User talk:Grinning Idiot

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Please also see Talk_page_guidelines and How to archive a talk page to review how to properly move or, in the event that the entries are inflamatory or you have the author's consent, remove old talk page entries. It is generally discouraged to wipe old comments, as you did on Talk:Jay Van Andel. MrZaius  talk  19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing Concerns

 * 1) Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from . Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.   -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 16:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Please do not blank out cited information in articles claiming it is not factual. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 3RR. - A l is o n  ☺ 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: promising a revert-war is not being co-operative. Please discuss your rationale on the talk page before removing large, cited statements and try to achieve consensus first - A l is o n  ☺ 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And consider reviewing Etiquette & Consensus before posting another talk page rant. They are hardly a productive way to steer the body of editors towards a stable consensus.  MrZaius  talk  22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

May 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. - A l is o n  ☺ 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you're going with this, but you've become increasingly rude, both in your edit summaries and in your talk page comments to other editors - A l is o n  ☺ 17:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to be increasingly rude - I strive for consistently rude! --Grinning Idiot 15:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Drought. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you are trying to push a specific agenda and are in clear violation of our policy of maintaining a neutral point of view on the Drought article. Given your past history of editing warring, point of view pushing and deletion of well-sourced information from that article, you are fortunate I did not block you on sight for your latest infraction. There is clearly a consensus against your changes, and they clearly violate numerous rules of Wikipedia. If you are not prepared to respect the rules of Wikipedia, I suggest you find a different forum for expressing your opinions. Gwernol 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack&#32;as you did at User talk:Gwernol, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gwernol 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy and I have no intention of apologising for preventing you from damaging articles and pushing your personal opinions into them. Gwernol 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I repair articles, and I base my repairs on fact. You push personal opinions.  Would you like to discuss or just continue to insult somebody you don't even know?--Grinning Idiot 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where have I pushed my personal opinion into the Drought article? I have merely reverted your vandalism and removal of sourced information, as have several other editors. As for me remaining civil: I have looked at your contributions. I have remained civil and within policy at all times. You on the other hand have resorted to personal attacks and deep incivility against me and other editors. I have no doubts about my role, thanks all the same. Gwernol 15:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are a poor admin. Why do you engage in nonsense battles that you should be above? You have pushed your opinion by interfering with my alterations with no discussion.  You attack the person rather than the argument.  You have a very biased definition of civil.  You think you are very important.  It is not a good thing when the admin of an online encyclopedia calls those who have a conflicting opinion, vandals. --Grinning Idiot 16:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "You are a poor admin [...] You attack the person rather than the argument" - thanks! :) This one made me laugh out loud! - A l is o n  ☺ 01:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So to refer to my comment as "vandalism" (rather than respond to the ACTUAL comment I made) does not infer that I am a vandal??? Should I laugh out loud?  Alison, you are a joke, a stain and an insult to those you bother conversing with.  Laugh as loud as you like.  But you deserve no further attention from me.  Both you and Gwernol are very poor, and rather hypocritical admins ("made me laugh out loud" is civil is it?).  Grow up.  --Grinning Idiot 16:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please - do feel free to laugh. It's good for the soul, after all. "Alison, you are a joke, a stain and an insult to those you bother conversing with" - I'm laughing all over again, dude. Try to keep a civil tongue about ya, please. That way, people may take you a weency bit more seriously next time. Hm? - A l is o n  ☺ 22:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)