Spearfire
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Linus Torvalds, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Stop vandalizing Wikipedia edit
Hey FCSundae: "Didn't appear to be constructive to who"? Can you please "assume good faith" and not slander or assume and not arrogantly like the narcissist you are speak for the entire world and make 1 second judgments, jumping headlong into a decision like you are arbiter for the world? What arrogance. So whatever "appears not to be helpful" to you, isn't? Is that why no one reverted that edit till the next day, because it was so unhelpful? Learn whatever evidence means. Hint: It's not whatever you feel it to be or whatever your personal opinion of it is and it's not by determined by consensus. Stop vandalizing Wikipedia to suit your personal agenda and cherry picking information which is the accusation administrator Prolog slanderously made and which he is the one guilty of. Stop censoring information that is relevant and calling it cherry-picking. Stop being biased and do your job correctly, not with bias and to meet the expectations of your friends. Stop pandering. Stop that sickening practice that you bigoted moderators continually engage in which is to accuse every user of sock puppetry who does not agree with your disgusting bully selves! That is not polite and not fair, ok weasel-wording vandal? Wikipedia is supposed to be free for anyone to edit: Not a tool for moderators and adminsitrators to puch their personal agenda and views. AND STOP HIDING BEHIND WEASEL-WORDS AND PRETENTIOUS SPEECH AND THEN ACCUSER USERS OF BEING OH NO: IMPOLITE. It is you who is impolite and making virtual insults. This is not liberal-pedia you vandal: IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL.Spearfire (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Spitfire. What concerned me most about your edit is that you appeared to have made the same edit as User:Chimerican, User:Pascalor, and User:Yahweh Rules. It looked like you were creating new accounts to get around consensus and block warnings, which is against Wikipedia policy. For the record, I do almost entirely vandalism reversion, and rarely weigh in with opinions on content disputes. I reverted you because the consensus seemed to be otherwise. If the consensus changes, I'll happily protect a different version. Thanks, FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User_talk:FCSundae and User talk:Pingveno, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Avicennasis @ 08:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010 edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Linus Torvalds. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Avicennasis @ 08:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)