User talk:Metaphysicist

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! Demiurge 15:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it bullying that my contribution is being repeatedly removed without proper arbitration. I present a quote from WP:POV

"Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles at wikipedia are full of POV's. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy.

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

   * Who advocates the point of view
   * What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)"

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Demiurge 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIV, threatning other users is not acceptable.Metaphysicist 15:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with the authors of Template:3RR2. This is one of Wikipedia's official warning templates, not a threat. Demiurge 15:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Its just that Djegan held me up on uncivil behaviour for asking him to refrain from reversion.Metaphysicist 15:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you [1] for WP:3RR on Trinity College, Dublin. Please take the time off to read the rules. William M. Connolley 16:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting you for abuse of the system. if you check the history of Trinity College, Dublin you will see I have only made two reverts in the last 24 hours. You need to make 4 to violate the 3RR - you are clearly not qualified to act as an Administrator.

Here is an excerpt form the 3RR page:

"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally."

And just in case you have trouble with math, 4 comes after 3. Metaphysicist 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity College, Dublin[edit]

Please stop simply reverting this article, it's unhelpful. Please see the discussion on the article talk page on why repeated insertion of disputed material is not correct. the edit in question is very POV, and has no sources cited, so has been removed by most editors watching the page. Please try and find a citable source that covers public perception of TCD, and reference that, but please do not simply insert unverifiable statements. If you read WP:V the key is verifibility, not truth, by removing the edits, no one is saying they they are untrue, simply unverifiable. Many editors have removed your addition for the same reason, and if you keep inserting it without an attempt to back up the claims with sources, it will look as if you are not interested in debating or coming to a consesus, both of which are vital for editing wikipedia. Regards, MartinRe 18:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the talk page, please do not change the header levels and/or order to try and promote any one topic. It is extremely unhelpful, and is giving me the increasing impression that you do not care about rational debate, despite my attempts to Assume good faith. Regards, MartinRe 19:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Th re-org was well intentioned considering that there was three or four sections all really talking about the one topic. I agree promotion of the header level by one was offside. I don't remeber making a decision to do so. I'm relatively new to WP and so I am still learning about WP markup. Thanks.

Metaphysicist, what is your problem with TCD? Autarch 16:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Metaphysicist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Note

Metaphysicist, as you are new, I strongly reccommend that you take some time and read all the above and associated links. It will take some time, yes, but it will save a lot of trouble in the long run. Until you have read all the above, I suggest you refrain from adding controversial edits, either in articles or talk pages. Regards, MartinRe 20:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other peoples comments[edit]

Please do not edit other people comments, even for "spelling mistakes." It is generally seen as impolite, and can change the meaning of what the person said. You did this to me, in the edit [2]. OR was not a spelling mistake, it is short for "Original Research", which was referred to in the preceeding paragraph, under Wikipedia:No original research. With your edit of my comment, you made it look if I said the complete opposite to what I actually did. That does not make me a happy bunny! Please do not do so again. OR, like many other terms, is explained in in the policys and guidlines, which all editors are expected to read before contributing. Regards, MartinRe 22:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]