User talk:Guardian sickness

Vandalism[edit]

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Kriss Donald. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Strothra 04:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Kriss Donald, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Removing cited information and blanking are vandalism. Strothra 17:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR[edit]

Review the 3 revert rule at WP:3RR. No more than 3 reverts may be made by a single editor to a single article within a 24hr time period. Editors violating this rule will be blocked from editing. If you violate this rule after this warning, you will be reported for the violation. Please engage in civil discussion on the talk page regarding edits before further engaging in an edit war. --Strothra 04:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay[edit]

What is going on? If you have a problem please speak to me on my talk page. But above all do NOT continue your edit war. Explain what happend and I will try to straighten it out. --Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 19:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this link if you continue having problems with Strothra and 82.19.5.222.[edit]

If you would like I could walk you around Wikipedia. It would help your editing skills and might help you get the hang of things. Well let me know what want,

--Darkest Hour ^Ж ^Ж ^Ж ^Ж ^Ж 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darkest Hour, I was reading up on the dispute resolutions yesterday, but I believe if everyone is genuinely interested in addressing the points on policy in the discussion (which I honestly doubt) then we could reach agreement. However, this may require more input at some point. It would be obscene if, as strothra seems to be suggesting, the article was locked for editing with that large original research section remaining.

Myself and FrFintonStack definately had opposing ideas, but we had narrowed the disagreements down to two points, and I was open to his suggestion of further edits to the article where it mentions gangs etc. which I did not insert in any case.

I have mostly read up on policy so far, but as for the quality of edits I would be interested in some pointers and would be grateful if you have the time. My attendance here is sometimes patchy though. --Guardian sickness 21:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm[edit]

I see what you mean. I will strongly suggest you come under my wing for a while. Things are getting too far. Please, dont get too involved too much verbally or you might get into a lot of trouble. Also keep on the "up and up" with the admins, do what they give you to do and alwase ask for advice, definately during these times. Please, feel free to vent all of what you have to say on me before you do so on the other person.I will out soon. Thank you, --Darkest Hour ^Ж ^Ж ^Ж ^Ж ^Ж 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFM[edit]

Should yourself and the other involved party agree, I have decided to take the case. Could you please indicate your acceptance on the mediation page (end of page)? Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: We have been waiting on Ldxr1 since Jun 1. I have given him one more week to respond[1] after which I will close the mediation. Please let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]