User talk:WikiCVU

March 2015

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Fablahlafuv may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Kharkiv07^Talk 18:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Be nice to the newbies. WikiCVU (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Your recent edits may be a violation of Wikipedia policy, however I'd rather not discuss it on-wiki. If you enable the email function on your account I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you. Kharkiv07^Talk 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• User:Kharkiv07, I prefer transparency. If you wish to charge me with violating Wikipedia policy, please do so publicly. WikiCVU (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I will not, but if you look back in the history of your edits you can see that they've been removed, which means that a Wikipedia admin or oversighter agrees that it's a violation. Please do not replace it. Kharkiv07^Talk 18:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

See the entry in the deletion log here Kharkiv07^Talk 18:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• User:Kharkiv07, why do you say "Unfortunately"—are you gunslinging for newbies? WikiCVU (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the reason given in the reason for deletion, I'd check out the policy on privacy, but besides that I don't want to get dragged into an argument here. Kharkiv07^Talk 19:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have amended some of your comments on another user's page, and revision-deleted prior versions. Please stop trying to identify editors by linking to Twitter; this is a violation of Wikipedia's outing policy, constitutes harrassment, and will result in your account being blocked from editing if you do it again. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Yunshui: No good deed goes unpunished. WikiCVU (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCVU please just take a quick look over the outing policy, outing is a major issue here, however you've been making positive contributions so I'd hate for you to get blocked. Kharkiv07^Talk 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kharkiv07, do whatever you feel is necessary. But please stop threatening me. It violates both Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_edit_wars#Threats_and_intimidation. WikiCVU (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not going to get into an argument here, but I'd like to say that I believe I've done a reasonable job trying to help you and I don't believe I've been threatening. I'd honestly like you to stick around, I've been flipping through your contributions and I think you could be a great benefit to the project. Kharkiv07^Talk 21:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked this account. Not only is it a sockpuppet, it is violating policy in clear ways even after being warned. Appeal of this block is directly to ArbCom only. If you wish to contest this block, arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org is the address you need to contact. Courcelles (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)