User talk:Dinkydexy

Please do not add unsourced material to Wikipedia, or speculation (e.g. "Many observers have commented on her strange behaviour") as you did to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. If you continue, it will be considered vanadalism and you will be blocked from editing. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Adding material that is unsourced, or speculation, is not acceptable. Please acquaint yourself with the guidelines for editing, in particular the 3-revert rule. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am refraining from issuing a final warning, but if you repeat your unhelpful edits to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann I will do so and report you. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you should tell me:

i. Who you are, specifically what gives you the authority to issue warnings etc on Wikipedia.

ii. Which section of my edit you consider unacceptable (in breach of Wikipedia rules) and why. It's no use just to label a post as 'vandalism' without detail.

I assure you, every post I make on Wikipedia is in good faith; I resent the 'vandalism' tag.

Regards

the Dink.


 * I think you should learn more about Wikipedia before you make edits, especially ones that might be controversial. I have highlighted a couple of problems with your edit. The major one is the fact that your edits contradict the source that is attributed to that section.


 * Any user can issue a warning for vandalism. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll withdraw the part of my edit which states 'many observers have....etc etc'. The rest goes in.

1. In case you hadn't heard, both Gerry and Kate McCann have been made formal suspects in the case; it's quite appropriate to remove any first name refence to them ('Kate', 'Gerry'), and replace it with 'the suspect Kate McCann' or 'the suspect 'Gerry McCann'.

2. The distance from the Tapas bar to the McCann's apartment is, indeed, a round trip of over 200 metres, and in no way does my edit contradict the source as you claim.

3. You claim to be against speculation, but see fit to issue a warning when I delete a section of the article which is nothing more than media speculation ("...The nature of the Ocean Club may have contributed to the disappearance of Madeleine since, because its buildings are spread out across the village, anyone can wander in and out of the holiday areas)! You don't seriously think that speculation ceases to be such when it's sourced to a tabloid newspaper, do you?

Regards (again)

The Dink.


 * Only sourced, verified information can be included. The quoted article certainly does not say 200 metres. The headline is "In pictures, the 120 metre route to check on Madeleine". The word "suspect" is only a loose translation of "arguido". I would draw your attention to WP:BLP and to the talk page for the article where you will see a history of the discussion surrounding this article.


 * Please sign your post using 4 tildes (~). Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. 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.

Here are four substantially similar reversions within less than twenty-four hours:

Reversion four is a potential violation of WP:3RR.

As you are a comparatively new editor and may not be familiar with WP:3RR, I will refrain from submitting a report to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --Rrburke(talk) 19:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have carefully reviewed the rival edits and the original version, which has been accepted, by many editors still seems the best and your version is too provocative. At this stage the parent's account may be accurate. Unless they are convicted of an offence we have to treat their account and the police thesis even handedly. Please accept that you do not have a consensus for your edits. If you wish to pursue them then raise them on the article talk page and seek consensus. If you attempt to reinstate them without consensus then you will be blocked from editing. TerriersFan 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Cunt has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Cunt was changed by Dinkydexy (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.860722 on 2014-02-22T17:19:18+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)