User talk:Subwaynz

Greetings Subwaynz. I am very happy to see that you registered an account. It's always more difficult referring to you as some random IP address. I see however that you are still making the same edit to the article Wushu that got you blockedfor 24 hours. Please consider gaining concensus on your edit before making it again. This is a Wikipedia guideline, and makes things run much more smoothly.

I believe the current reason your edits are being reverted (by myself and others) revolves around the fact that the forum user you are mentioning is non-notable. The fact that he went by the name 'Wushu' doesn't really promote him to the status of being included int he article. If I was using the pseudonym 'George Washington' in some online forum, I would not be added to the article on George Washington. Please feel free to give your further thoughts on this matter here or on the Wushu talk page. --Llort 03:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

considering that george washington was actually a person, then yes, you wouldnt put it in. wushu was not a person, but remember that a subject does not have to have a definite concrete model of what it is. wushu as shown, can mean a number of different things, however, straying from the conceived and prior model, does not mean that it is less valid. it just illustrates diversity. back to the point, that if i feel it is relevant, and have correctly referenced it, then i see no reason why you should continue to revert it. --

Again, that is why there are policies and guidelines to help editors. You feel that a single user by the pseudonym of Wushu on one forum of many on the internet is relevant. That is fine as I will not try to change your opinion on that. To you, this single user meets your definition of notability as laid out at WP:Notability.

You failed to address a point I raised above concerning consensus. This is a guideline for all editors to follow when making contributions to Wikipedia and can be found at WP:Consensus. While this single user may be notable to you, he would need to be notable to others as well in order for you to gain consensus. In an event where most others have not heard of this person or perhaps feel they are non-notable, perhaps you should ask yourself if this crosses the line into un-encyclopedic content. --Llort 15:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is copyright. And it is not exactly from a neutral point of view. It's just cut'n'paste from the schools own site. If people want to look at the schools own site they can use the link on the page. Cheers, Neil Leslie 07:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is a document of the schools history. there is hardly much variance, if you want i will re write it just to suit you? --

I think that you have missed the point. The school is boring. Almost all schools are. The text that is there now is a combination of the unencycolpedic (i.e. its banal) and the self promoting. Further, as I said above, you have missed the point of hypertext by reproducing the contents of another web page on wikipedia. And you have missed the point of Wikipedia by copying large chunks of self promoting material on what is supposed to be a neutral source. If you don't like the copyvio notice try writing something which does not violate copyright and whhich is written from a neutral point of view. Cheers Neil Leslie 20:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i will change it back, and any such correspondence about this matter please address it in the talk page, not by defacing the main page with copyright crap. as an ex student i feel offended. --Subwaynz 03:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[1] made on

UTC) to Wushu

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule . Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 08:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied across from

It's certainly disproportionate and very likely unencyclopedic. You are wasting everybody's time, pelase find something productive to do. The Land 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are used to

type 13:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You've been overruled by consensus; it happens a lot here, and successful Wikipedians get over it. Please note that you now have three admins urging you not to escalate this, in addition to the fourth who's already blocked you for it.

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Babyfail.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[2] made on

UTC) to Gameplanet

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule . Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 22:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Please do not blind revert a whole long series of badly needed changes just to restore the article to the way you had it previously. Sections of the article that served no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever were removed, the text was copy edited, and so forht and so on. You undid it all and just called me "overzealous" when it might be more to the point that you are way underzealous when it comes to making articles confirm to what is expected of Wikipedia articles.

I undid you revert. If you think certain parts should be changed, please discuss it or go ahead and change the sections you want modified, but do not simply revert anything and everything another editor did for no reason. DreamGuy 23:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]