User talk:Jnavas - Wikipedia

Welcome to my Talk page. To communicate with me, please use the + tab or click here to create a new section, then give it a descriptive subject/headline, and please sign all posts with --~~~~

Thanks! --John Navas 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

The MfD discussion on your user subpage has closed as keep. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --John Navas 18:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

No offense meant there, was clearing out the backlog at CAT:CSD after someone else nominated this page for speedy deletion as being empty. Pages speedily deleted under that context are without any prejudice for recreation. Unfortunately, we get tons of empty pages created by others (even well-meaning editors) that never get content added to them beyond a few words, a tag, or something like "coming soon" that deletion is just the best step. I've gone back and restored the history if you are interested in it. Thank you and happy editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just remembered, we have the {{inuse}} template that is even better then "coming soon" that you can use as well. See the template documentation for parameters. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --John Navas 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Compact Disc. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I could easily say the same about you (for your immediate deletions without prior discussion, the pot calling the kettle black), but ad hominen has no place here (and I don't take kindly to such threats). Do you have a substantive comment, any real disagreement with I've recently written, or are you just attacking me personally? --John Navas 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This isn't an attack. It is, in fact, a standard template used to inform people that there is both A) a limit to how many reverts they can perform on an article, and B) a possibility that they may have exceeded that limit. In your case, you have exceeded that limit. Given your relatively low edit count, I assumed a lack of experience on your part meant that you weren't fully apprised of this conduct policy. I would hope that you are now suitably informed. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the disparagement in your assumption speaks for itself. --John Navas 18:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you were already familiar with 3RR, why did you perform more than three reverts within a 24 hour period? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I could ask the same question of you, but since you don't have a substantive response to the real issue, I'm not going to respond further. --John Navas 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's simple enough: reverts which remove clear violations of copyright or non-free content policies don't count for 3RR. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply