User talk:F.O.E./Archive2

my first archive

Re: 68.166.253.102 and vandalism
Hi F.O.E., I've taken the liberty of reducing your vandalism warning here from a final warning to an initial "test" template. Note that the editor in question has only made one edit to date, and this edit does not even constitute vandalism (in my opinion). It's important to not bite the newbies; we want to encourage them to get accounts and help out, not scare them away! Best wishes, Kasreyn 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Um...
I didn't vandalise Jimbo's page, I made the hidden text a bit more readable. ''' 69.145.123.171 Hello! ''' Friday, July 7, 2006, 06:59 ( UTC )


 * And just so you know, I found this in your contribs. While the IP had no right to attack you, he was actually fixing it. I'm also insulted that you think he needs an account to be taken seriously. IPs are still Wikipedians. I think that's why you reverted me-just because I'm an IP. My suggestion would be to read the whole thing, not just see a number and assume it's vandalism.  69.145.123.171 Hello!  Friday, July 7, 2006, 07:10 ( UTC )


 * Okay, now I'm just curious. How is this POV? POV is Point of View, it has nothing to do with sections.  69.145.123.171 Hello!  Friday, July 7, 2006, 08:06 ( UTC )


 * Alright, one more thing: why did you give me the BV warning? How was my edit blatent vandalism? It wasn't even vandalism to being with, let alone blatent.  69.145.123.171 Hello!  Friday, July 7, 2006, 08:12 ( UTC )

Condom
Please read the Foundation issues, particularily point number two, which refers to anonymous editing. There's no reason why anonymous editors, particularily those editing in good faith, should not be taken seriously. Tito xd (?!?) 07:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User pages
I removed two especially inflammatory userboxes from your user page. If you feel it necessary to proclaim these sentiments, please do it more diplomatically (though they may still be removed). The "evilutionist" comment, too, is rather inappropriate, and certainly damages your credibility. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous
If you want to be taken seriously, quit assuming people need an account to be taken seriously. If you revert edits, pay attention to what you are reverting. Your recent edits on the condom page were unacceptable. You now have less credibility because of your actions.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Removing warnings
Why are you edit-warring to prevent another user from removing comments from his talk page, while removing warnings from your own? — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not edit out warnings
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 are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.