User talk:Datenschleuder

INTEGRITY[edit]

You wouldn't know the meaning of the word, let alone it's implementation in daily life.MrSpammy (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be contributing in the mediation? 24.114.255.83 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWIIOL[edit]

You were actively recruited by a player of the game, and you yourself are a player of the game. You have a stake in this. You are defending something you like, and are not being objective. The criticisms section is noteworthy, and validMrSpammy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Your edits to the article are critisized by every other contributor. Several reasons were given for the edits that you constantly revert, but you do not contribute in the discussion.

No one wants the critcism section to be removed. Your contributions however are only a reflection of your irrational hatred against the subject. --Datenschleuder (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I don't hate the game. Prior to my contributions, every "criticism" was phrased as an excuse. The only people, besides myself, who care enough to edit the page are crazed fanbois who cannot tolerate anything negative being said about their game. Think about the audience here- People who are most likely reading the areticle are trying to decide whether or not to buy it or return to it. Prior to my edits, the article was totally unbalanced. My edits actually make the article useful.MrSpammy (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism sections has been there long before you started to vandalize the article. No one intends to remove this section. All other article contributors argued against your edits with sound arguments that you don't even care to respond to.

Please think about the reasoning behind your childish vendetta against the game and you should realize that no one is being helped by this. --Datenschleuder (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MrSpammy (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying that my edits are unconstructive doesn't make it so. My edits *are* constructive and serve to better inform the reader about the gameMrSpammy (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone involved in the article disagrees with you. It is obvious to everyone that your sick intent is to harm the game because you violated the ToS and were banned. --Datenschleuder (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World War II Online. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Smilers ☺^Talk 17:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism of the WWIIOL page[edit]

Hey Datenschleuder, why don't you leave the criticisms page alone until AFTER the mediation has run its course? If, after a NEUTRAL third party says to get rid of it, I'll relent. But your edits are not constructive. Your dedication to the game is touching, but it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. MrSpammy (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the reason for the mediation because several Wikipedia contributors complained about your edits. Wikipedia is based on a democratic article buildup. Every contributor on the article disagrees with you, which you simply ignore rigorously.

You make it perfectly clear that you believe that Wikipedia articles are a platform for complains against the subject by individuals like you. This is clearly not what Wikipedia is about. --Datenschleuder (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009[edit]

Just thought I would let you know that as per WP:DRC User:MrSpammy is perfectly entitled to remove those messages from his talk page. The only messages that may not be removed from a user talk page are declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, and shared IP header templates for unregistered editors. If you have any questions regarding this feel free to drop me a comment and I'll do my best to answer it. —Smilers ☺^Talk 19:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]