User talk:Robbo25

September 2007
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 John Locke (Lost), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. Thank you. TeaDrinker 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. — Insanity Incarnat  e  23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Beve (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Narson (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Beve (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put a message up regarding your breach of 3RR here. Sorry for the delay in telling you - Hanlon's razor applies! Pfainuk talk 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Final vandalism warning
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.  Pyrop e  01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again
'''You have been blocked for edit warring at Lewis Hamilton. Because you were blocked for the same behavior at the same article and evidently did not take it seriously, the block is now 72 hours.''' You may resume editing after the block expires, but any further edit warring will result in even longer blocks without warning. Discuss the changes you want to make instead of reverting, not in addition to it. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that despite Wikipedia trying to shed it's image of being a poor source of information it doesn't actually seem to be doing anything about it. Facts aren't allowed here it selyems on POV. Farcical.
 * You keep going on about POV and how it's factual and all that, but you have yet to offer a convincing reason as to why the change you want to make will actually improve the article. So it's sourced. So what? Even a completely uninvolved outsider such as myself can see that you just keep making the change, offering nothing but arguments and accusations on the talk page. The burning need to make such a minor change makes one question your agenda, not that of the status quo. If you can't take the time to explain yourself in a reasonable, thoughtful, civil manner, then you can't make the change. If you can calm down and rationally discuss why it's important, you'll have a better chance of being heard. If not, these blocks will just get longer and longer. Kafziel Complaint Department 08:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And the detractors have still not providing a suitable reason why it shouldn't be included. It works both ways you know!!! --Robbo25 (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they gave you three good reasons right off the bat. Nicely bulleted, even. You responded with nothing but outrage and insults which, as you can see, won't get you very far. Kafziel Complaint Department 14:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look up "insult" because you clearly don't know the definition of it. They didn't give valid reasons at all it was nothing more than POV and they continued to vandalise the article by removing a perfectly acceptable contribution. --Robbo25 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you stop with the smart remarks and accusations of vandalism, or this isn't going to move forward. Nobody is vandalizing anything; you are all just having a disagreement. Vandalism is a very specific thing&mdash;you've been told this already&mdash;and disputes about content do not fit that. If you refuse to discuss it rationally and politely, I will block you permanently. I'm a very patient person, but if it's clear that you're never going to be willing to work here in a constructive way, I don't need to let you keep editing. So think carefully about what you say and do next. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

More worthless excuses, it's embarrassing! Again; the addition I made to the article was valid and factually correct, but that seems to be an issue with some members of this community all they care for is articles based on a majorities POV. --Robbo25 (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you needn't concern yourself with it anymore. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)