SlyFrog

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, SlyFrog, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your recent edits on the article Matt Windman do not conform to Wikipedia's policy on Civility towards other editors. The focus in any dispute should be on edits and never editors.

There's a page about the Civility policy that has tips on how to interact with other editors. If issues continue, you may need to look into Dispute Resolution.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Assume Good Faith policy

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ♪BMWΔ 19:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matt Windman. 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. ♪BMWΔ 19:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

First, your actions led you to be the topic of a civility report filing, which was then escalated to noticeboard for admin action. The "fact" that someone edits articles about themselves is not notable, nor encyclopedic. I have made dozens of edits to a number of articles - is that encyclopedic? Wikipedia is also not considered to be a valid reference inside Wikipedia, so your citation was invalid. If more than one person reverts your edits, that's when YOU the editor need to stop and rethink...Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, so obviously, your edit was not a consensus edit. ♪BMWΔ 19:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The article had already been tagged as "Criteria for Speedy Deletion". Smart-arsed comments about the person who continued to create it is considered to be a violation of WP:NPA. There is plenty of time to comment on the ARTICLE (and never the editor who created it) on the Talkpage of the article, or at articles for deletion. ♪BMWΔ 20:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

None of your attempts to belittle the person who continued to create the articles can be remotely considered as "good faith". They were both personal attacks AND vandalism to the Wikipedia project as a whole. ♪BMWΔ 20:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. But I do again sincerely thank you for the introduction, and the clarification you have offered. SlyFrog (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)