User talk:Ineloquent/warnings

Do not tamper with other people's votes or comments. If you continue to do so you will be blocked. --W(t) 18:09, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please see Special:Log/block. The user who's votes I removed was Willy on Wheels and was using a script to automate voting. Thanks for checking that out, though. --Me 18:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just found a comment about that; sorry about the confusion, and thanks for the good work. You might want to put something about it in the edit summary though, as it appears I'm not the only one who's missed it. --W(t) 18:14, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Paedophiles
Please stop removing the paedophile category from articles about convicted paedophiles. Where a court of law has found someone guilty of an offence, that is evidence enough that they committed the crime. It would be inappropriate to add that category to someone who hasn't been convicted or confessed or admitted to paedophile crimes, but it's quite reasonable to add it for those that have been convicted, confessed or who have admitted to paedophile crimes, jguk 3 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)

The paedophiles category
You are anon as you do not have a logged in account - I recommend you get a logged in account - or at least give a name you are to be known by - until then you are anonymous. On the personal attacks front, calling someone an "idiot" and implying they are incapable of reading do constitute personal attacks. On WP, personal attacks are seriously frowned upon (ask any regular user and they'll tell you this). WPians disagree frequently, but try not to resort to attacks. It is clear that you do not like Category:Pedophiles. The way to deal with it is to list the page on Categories for deletion, together with your rationale, and let the community decide whether it should go. You shouldn't go depopulating the category. For now I will restore them all - pending any decision that may be taken on Categories for deletion. Please do not revert them, the categories for deletion page will only take 10 days, jguk 3 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

First Warning due to move on the page on paedophilia
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. .Poppypetty 07:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * note: I have no idea why this was left on my page. Ineloquent 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages of unregisterred users
The talk page of your username belongs to you. But IP talk pages do not belong to anyone except the Wikipedia community. Please do not delete material, exspecially warnings from other users, from the page. -Willmcw 04:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Concerning my own (anon) talk page Ineloquent 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

moving
Please stop moving the Stephen King page. WP works by consensus. You proposed a move, but it did not gain consensus, therefore the move was not made. Please respect that. Compare that to your proposed deletion of the paedophiles category, where there was consensus for deletion. I respect that decision. If you wish to propose another move, the place is the talk page - repeatedly moving the page as you have been doing is disruptive and, if you persist, could result in a brief block on your editing privileges, jguk 17:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * afaics everyone on the talk page thought child molester would be okay. there's no reason it should be a controversial move... but I'll ask on requested moves. 24 at 17:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Perverted Justice
Hi 24, I think you've put up an inappropriate VfD. There are no grounds within our policies for deleting it, and it's a virtual certainty it will fail the vote. Are you sure you want to continue with it? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning
This is to warn you that you're in danger of violating 3RR at Perverted-Justice.com, if you haven't already done so. If you revert again, you may be reported and blocked from editing. Please try to reach consensus on the talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, I've only reverted twice. 24 at 18:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Links
Please do not add commercial links &mdash; or links to your own private websites &mdash; to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -Willmcw 23:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not commercial, not mine.  23:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Lolicon
Please use the talk page to discuss the placement of a child pornography image in the Lolicon article. Also, you reverted over some citation requests. Please restore the tags or provide the cites. Thanks, -Will Beback 20:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: "child pornography" allegations here are false. See

User:UBX/Antiracist mlk admirer
Hi, I noticed the image you used on this was tagged as 'fair use' copyright status. It is forbidden, under our copyright policy, to use fair-use images other than in articles. Could you please review WP:FUC before adding any more images to wikipedia. Thanks. --Doc 10:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

POV claim on lolicon
See

Arbitration
A request for arbitration where you have been listed as a party has been opened by Raul654 (per Jimbo Wales). Please see Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, as well as provide evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence|/Evidence]] and comment on proposals at /Workshop. —User:Locke Cole • t • c 13:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Final Decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case User:Raul654 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * An administrator has blocked you for three days in enforcement of the ban in Remedy 3. No other remedies apply to you, so you'll be free to edit when it ends. --User:Tony Sidaway 00:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)