hitting "save page". Although you are of course welcome to correct any edits made, having so many edits done in a short time period can make it difficult to follow the page history. Thanks! --Hugzz (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. — CZmarlin (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your persistent 3RR vio. has been noted here. Please cease edits on the article and attempt to gain consensus through discussion, not pointless edit warring, as you have well overstepped the bounds of 3RR. There is already a consensus to keep the current status of the page, to which you have offered no discussion or comment to.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You have been blocked for 24 hours for your edit warring. That your edits are sourced does not exempt you from the prohibition of edit warring. In the future, you must seek consensus by discussing on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting. If this fails, pursue dispute resolution. If you wish to contest this block, you may write on your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
Please read WP:CONSENSUS, everything on Wikipedia must be backed by consensus among editors and keep in mind you have violated the three revert rule many times over, edit warring like this is counter productive. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * has briefly contributed to the discussion at Nissan GT-R regarding the terminology. Although a statement may be cited doesn't make it neutral or factually correct, such as what you made in this edit -- and other sources can contradict what you added in. Currently, editing at the page is restricted only to administrators, so it would be in your best interest to attempt to gain consensus through discussion, not edit warring or pointless bickering.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock cases
Suspected sock cases of. More in a short bit...  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/CompScientist for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs)

 You have been blocked for using sockpuppet IP accounts to make malicious reports to WP:AIV against other users. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing admins, compare this user's history and the IPs in the sock case first. Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing my talk page
In the future, please refrain from putting AfD notices on my talk page. It's considered vandalism. Consider this a warning. Do it again anywhere else and you will be blocked again. Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I reported that to WP:AIV so someone other than me takes whatever action is needed. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate.

Blocked You have been blocked for one week for harassing another user (namely myself) by placing phony deletion notices and sockpuppetry accusations on my talk page. To contest this block, add the text  on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Longer block
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. A checkuser has confirmed that you have been using IP accounts to evade the above block, and to continue the past pattern of disruption and harassment. As a result, I have extended your block to one month. If there is further sock puppetry, the block will be extended again, and I may propose a community ban. Should you wish your block to be shortened, you can post an unblock request, per the instructions on the block notice. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Requests for checkuser/Case/CompScientist, you have been found to have been engaging in further sock puppetry. Your blcok has been extended to one month from today. Jehochman  Talk 14:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. After coming out of a lengthy block, where you misappropriated much text and used sockpuppets, have you not learned anything? seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:Nissan GT-R has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks.  Two One Six Five Five  τʃ 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

After many prior blocks, including repeated sock puppetry, you have returned to edit warring at the same article, over the same issue. It appears that you choose not to work collaboratively with other editors. Until such time as you demonstrate a willingness to compromise and listen to other people, your account will remain blocked to protect Wikipedia from further disruptions. Jehochman Talk 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any other accounts that you are using? If you are unblocked, which articles would you like to edit? Will you stay away from articles where you have edit warred in the past? Jehochman Talk 04:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry
Compscientist has attempted to evade the block by using a sock puppet account: User:Spell123. IP User:71.156.63.61 is also a likely sock. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)