User talk:Ludovic FPK

Couchsurfing
Maybe you should actually read the CS terms of services and guidelines, to see how an account is created (one e-mail) and the safety they claim to offer (or in this case the safety they do not offer). They do say they can not verify the ID of a member and will not do so etc. How can you claim that I don't put a reference about couchsurfing.com when I quote their ToS? Also you should read the blog of the guy using CS to find sexual partners and the numerous comments below this page. People are using CS for sex dating on this blog, it's a fact. I will dig more references right now from reddit for some lines, but it's kind of boring to be entirely "undone" by a wilful reader.

August 2016
Your recent editing history at CouchSurfing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

BLA BLA BLA I don't just revert, I modify things according to what people tell me! The problem is that those people simply delete entire chunks because one line misses one reference. This is not acceptable. If I am quoting the ToS of a company when describing the ToS of a company, how can that be an "unreliable" source? But of course it's easier to "undo" my contribution rather than actually contributing to a better, more objective wiki :{
 * You can blah all you like, but "objective" means secondary sourcing, and your commentary about finding sexual partners is sourced to something that looks good but is doubtful; please see WP:RS. In addition, you have been reverted by three different editors, and that means it is time to stop edit warring and take things up on the talk page. To put it another way, editors disagree with whatever you think is proper, appropriate, and objective. Discuss on the talk page and stop reverting. If you don't, you will be blocked, there is no doubt about it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Lol poor man, quoting the couchsurfing ToS on the Couchsurfing wikipedia page is "secondary sourcing"? Which planet are you from? Of course you avoid talking about that above, you seem more interested in dating. If you have a problem with my dating edit, I can understand, but remove just that and let the rest alone! 1, 2, 3 different editors means nothing. It's Wikipedia, always the same people interested in the same pages often rigged by companies' own staff. Each one of my edit added either new refs or contents, it's not like I was not trying to improve the objectivity! And my last edit may be dubious to YOU, but the page comes with a warning right? Why don't you modify or contribute instead of "undoing". I have pity for you.
 * Well, thanks for removing "retard", I suppose--can I just ask why you think it's OK to use such words in the first place? Let's see. You make personal attacks; you continue edit warring; you can't tell the difference between a primary and a secondary source; you can't read what I wrote (no, the Couchsurfing ToS is a primary source); you seem to have just one interest here and appear to pushing a specific, negative point of view; you seem to accuse other editors of being in the pocket of this company; you don't understand that Wikipedia works by way of consensus--what you should pity is the fact that I have to spend time explaining this to you. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

FACT: you deleted an entire contribution on ground of unreliable source while most of the content was straight from couchsurfing ToS (given as a REF), which you now call a primary source? And you consider yourself a right doer? Hence FACT: You have a mental problem, usually we call people with mental problems retards. It's not an attack, it's a fact. You could justify yourself by explaining the logic of your action, you did not.

FACT: YOU continue edit warring, without ANY contribution or constructive talk. Irn has started constructive talk on the corresponding page. You just click an undo button repeatedly.

FACT: I claim that other editors here on Wikipedia do work for their own company image, and FACT Wikipedia has no way to find this out. I am not pointing fingers but YOU appear to be pushing in a certain direction, which is no modification at all of the specific section.

September 2016
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)