User talk:Eminencefront

--Eminencefront (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)"Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers."

This is obviously intended for news or article additions, (see next line) how would a site about Max on his wiki page be of limited use?

"Many online newspapers require registration to access some or all of their content"

"A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference."

Now kindly back off, your agenda to monitor this page is highly dubious!

--Eminencefront (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have made 4 reverts and have violated policy. Article discussion really needs to stay on the discussion page of the article. Web site itself is the topic of the article -- the website is google, which is not the subject of the article, nor an inline reference. Please stop. Lawshoot! 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"the website is google, which is not the subject of the article"

The website is NOT about Google, it's a site hosted by Google about Max, it contains pertinent information about his career and is clearly

What should be linked Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

If you disagree, kindly report it to third party for a impartial opinion!

Warning
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. Lawshoot! 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eminencefront, following me around, templating me and reporting me to ANI, are all your prerogatives. This entire situation could be resolved if you would use the discussion page of the article, and read the policy that has been provided. This really should not have escalated to this point. There is no reason we cannot reach consensus on the article's talk page. You have been reverted by several editors, which although doesn't establish consensus, should let you know that you may need to slow down and listen to their advice. Thanks. Lawshoot! 03:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been using talk, you simply ignore my statements on why this is relevant, and your friends supporting your edits is simply CO kindly request this to third party and I will abide by the decision.

--Eminencefront (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. 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.

WP:3RR violation
Please note you were warned above about the WP:3RR rule, you have now reverted me with no discussion and are at 4RR. I have brought this up on the edit warring board. I would suggest as a show of good faith you revert you own last edit, and discuss this on the talk page and try and gain consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strike me comments, I'm too late. Dayewalker (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)