User talk:Obscuredata

January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Oxford Round Table, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Oxford Round Table was changed by Obscuredata (c) (t) deleting 7607 characters on 2008-01-18T07:41:16+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Hi, the recent edit you made to Oxford Round Table has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks.  Majorly  (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I thought that the edit was vandalism, but couldn't see it to be, although I maybe incorrect. -- The Helpful One (Talk)(Contribs) (Review) 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. ColdmachineTalk 19:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Coldmachine: Referring to the above message.. Same to you ! Obscuredata (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You aren't blocked
You aren't blocked. Instead, the article has been protected from editing in an effort to stop the edit warring. Please see Talk:Oxford_Round_Table. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest warning
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Pairadox (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oxford Round Table
An editor has nominated Oxford Round Table, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. ColdmachineTalk 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Your comments at the Deletion page are way out of line. This is the only warning I'll issue before bringing it to the attention of admins. Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pairadox (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked this as a disruptive single purpose account. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Obscuredata (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)