User talk:Francparler

September 2012[edit]

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:Francparler, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how upset you may be there is never a reason to refer to another editor as "an idiot". Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked.[edit]

You were blocked in part due to legal threats made as 89.94.23.111 (talk · contribs), and now you are resorting to insults and personal attacks. I'm happy to help someone new, but not if they threaten and insult. If you ever want to get unblocked, you need to follow the guidance found at WP:GAB. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

I note that you have been unblocked now. Please be informed that further problematic editing, be it threats, socking, insulting other editors, or making WP:BLP violations, will lead to your account being blocked again. Please don't edit the Bourdin article directly, but discuss your concerns at the talk page of the article instead. Fram (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will only remind you that there are no rules in Wikipedia that forbids me to edit my own article, I am not saying I will, I am simply saying that nothing in Wikipedia's rules forbids me from doing it. And as I have been telling you on Frederic Bourdin talk page, I would appreciate for you to step off that matter because of your involvement with this user Bbb23 . I believe Wikipedia's rules speak about non neutral users. Thank you--Francparler (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules that forbid this in general, there are rules that strongly discourage it. But you have had your attempt at editing that page earlier, and you edit warred and broke multiple rules in the process, resulting in protection of the page (not by me). The way you were proceeding, posting your edit request at the talk page of the article, was the right way to have this discussion after the earlier problems. Again starting to dismiss editors because they don't agree with you is not really encouraging though. Fram (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"dismiss editors" that aren't neutrals or involved with the user with whom the problem started, such as you for example.--Francparler (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one editor that caused your earlier problems, and that is you. Blaming others for your edits which resulted in multiple well-deserved blocks is a nice diversion, but hardly convincing. Fram (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't neutral and I rest my case. Have a good day.--Francparler (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Frédéric Bourdin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]