User talk:My name is Mr Smith

Hi My name is Mr Smith, welcome to Wikipedia! The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Except, you know, a whole bunch of people who are too insignificant to list here. If they were significant they'd be editing Wikipedia wouldn't they (or they would at least have an article written about them).

Please read the rules, but remember that rules are meant to be broken. Especially if you are part of the cabal. In fact, the only rule you really need to know is don't piss off the admins or the highly connected incestious group of editors who drive everyone else away eventually. But please stay and edit for as long as you can cope with the bullshit. - My name is Mr Smith (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Blade Runner. 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. Canterbury Tail  talk  12:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * If you continue your edit war on Blade Runner as you threaten, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia due to disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC) You carried out your threat. I bet you feel big now! I made a constructive edit, trying to incorporate the comments made by other users. I can't see that as disruptive. It certainly isn't vandalism, patent nonsense, spam, misinformation, privacy violations, personal attack, a violation fo the NPOV stuff, or any of the other stuff you mentioned.

In the block message you say 3RR violation, failure to assume good faith, and ignoring BRD cycle. BRD is not a policy or guideline (and is certainly something I've never heard of). About 3RR, I didn't revert anyone, I made a series of changes, trying to incorporate the comments made by other users. Other users reverted me. I would suggest that you failed to assume good faith about me, because I don't want to listen to your threats. Leaving a big message saying that you will block me is a threat, especially when the person is a new editor. A better option, rather than using the message you did, is to use a simple message that doesn't include that hand. Perhaps:
 * "Hi, I see you are interested in Blade Runner. Just to let you know that there is the what is called "edit warring" is not allowed on Wikipedia. This involves making edits blah blah (whatever a nice definition is, I haven't read the article, because I've got better things to do with my time). Your recent edits to Blade Runner maybe considered edit warring by some, and may lead to you being blocked. Please be careful.

A much friendlier message, and much less likely to get someone thinking you are threatening them! The only thing from that message that could be correct is assuming good faith. I probably didn't assume good faith when it came to other editors. The fact that you didn't assume good faith when it came to me is also true. The fact that the way article currently stands is offensive is also true. As is evidence by comments further up the talk page.

I also maintain that you have a conflict of interest, as you are personally invested in the article, and are blocking people who make changes you don't like.

I don't expect you to respond or care, but Wikipedia continues to live up to it's "good" name. (That's more sarcasm by the way.)


 * They might not respond, but I will. The warnings were clear, you were asked to leave it on the article talk page, you chose to ignore everyone, chose to not read links to articles about consensus, edit warring and ignore the warnings on this talk page. If you choose to ignore everyone and everything, it should not be a surprise when you finally are stopped.
 * Perhaps in future, if you come back, you will try to understand what policies we have and the guidelines we all have to follow.
 * I must admit I find it strange that no one welcomed you before posting warning messages, I certainly would have and so I am placing a welcome message at the top of this page. It contains links to help you understand how Wikipedia works, the manual of style, and various other helpful pages.
 * PS Don't think I haven't noticed that you know what a cabal is.
 * PPS It's spelled "incestuous"
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)