User talk:Siddhartha21

Welcome!

Hello, Siddhartha21, 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!

TheRingess 08:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts[edit]

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Monkeyman^(talk) 12:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson[edit]

Please stop removing 'Wacko Jacko' from the opening paragraph of the Michael Jackson article. A consensus has been reached on the talk page to keep the nickname.--King G 07:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson 2[edit]

Please stop edit warring over "Wacko Jacko" and use the article's talk page to reach a resolution. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was to maintain the status quo. I was not changing content against consensus. Nor was I edit warring. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then address it on the talk page. The other editors appear to have reached a consensus which does not support your editing. In the last day-and-a-half or so, you've removed the same words 6 times, with no contributions to the talk page. Edit warring is bad.Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your recent edits to the Michael Jackson article, please stop removing 'Wacko Jacko' from the introductory sentence, other editors have reached a consensus to keep it. If you want to discuss this issue further please use the talk page instead of ignoring consensus.--Count Chocula 02:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the three-revert rule. android 79 01:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson 3[edit]

Please stop removing "Wacko Jacko" from the Michael Jackson article. It has been explained to you before that CONSENSUS has agreed that it should stay in the article. If you continue to edit against consensus you will be banned from editing wikipedia. Funky Monkey 15:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Siddhartha21. I'm not that keen myself on the Wacko Jacko bit. But there is a consensus to keep it there, and if you try to go against consensus, you'll get reverted, and you'll possibly end up blocked for edit warring. Would it be a good idea to spend a little time editing something that you have less strong views on, to get some kind of experience or feeling for how Wikipedia works, and then coming back to Michael Jackson later? Also, please don't edit archives of talk pages. If you want to make a comment, you should do it on the talk page itself. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned a number of times regarding the removal of 'Wacko Jacko' against the current consensus of editors. If you continue to disrupt the article in this manner i'll be forced to report you.--Count Chocula 09:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been thoroughly disucussed amoung the contributors of the michael jackson article sid, and it has been agreed that the nickname 'Wacko Jacko' should stay in the introduction. I've said this a number of times but I'll say it again, if you still disagree with the current consensus then bring it up on the talk page (not the archived talk page). Your concerns will fall on more receptive ears if you handle the issue in a more mature fashion than you are now.--Count Chocula 10:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wacko Jacko[edit]

For Pete's sake. We're all acting with good faith and trying to negotiate a consensus on the talk page and meanwhile you're busy trying to enforce your views. For the last time, STOP EDIT WARRING over the nicknames. You've been asked nicely many times by many different people. Just stop it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you to show the same good faith the rest of us are. It is poor form to continue edit warring while everyone else is attempting to reach an agreement. And your pathetic sarcasm only goes further to prove you are not acting in good faith and merely have an agenda to push. And really, your talk page here says a LOT about you and your agenda. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wacko Jacko 2[edit]

Everyone has acted in good faith in trying to come up with a concensus. Yet, you continue to ignore that concensus and agreement and continually change the section in question. I'm asking politely. Please. Stop. --Mhking 06:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do the same thing you're doing. Editing out the highly-insulting "wacko jacko" nickname. I agree it shouldn't be there. but guess what? it's gonna stay there. as long as there are many anal-retentive editors on here that contribute to the Michael Jackson article, it's a losing battle. you may as well simply ignore the paragraph because your edits will continue to be reverted back to the version with that horrible name.

once again, i share your disgust. but i gave up long-ago...you should too before you end up being blocked. and i know you don't want that to happen. Drmagic 01:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 5[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Resident Evil 5. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in no way officially refers to Redfield as 'Caucasian'. The openign sentence of the "Controversy" section merely comments on the fact that critics believed the RE5's E3 trailer was racist. Redfield is only referred to as Caucasian given the fact that the people who criticized the trailer believed he was a Caucasian. Thus the description is only used within that context, and not meant to be stated as an official/canonical fact - hence the use of the word "apparent", which was added to further establish the fact that it was from the critics viewpoint. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Resident Evil 5. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You seem to have returned to editing only to get yourself blocked again for the same reason as last time. I suggest you stop immediately and work more on consensus-building.--Atlan (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]