User talk:ParalelUni

re: vandalism template

Your userpage was recently vandalized. Someone has been creating rapid-fire accounts to spam that personal attack all over Wikipedia. I took your pageblanking as an indication that you wanted the vandalism gone. I took the liberty of deleting the page so the attack is not even in your page history. Hope that's okay. Rossami (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion

I replied here. Prodego ^talk 20:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely it would be reverted, but I have deleted them for you. Glad I could help. Prodego ^talk 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCIMD-COM

I am an admin. I have some experience of articles on unaccredited universities. I have personally checked the authoritative sources and verified that this is not accredited in the UK. It is an unaccredited institution, and the {{unaccredited}} text is a standard consensus form of words for such institutions. Be warned: you do not WP:OWN this article, and removing verifiable data about accreditation has in the past led to editors being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 21:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the above and stop edit-warring. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop yourself, you are acting in the same manner. It's pathetic for an admin. to be acting like this. Someone must really have been sleeping on the job the day you got that position. Spike 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a single purpose account who refuses to accept advice, hints, consensus, mediation, policy, guidelines and authority. There are two ways forward from here: you can learn, or you can leave. No other options are available. Just zis Guy you know? 22:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do your homework, I have made edits on many areas of wikpedia. I accept plenty from people who are worth listening to, you aren't one of them. You don't get to choose who gets to stay here and what they have to do. Go away, you are nothing more than an annoying gnat. Spike 22:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bucketsofg✐ 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but is anyone going to do something about that admin. that is war-editing on the same article? Spike 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel he's breached 3RR, then report him here. Bucketsofg✐ 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were the first to revert, you are at three now and one more takes you over the limit (yes, this is Wikilawyering, but you seem utterly unwilling to accept any kind of hint, clue or advice). You are in a minority of one; per pretty much every case I can recall this means you are the one who's wrong. See User:JzG/Tendentious editing. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From your rather twisted prospective I am sure it seems that way. I am not alone, you just seem to think that everyone is logged on to wikipedia all day long and constantly check what is going on, which, while possibly true for you, is not true for the average person. People may only check this site every day or two, if that often. You can't expect people to just rally around someone right away. Most people do have lives. Spike 22:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Wikipedia equivalent of "the lurkers support me by email". Just zis Guy you know? 22:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't understand that people don't spend all day signed on here, you really are sad. Spike 22:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You're not quite qualified to judge JzG's adminship considering your experience on Wikipedia does not extend past editing St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. I fully support JzG's position here because he has been editing this article as a responsible editor (like any one of us can be) while citing from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. I see no conflict-of-interest here since he has not used his admin powers to block or threaten you. If you want to continue to contribute as part of the Wikipedia community then it is your obligation to acknowledge the request for mediation. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]