User talk:Kb333

Linux distribution, GNU/Linux distribution

Thanks for your contribution to these articles, but by longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME and also MOS:LINUX. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters. On Wikipedia the term is only used to describe distros when the distro itself is called "GNU/Linux", such as "Debian GNU/Linux", and then only when referring to the distro itself. If you want to change this consensus then the way to go about is not by trying to insert the term GNU/Linux into articles on distributions. You should read Talk:Linux including all the archives of that page, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. When you have the history of the consensus read then you can present your case at Talk:Linux to try to convince the other editors that all references "Linux" other than to the kernel itself in Wikipedia should be changed to "GNU/Linux". Be advised that this has been brought up dozens of times there, including recently and has always been soundly and conclusively opposed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent editing history at Linux shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kb333. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article GNU/Linux distribution, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Linux

Hi,

I am pretty much on your side as far as the truth about Linux is concerned. It's just that Wikipedia does not work like that, hence the sometimes intense frustration.

Looking at the article history, you are indeed warring against several other editors. I'd also agree with another editor that your flames on the talk page were bordering on the unacceptable. I would strongly recommend that you take a bit of a break to cool down, and come back once you are able to discuss things the Wikipedia way. Otherwise, I fear that you are likely to be blocked.

Best wishes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Linux. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Linux. Amaury (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kb333 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: ). Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

maybe you are a jerk. Kb333 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Linux, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Linux. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ^X 20:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

When you get back you really should have a read of WP:CONSENSUS to learn how we decide what content is used in articles and also WP:THETRUTH to see why we rely on verifiability instead of dogmatic opinion. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Hello, I'm Ahunt. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Linux that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. This was the edit in question. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure of what you said? my comment on that page hasn't been deleted and should never be. I was just addressing a critic to the editors of the article and not attacking a single person. Kb333 (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Kb333. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This was the edit in question. - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on GNU/Linux. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Aoidh (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

my comment .

No personal attacks

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on GNOME. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is the edit in question. - Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ^X 00:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• If you need help figuring out how to resolve disputes, I'll help you, but you're gonna have to stop edit warring over things. I'd recommend following a self-imposed 0RR or 1RR for awhile to be safe. This is not a harsh block on my part given the circumstances and I hope you'll be willing to go through the proper channels to resolve future disputes, rather than reverting. Again, if you need help working out disputes, just ask. Swarm ^X 00:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Hello, I'm Ahunt. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Linux that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The edit in question is this one where you call an editor "a jerk". Since you are just back from a two day block for edit warring and incivility this is not a good way to get back to Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

GNU/Linux redirect

Please stop edit-warring over the target for this article. We are having a discussion on the best target for this redirect at Talk:Linux#The_GNU.2FLinux_redirect and the consensus at this point is clearly that this should redirect to Linux not GNU. The debate will be decided by the quality and persuasiveness of the arguments made there, not by edit warring. You have already been blocked for edit warring, your next block will be much longer, so I encourage you instead to make your case at Talk:Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Your recent editing history at GNOME shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Debian shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at GNU/Linux shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kb333 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: ). Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)