User talk:Struct

User talk:Struct/Archive 1-14-2007 User talk:Struct/Archive 1-15-2007 User talk:Struct/Archive 3-18-2007

Single Purpose Accounts
Please read what I have written over at the Jericho talk page. If you do that again, seeing your Archived talk pages, I will request moderation, and if need be, action.--Fshy 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you're obviously a troll, feel free to do whatever you feel like. Struct 18:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After having cooled down, and thought things over, I probably acted unprofessionally and apologize. I probably took that tag as an insult, when it was probably meant in good faith. I request that we move our little spat over here or to my talk page, as it basically had nothing to do with the topic in question. I still feel the tag was inappropriate, but I overreacted. --Fshy 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation
It is unclear what the specific source for the copyright violation is on List of government agencies in comics. Could you explain further here. As it is such a serious issue we'd like to have all the information to hand so we can make the right decision and fix this situation asap. Thanks. (Emperor 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

I appreciate your concern, but copyvio'ing the whole page is a drastic and premature move. Groupthink 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning me
I think issuing that warning was unnecessary. As was clear on from my edit comments and from talk page discussion the reason large parts of the article were unreferenced was because of an issue arising from one of the reference being deemed an unreliable source, which meant we had to remove the lot. It will take a while to fully reference everything but I note that such an effort is currently ongoing. If you have problems with the entry please address them on the talk page rather using unsupported claims for copyright violation (see comments above and on the talk page) and issuing warnings for my reverting your removal of the page (without trying to get a consensus which seems to be in favour of the article being useful and fully sourcable) to try and impose your opinion on the page.

So to summarise: If there are problems take them up on the talk page or get a second opinion on the comics project. (Emperor 22:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Eric Rudolph and Olympic Park bomber rvs
Hey there, thanks for the support! I reverted your edits in the interest of consensus-building, which if you look at my user page, you'll see is a process I am highly skeptical of. But sometimes things just have to play out. Feel free to revert again if no one responds soon! Groupthink (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No prob I guess? Personally I think your edits are Bold and the other eds are playing games with policy because of their confirmation bias, but it's all good. Struct (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

May 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Christianity. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Moxy 🍁 22:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I will not violate 3RR. But reverting the removal of a valid, accurate, and constructive edit is not edit-warring. See talk page for that article. Struct (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the oddest additions I've seen in a long time.... My first thought was....is this account compromised? Apparently not. Moxy 🍁 23:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see talk page. Just because you find it odd doesn't mean it's not accurate or sourceable. Struct (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wish you all the best of luck trying to get this in the encyclopedia. Moxy 🍁 23:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It belongs in an Encyclopedia which claims to document all topics dispassionately from a neutral point of view. Struct (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)