User:Unconcerned/old7

user:unconcerned/utils user:unconcerned/old1 user:unconcerned/old2 user:unconcerned/old3 user:unconcerned/old4 user:unconcerned/old5 user:unconcerned/old6

---

Deletion Nominations

If you are here to inform me that a Unix utility stub I created is proposed for deletion, please go ahead and do whatever you wish with the said stub. While doing so please also attempt to fix the red links left behind in "what links here" articles. Thanks --Unconcerned 04:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not logged in

Edited as 70.137.26.20 a couple of times should anyone wonder --didn't notice I wasn't logged in. --Unconcerned 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also as 75.40.129.51 --Unconcerned (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Hinet-Chinglish.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Hinet-Chinglish.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Done (and here I am talking to a bot...). --Unconcerned (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please acquaint yourself with WP:3RR, our rule intended to limit edit warring. By my count, you have at least 5 reverts, 2 under your IP address, and 3 as a logged-in user, today. If you continue to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, you may be blocked from further editing. Also note that the 3 reverts are not an entitlement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

see reply on your talk page. --Unconcerned (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate

You have the rules of evidence backwards, my friend. On Wikipedia, WP:V is all that matters, unless you have reliable sources to the contrary. If you don't, then you need to self-revert. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

please see the article's talk page and discuss there. --Unconcerned (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning

You have now fomented 3 simultaneous edit wars with your counterproductive edits, with around a dozen editors. And you've already violated the 3 revert rule with your anonymous edits. If you continue to behave in such a disruptive manner, you can expect to be blocked. (unsigned comment left at 23:07, 24 June 2009 by User: Raul654)

see reply on your talk page if you wish --Unconcerned (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

lesson learned

Never ever get involved in an editing dispute with an active campaigner always google first. And I won't point fingers since it's not civil. WTF was i thinkin'...--Unconcerned (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation

I have reported your multiple violations of the 3 revert rule here Raul654 (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 31 hours for violating WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR. I recommend that in the future, you engage in discussion and establish a consensus before making controversial changes to articles. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)