User talk:Sovietia

Notability of Jackson Kirk Grimes
A tag has been placed on Jackson Kirk Grimes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pirate452 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. Please see this talk page for why I reverted your edit. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. Pirate Argh!!1! 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at Chris Noth. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below. Tim Song (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Noth
Please try not  to  use  edit  summaries as a discussion  platform. If you have something  to  say, it  would be better to  use an appropriate article or user talk  page. Article talk pages are for commenting on  improvements to  articles, while any  comments concerning  editor behaviour are best  placed in  a user talk  page.--Kudpung (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Chris Noth. Users who continue to perform reversions in content disputes after being blocked following a  three-revert rule warning may be blocked again for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule again, as such  reverts could constitute persistent vandalism.--Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Chris Noth, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent edit warring following 8 June block and further requests to  refrain  from  including  material against  consensus.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Noth&action=historysubmit&diff=369635713&oldid=369452933 Kudpung (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but this is NOT vandalism...read the definition! Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. Sovietia (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sovieta, whether it is vandalism or not, you  are editing  against  consensus. You are reverting  our edits every two or three days to  avoid the 3RR, but  it  is disruptive and equally  a breach  of policy. I  have asked you  before to stop, but  I  now unfortunately have no alternative but to  escalate and request that  the situation  be reviewed - which  may  incur you  being blocked again.--Kudpung (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
You have repeatedly been warned to stop your vandalism of articles, such as those you made to Chris Noth, on Wikipedia when you came here using other IPs. Please stop. You are welcome to contribute real edits to Wikipedia but all vandalism done by you will be reverted and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue. You are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a free user account of your own. See SPI. Kudpung (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

First, it is not vandalism, because it does not fit the definition listed in Wikipedia. It is a disagreeing conceerning edits. However, I give you my word that I will never attempt to bring back the Family Guy reference on Chris Noth in return for the Nikolas Schreck page, a niche performer from California who is known and should never have been deleted, to be restored. Sovietia (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was talking to Kudpong, who at least is fair, and not Hullabaloo Wolfowitz or muzemike, who are clearly not. If they listen to argument, rather than delete out of spite, then there wouldn't be a problem. I don't know who those two think they are or how muzemike became an administrator. Sovietia (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your message Sovietia. I'm really sorry that in the light of your experience, you've decided to give up editing. You're clearly a patient but determined person with a lucid, concise writing style. I wish Wikipedia could have captured your talents on other articles. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Determined, certainly. Talents too. One admin can be wrong, but... --Kudpung (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)