User talk:Danpatterson89

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Swan, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. It would be appreciated if you'd stop with the nonsense edit summaries too. Onorem ♠Dil 14:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Goose. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Middle school. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed all you are doing is removing red links, then you need to use an appropriate edit summary. Otherwise, a disruptive edit summary and the ostensible removal of content may be construed as vandalism. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not removing content - just taking away links that do not point anywhere. Is that vandalism? Or is that tidying up? Danpatterson89 (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's vandalism. Stop it. – iridescent 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my name is dan patterson I am 19 years old I eat four meals a day, sleep twelve hours out of the twenty-four, and the only thing i ever do is to shoot at small birds with my bow and arrow.

is all true is link to swan is true about me too my name is dan patterson I am 19 years old I eat four meals a day, sleep twelve hours out of the twenty-four, and the only thing i ever do is to shoot at small birds with my bow and arrow.

Enough is enough

This is your final warning. If you continue to make disruptive edits you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – iridescent 14:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now you put the red links back in! All my hard work is wasted. Danpatterson89 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please listen to me

I do not understand. I am not making disruptive edits. Removing redlinks is an important thing to do. Please do not come down on me like a ton of bricks for this. Danpatterson89 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are there to show which articles still need to be written, no for you to play with. Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you continue to make edits like this or to use "joke" edit summaries you will be blocked from editing. – iridescent 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red links shouldn't automatically be removed, and nonsense edit summaries make it harder for people to assume good faith --Onorem ♠Dil 14:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing! I'm sorry if I have missed the point of a dead link. In my web class we learn that a dead link is a bad link. It may be different in the wikipedia - I had no idea it was a key for me to make an article called "grinding chain". Sorry.

So is the edit summary not who edits it? like I have done? Danpatterson89 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the edit summary is for briefly describing the changes you have made. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a point! Danpatterson89 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See where it says "Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made):" right next to the box that you're pasting this into? Means what it says. If you're here to help, then we really don't want to block you, but if the time that's wasted reviewing your contributions and reverting where necessary outweighs the positives you bring then you'll be blocked.

You may want to read Dealing with existing red links for more guidance on the subject of redlinks. Basically, if a legitimate article could be written on the subject, the redlink should stay. Wikipedia is not a finished work; we have fewer articles at present than there are numbers of species of beetle alone, and the redlinks are a reminder of this. – iridescent 15:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grinding chain

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Grinding chain, you will be blocked from editing. Please use appropriate edit summaries._{Wiki11790 talk} 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in fairness, I suspect this was created as a good-faith follow up to a comment of mine that redlinks were for expanding, not removing, given that this was one of the redlinks he removed and I restored as a potentially viable article. It certainly doesn't warrant a speedy deletion and I can't see why you think it would. – iridescent 15:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]