User talk:Geeciii

Welcome!

Hello, Geeciii, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Harpoon (missile) have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Wikipeida operates based on consensus. The original change you made was not necessarily disruptive - however, continually reverting the articles to your version, after your edits were reverted, is. The way this is supposed to work is Bold, Revert, Discuss. You Boldly made a change to the article, however, somebody else Reverted that change. What happens next is that you go to the talk page of the article in question and explain what it is that you wish to do with the article and why, and then it is Discussed to gain consensus as to whether or not the changes proposed are desirable. So, on these articles, you should go to the talk pages and suggest your change - although I should note that in general the inclusion of images in tables is not desirable, particuarly when the images do not show the equipment in service with the subject of the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for that. Your way much better than the other one that first talk to me. I'll keep it in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeciii (talk • contribs)

Geeciii, please bear in mind that it takes two to clap so don't shirk your responsibility. That said, your current quagmire is the direct result of your earlier ignoring of our polite advices given to you. In short, you dig your own hole and you step right into it, nobody forced you and we most certainly would rather have you talked to us instead of avoiding the issue by not looking at the issues you've caused, given that you are a new user. And by WP:BRD, we do mean that you go to the talk page to present your case for other regular editors to review, and not just humouring us by paying lip service here before the hammer actually comes down. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling by WP:SPA[edit]

Welcome Geeciii! Ignore the broken Enlish trolling above. You are free to delete such nonsense on your talk page as you see fit. I see that you have caused some concern with a couple of the editors. Don't fret, you will get the hang of it. I hope you are enjoying editing here at Wikipedia. The good news is that if you make an error in editing, by not following a policy or standard, it can easily be fixed. Nothing is permanent. As you gain experience, it will become easier to improve the articles. Please excuse the poor behavior of some of the others around here. Its good to have you helping, hope you continue to work with us. HonerableHerb (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent changes, such as the one you made to Philippine Army, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. You should consider making taking your proposed changes to the talk page to gather consensus before making such large changes. Also it is very important to have references for each major point. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits[edit]

Minor edits are for things like spelling, punctuation, formatting. Not for large removals of information. Doing that and using the minor edit button to describe it flat wrong. Stop. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philippine Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeciii (talk • contribs)

BLOCKED[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing. Despite much advice and several warnings, you have continued to make the same edits that you have been advised not to make without discussion, and you have in fact removed where you attempted to start a discussion on the subject at Talk:Philippine Army - which included removing other peoples' comments; these actions make it obvious that you are not listening and appear to indicate that you are knowingly being disruptive. This is inappropriate behavior for a Wikipedia editor, and accordingly, you have been blocked; if upon the expiry of this block this behavior resumes, the next block will be indefinite.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geeciii (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry I made a mistake and swear not to make that kind of actions again. I just started learning how to use wikipedia properly. I acknowledges the comments of the other editors in the talk page of the Philippine Army and I do not intend to do that kind of mistakes again. I'm not aware at that time that I do not have any rights to remove other editor's comments. I promise that I will not ever do that again. Please be kind and remove my block. I promise to abide the rules of wikipedia in editing an article and respecting other users right. Ɠeeciii✠ ♚♛♝♞♜♟ 10:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block has been extended due to your evasion of this block in order to harass others, and as such, this unblock request does not address the reasons (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comments from others[edit]

We don't think you are really sorry for what happened here (and elsewhere on Wikipedia) and what you have done, we can see clearly that you just want to bulldoze your way through with your own cosmetic makeover of the article page(s) before and without getting a WP:Consensus from the other regular editors on the discussion page; the fact that more than 3 other editors have reverted your major revision on more than 1 occasion is proof enough that we don't accept your way of doing things. Removing comments from other editors is almost as rude as one can be, if not more so, on Wikipedia during any discussion and it is basic common sense (a very basic one if any might add) to not disrupt an ongoing discussion, as anyone would have done so in real-life but you didn't. Not once, not twice and most certainly not thrice... tell us right now as to how to believe and take your words for it when you have repeatedly demonstrated in the past few weeks your stubborn refusal to discuss with us despite our numerous attempts at reaching out to you. FWIW, either you take a knee now and learn to do things the correct way... or we'll be forced to make you hightail down the highway and out from Wikipedia on a permanent basis. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthurmore, you have broken your promise to not remove comments from other editors three times (1, 2 & 3), tell us now how to have that trust you promised us when you continue to demonstrate to us the very WP:Pointy behaviour you've promised to stop? You are now blocked, as I've warned you prior, please read WP:Appealing a block before you proceed any further again. DO NOT REMOVE my comments again or you may find yourself BLOCKED INDEFINITELY. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted[edit]

Thank you for reaching out. I will definitely change my ways of editing. Please be calm because you're too stressed. You will get a lot of wrinkles and you gonna get old faster with that attitude. Please be more gentle with your warnings and try to be more friendly and kindly make your patience longer. Ɠeeciii✠ ♚♛♝♞♜♟ 06:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your SECOND BLOCK wihtin the week, so can I ask you if you're aware of the severity of your actions here? The first was for Edit-warring on the article page and the second was for altering/removing comments from other editors on the discussion page; now, the next block will be an indefinite block if you don't change. That's how much that I'm going to let my crow feets sweat for you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of it. Thank you for the reminders. I will surely keep in mind not to commit those kind of mistakes again and become a responsible editor in wikipedia, so that I can never be block again. Ɠeeciii✠ ♚♛♝♞♜♟ 06:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And my grey hare thank you from its oldest depth IF you can keep true to your promise. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you could unblock me now, I'll show you that what I said is true. Ɠeeciii✠ ♚♛♝♞♜♟ 06:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not going to happen anytime soon, you'll have to sit this one out. Meantime, you just keep to you promise. Over and out. (D: Get it?!) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright ☺ Ɠeeciii✠ ♚♛♝♞♜♟ 06:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended[edit]

An additional week has been added to this block due to block evasion and the use of the sockpuppet to harass others. The sock account has been indeffed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now extended to indef as Geeciii is blatantly a sockpuppet of User:Gcguevarra. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]