User talk:Veyklevar

My badges of honour
This is your last warning. The next time you delete entire sections from an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Be warned you are already in violation of the three-revert rule. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joestieg (talk &bull; contribs) 12:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the coca tea page. You can't delete entire sections of this page based on your personal view. This is a community run site and you have no right to vandal other people's work. This is your first warning. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joestieg (talk &bull; contribs) 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the vandalism accusations above: See here. —Veyklevar 00:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Coca tea
Veyklevar, Joestieg has left a polite comment on my talk page about the Coca tea issue, and appears to be editing in good faith. Could you please avoid making personal attacks? I will post a comment on Talk:Coca tea with links to the policies on external links and so forth; I have asked Joe and ask you to settle the content dispute there, without reversions and counter-reversions for the time being. Choess 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Choess,
 * It is curious that he would leave a polite message on your talk page when I have already [asked him] to discuss this with me. His only response is to delete my messages. I have deleted none of his comments. If he wanted to discuss this with me he would have already.


 * I do not believe that he is editing in good faith. My first encounter with him was when I noticed that he had [uploaded an image] which he claimed to be the author of and to have irrevocably released all rights to. Both claims are untrue, and it is hard to see how that could be accidental or in good faith. I followed the instructions given for warning him about copyright violations. He deleted the [warning] without comment, so I don't know what his explanation is.


 * When he saw that I was not intimidated by being accused of vandalism of the Coca Tea article, he created both the articles ["Coca tea drink"] and ["Coca Tea Drink"], with content identical to the Coca tea article as he had originally written it. Then he began to link to those articles from other Wikipedia articles.  This seems like an attempt to avoid scrutiny of his artcles.  It is hard to see how this is editing in good faith.  (I believe it was you who eventually changed these articles to redirects.)


 * I don't know what he regards as personal attacks, but there is no doubt I have been testy. Being repeatedly falsely accused of vandalism will make one testy. If I have ever expressed that anger inappropriately, I regret it.


 * Before we got into this silly war of reverts, I explained every edit I made to the article in the edit summary. As I said to him, "I would like the Coca tea article to be accurate and well written. I would not like it to simply be an advertisement for a product." That remains my position for so long as Coca tea remains a separate article. Citing his own coca sales website as a *reference* strikes me as a poor way to maintain an accurate article.  The text of the article was nearly identical to the text of the website, and hence of little additional value to the Wikipedia reader in any case. -- Veyklevar 03:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My initial involvement in this dispute came when I was creating those redirects and noticed the edit war under way. I have been trying to act as a neutral broker here to ensure that the edit war is resolved on a basis void of personal acrimony. While somewhat onerous, I think asking participants to justify their preferred version of the article based explicitly on Wikipedia guidelines and policies creates a very solid case for the final form of the article &mdash; particularly in this case, where I think WP:EL and WP:V speak quite closely to the matters under dispute, which I've listed in the article talk page. It's also a good opportunity to see whether WP:AFG is justified, based on people's willingness or unwillingness to engage in constructive argument, rather than reversion. Please note that I am not an admin or official Mediator and none of my suggestions are binding. However, I think the course of action I have suggested is one they would consider productive. Assuming the content dispute can be conclusively resolved by appeal to policies and guidelines (as I expect), I hope that the final content can be agreed upon without further edit warring. If edits continue in defiance of that resolution, however, I will see to it that the offending party is sanctioned by whatever means necessary, up to and including my presenting them for banning. Again, please visit Talk:Coca tea, cite policies and make your case; your cooperation is appreciated.


 * I have made it clear to Joestieg that wholesale rollback of comments is not at all acceptable; if he continues to do so, I will treat it as knowing vandalism and act accordingly. Choess 05:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Choess, I understood that you weren't acting in an official capacity. I appreciate your volunteer efforts at peacemaking. Edit wars are tiring as well as tiresome.


 * In the interests of peace, for the time being I will refrain from restoring the comments that Joestieg finds so inflammatory and worthy of deletion. -- Veyklevar 10:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm on it. Further bulletins as events warrant. Choess 07:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop vandalizing the coca tea page. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than monitor this one wiki page?? Also I am not the original author (you can see I have a different ip address) and I have re-written this article in accordance to all the rules and regulations of this site. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ukiemob (talk &bull; contribs), a proven sockpuppet of Joestieg (talk &bull; contribs), 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Commercial links in Benchmarking
Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. -- Veyklevar 01:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I added no private web sites. This article already had a number of "commercial links" -- long before I provide a few minor edits (and spelling issues).  What's your beef?  I agree in neutrality of entries.  I see you already have a three-revert rule warning on-file here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beatgr (talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 March 2006  (UTC)


 * I have no "beef" against you. You added a commercial link. I posted the standard warning template about that. The fact that the page is already a linkfarm is not relevant. -- Veyklevar 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on your logic - they should ALL be removed and that page so highlighted. Listing the only defense contactor as Lockheed and not listing Nortrop Grumman and Boeing is incomplete - and not Wiki style either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beatgr (talk • contribs) 01:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I definitely think they should all be removed. -- Veyklevar 01:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Whomp/Good Kitty
Hi, Petros471. I was looking through the page history of WP:RFI and I saw that a complaint left by Whomp ended up being misattributed to Good kitty. No big deal, of course, but I thought I would let you know so you could make sure you sent replies to the right person. &mdash;Veyklevar 05:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Petros471 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake
No, I reverted your edit by accident, but restored after I saw I messed up..sorry.--MONGO 07:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Kukini 03:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How's that?
Just blocked Ukiemob, for full details see my talk page (as you said I could reply there). Let me know if you think more needs to be done, but I think that will do for now unless there is something I've missed or Joestieg starts editing again (especially with new sock accounts). Petros471 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, just to show Veyklaver was right to be blocked for impersonation- I just thought I'd posted this message on the wrong talk page until I double checked! (too many tabs open...) Petros471 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I accused you of vandalism because of quickly looking over your talk page. I'm sorry. I still think that the removal of the link is appropriate in Carceral state. If you have a justification, let me know. I think it would be more appropriate to link to Drapetomania, Oppositional_Defiant_Disorder or a similar article, which is a more specific reference with supporting information. Nolte (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)