User talk:PigeonPiece

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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Conflict of interest - noticeboard
Hello - I have started a section about you on the Conflict of interest noticeboard. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
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.

3RR violation
I have reported your violation of the 3-revert rule at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. Since you have a WP:COI, it is imperative that you adhere to consensus. You cannot simply ignore the results of an RfC you initiated, four times at this point. If you want to make revisions to the article, please take them to the talk page first. Academic38 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Though the reviewing admin decided it was technically not a violation, I remind you that the rule is also not to be violated in its intention--it forbids repeated reversions no matter how the timing goes. See WP:3RR, as follows
 * "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. ... Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks..... Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances." DGG (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a slow-motion edit war going on with. Even if you had left a meaningful edit summary, at this point, I would strongly urge you to discuss and reach consensus before reverting. Toddst1 (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

September 2008
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Okay, I am not the other individual that they are accusing me of being. I have no idea who that this. These individual Academic and Nomostacitity have been harassing me and the Oxford Round Table. They are the ones that have a defaming blog regarding the Oxford Round Table and I suspect they have the same person or are conspiring, yet I kept getting blocked. But there friends, one whom I believe is Todd1 or whatever (the person that blocked me) still allows them to edit the page. Why have not they been blocked?PigeonPiece (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For any admin that responds to the above request, there is relevent information at Requests for checkuser/Case/Astutescholar. The IP addresses were checked, as the user above requested, and a checkuser determined that it was possible the two had related IP addresses (he did not rule it out).  In such cases, the duck test is helpful.  Please observe these edits: this edit made by the account Astutescholar and this edit made by Pigeonpiece.  I am at a loss to explain how two different people could independantly, and without knowledge of each other, sit at seperate computers and type the exact same thing for several paragraphs.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Four unblock requests is more than enough. I have protected this talk page from further edits.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)