User talk:Eye of God

Con High
Thanks for your work there. We need to develop the article in collaboration with each other. For that reason, things are often raised on an article talk page before editing, especially if they're likely to be controversial. Also, please note that the tone of the article should be reasonably detached and formal, and that verification of many of the claims is required. Please ask me if you have any questions. Could I add that it's not done to revert multiple times. Disagreements should be nutted out if possible, again, on the talk page. PS You can avoid the red name in your signature if you type in and save something—anything—on your user page (overleaf). Tony  (talk)  12:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Conservatorium High School. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Stop adding your wording to the Con's article. You don't need to say what something isn't in order to say what it is. To illustrate, you don't need to say that the Con isn't a chicken, because it isn't. I've reworded what you have tried to say in a better way, if you don't like it, reword it again, but stop reverting.


 * Furthermore, on wikipedia, we don't reference wikipedia!  &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Danjel said. Again, if you have questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Often, an edit is best placed on the talk page for comment first. Tony   (talk)  01:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the above suggestions, at this point one assumes you have an agenda contrary to WP:NPOV. Edit warring and not using a valid source, this is not likely to end the way you hope.... JNW (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We're giving you a little leeway here because you're new, and you seem like you're possibly genuinely interested in improving the article. But you have to follow the policies and guidelines that we use here at wikipedia and follow our advice... Please don't abuse this assumption of good faith.  &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Final warning
This is starting to get ridiculous. The edits that you are insisting on are borderline vandalism. Stop edit warring on the Con's page. Discuss the issue here, or on the talk page at the article.  &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, we're happy to have you contribute, but you must engage on the article talk page with your proposed wordings before putting them in. This is common practice. If you revert again, I'll contact an administrator to have you blocked. Tony   (talk)  01:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

June 2012
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Finlandia, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
 * If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
 * If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Jim1138 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Finlandia
You've been warned previously regarding edit warring and now you are pursuing an edit war on this article. When you are reverted your next step is to take your concern to the article's talk page to try to determine a consensus. To repeatedly re-add content without discussion is disruptive and can jeopardize your editing privilege. I will watchlist this page in the event you have any questions. Regards  Tide  rolls  01:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)