User talk:I AM JOHN SMITH: Difference between revisions

This page has become the victim of boneheaded editing. This page may contain factually inaccurate information, incorrect spelling, unrelated images, or other easily preventable mistakes, and is in the process of being revised.

Template:Boneheaded editing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cheeser1 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure exactly where on that long ass page I'm supposed to comment, so I'll do it here. It's still in the testing stages, so sit tight. I may just drop the pictures, put it in a Wikibox, or try something new altogether. I just figured this template would make my so called controversial edits seem less uncivil.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The layout is not a problem. It doesn't seem to have any meaningful use. You should not be using template-space to store a sarcastic disclaimer about your edits, if that is your intent. It seems as though it could easily be misused or misunderstood. To comment on the TfD discussion, you can click the relevant links like: this one. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this [better worded version] out, and give me your opinion.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not fork this discussion. There is a TfD discussion and a discussion at your userpage going on. Minor rewording will not salvage a template with no conceivable purpose on Wikipedia. This is not what templates are for, not at all. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting a bit late in the TfD, but you might want to move this template to your own userspace. Either way, I would not advise using this template in article space, per WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you added a deletion tag to List of groups referred to as cults. I don't think the page is going to be deleted on the grounds you provided; if you disagree, you may try an AFD, but I believe the article is notable enough to stay. Jmlk17 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were reverted because they go against the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which outlines the style of writing in the encyclopedia. I suggest you read through that fully before making anymore edits like that. The encyclopedia is not meant to be concise, it is meant to fully encompass the subject being written about. The wiki also is like a web, which is why there are so many linked terms in the first sentence. (referring to this edit) I am also going to ask you to try to be civil on here as being uncivil can get you blocked. --Michael Greiner 00:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering. Cause it seems in order for one single edit to be accepted around here, it has to be freakin perfect!I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All we ask is that you follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's how Wikipedia functions. Being combative, rude, insulting, or adversarial does not help the situation. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and I see it didn't take you bitches ;) very long to revert my edits...AGAIN To which I respond "JEEEE-ZUS KEYYYY-REIST!" And in case you dont understand that cause all my edits seem to get removed anyways, I'll illustrate it for you:

I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? This is your talk page, and what you're doing amounts to talking to yourself (although some might overhear it and comment). The two reverts of yours that I see having been reverted were the addition of wikilinks that were inappropriate and unhelpful. You don't need to add links to random words in the middle of sentences. You were even directed to the appropriate policy. Being hostile, rude, or adversarial, as you continue to be, will not help fix the situation, and could get you into trouble. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of commenting to each individual, I figured only interested parties would visit here, that way I don't crash everyone's talk page and be interpreted as rude again.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were already directed to WP:CIVIL on your talk page, about a week ago. Please read through the official policy again; avoid these ([1][2]) types of edit summaries and uttering “you bitches”, which may be considered rude. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and you should read the talk page guidelines before voicing your personal opinions. Editing other’s comments, even if it’s simply adding a link, is discouraged by the guidelines. Your edits to Talk:Cold fusion#Cold Fusion = IMPOSSIBLE appear to violate them; you should discuss the article and not the article’s subject. Because a topic is controversial, you are not entitled to “bring it”. If you were to be banned, I would expect the reason to be continually violating the policies and guidelines rather than an opinion. As long as you don’t violate them, you’ll rarely find your edits being reverted. —LOL (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "bitches" with a wink and a smile. Any one offended should stay in grandmas church and shield themselves from the real world.. Seriously, that word has been so watered down.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]