User talk:CorleoneSerpicoMontana/Archive 2

Vandalism
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Woodym555 13:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User:UBX/VAW, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. -- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 14:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User:UBX/SupportViolenceAgainstWomen, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. -- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 14:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
Seen a bit of creative vandalism. Cut it out. Londo06 14:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

August 19
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Jeepday (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Polite Behaviour
Don't do things like this. It only makes things worse, not better. Wily D 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if something needs serious attention, a stack of "dispute" boxes like that is not a civil way to go about it. The page is somewhat undercited, but has the advantage of being by-and-large true.  So "serious attention compared to what?"  Why?  Uncompelling prose?  A little light on citations?  Poor subject organisation?  If there's something that needs attention attend to it, but the page isn't "broken" and dumping tags on it is only provocative, not productive. Wily D  21:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've added your little summary to WilyD's talkpage. For the record I am England rugby league fans and Grant is Australian and Aussie rules fan. Neither of are American nor interested in American football so the accusation of POV viewpushing of American football over Aussie rules and rugby league (among others) is rather odd.

You made a rather nasty accusation of racism as well. Unfounded I might add. Nobody said that Indians don't speak English, I said that arguing that India is an English speaking country just like the USA is extremely dubious. The vast majority of Indians have Hindi or another Indian language as their first language, very few are native speakers of English.GordyB 22:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that like me you are a member of the rugby league project. If you read Soprani's arguments closely you will see that rather merely arguing that football<>American football, he is in fact POV pushing that football=soccer. He also seems to have objections about the number of mentions that other sports get.GordyB 23:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the issues - the short of it is that although it's easy to work out how the use of the word breaks down among native speakers, it's not clear how to do it among total speakers, because a) it's unclear how many people in China speak English, and b) it's unclear whether they say soccer or football (or whatever) for soccer. There's a tag page, use it.  There's a policy on how we figure out what to include or not include, use that too. Wily D  01:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)