User talk:Dgtsyb/Archives/2008/07

Desist Removing External Links and Vandalising Talk Pages
Please stop adding removing appropriate external links to SIGTRAN and Signaling_System_7. Please as previously requested by myself and other Wikipedia users stop vandalising my talk page with pseudo administrator messages (User_talk:Leedryburgh). You are very well aware the issue was discussed Talk:Signaling_System_7 and any more discussion should take place there. This is now the secondary cycle of vandalism, pseudo admin. messages and removing of external links. If the links were spam you would not be adding them to the References section. Anyhow please discuss at the appropriate place if need be Talk:Signaling_System_7 and refrain from removing them.


 * Could you both please just step back and take a big deep breath. The edit war is getting a little tiring and as someone who monitors the SS7 page its also distracting. Can you BOTH please take it to a discussion page and/or RFC it or something? Constantly taking a rapid escalation path and also in return resorting to insults doesnt help either of you. I'm adding the same comment to the SS7 discussion page..... Beardybloke (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Link spamming has been reported here. Dgtsyb (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another false claim like Suspected_sock_puppets/Leedryburgh. It's so ironic that claim since you added that link yourself to References! Leedryburgh (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The resolution to Suspected_sock_puppets/Leedryburgh was that it would be more properly handled as vandalism. Which which your edits are: WP:LINKSPAM, WP:COI, WP:NPA.  Please see Ludwig2's remarks on Talk:Signaling System 7.  Dgtsyb (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. In the interests of harmony, please disengage from your dispute with Leedryburgh. You're right about his conflict of interest, however there's no further need to plaster his page with warnings. Take a look at the essay, Don't template the regulars -- it makes some good points. At this point you should not remove his links again -- let someone else do this. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will disengage and leave matters in your hands. Dgtsyb (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't have to, but I encourage you to consider striking through the templated warnings you gave Leedryburgh. In the Wikipedia community, they can be pretty stigmatizing. (To do this, you bracket each paragraph with and ). -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Thank you for the suggestion.  Dgtsyb (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop reverting those link additions, even though they were inappropriately added. You just need to stay away from the issue of that link. If a link addition by some IP needs reversion and nobody takes care of it for a few hours, well then, so be it. If it goes a day or two unreverted, then leave a note on my talk page. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will stop, thank you. It surely looks like I wouldn't need to now anyway... — Dgtsyb (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for tendentious editing
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

I have repeatedly asked you to back off but I now see you going to admins complaining about the neutral editors trying to resolve your edit war with Leedryburgh:
 * Ludwigs2 at User talk:Beetstra
 * Beardybloke at User talk:Athaenara
 * You even insinuated this editor was a meat or sockpuppet of Leedryburgh

This has just got to stop. I am blocking you briefly and I hope you will try to work more collegially with other editors when your block expires. The exact location and nature of this link/external reference/whatever is not worth the aggravation your persistent tendentiousness on this subject is causing for other editors around here. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this block was fairly applied. — Dgtsyb (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)