User talk:Vuzor/Archive 1

April 2013

Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Simon Collins, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks,  Yintan  09:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vuzor. You have new messages at Yintan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replaceable fair use File:Simoncollins.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Simoncollins.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sound of Contact, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Genesis and Sonic Reality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Vuzor, thank you for helping with the Sound of Contact article. I just edited the new page you created, adding back most of the content that was deleted yesterday. Its been edited down, and hopefully wont be considered a direct copy and paste from the band's official website, although since they approve of this wiki article about them, I really don't see the problem with using their content. It's accurate and unbiased, so that's what should count, right. Anyway, I put in a request for a photo of Simon that can be used on his wiki page, I'll forward it to you when I know something. Thanks again. Carter336 (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sound of Contact

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sound of Contact requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vuzor. You have new messages at Winkelvi's talk page.
Message added 21:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Winkelvi (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vuzor. You have new messages at Sonic Squids's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Moving talk

Hi Vuzor -- I don't know if there is some kind of policy relating to the situation, but I don't think it's necessary for you to move every discussion to the article talk page. Perhaps just letting Sonic Squids know to start discussion articles on the appropriate talk page rather than user talk pages? I get the feeling you are trying to make sure everything is transparent. That's a good idea. Directing him to discuss the article(s) on the article talk pages in the future would probably be the best way to handle that. Not trying to tell you what to do, but it does seem like a waste of bandwidth and time to keep moving stuff. Winkelvi (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Winkelvi. Thanks for the concern. I actually told him a few times within my comments on his page to reply on the Sound of Contact talk page, and I linked to it, as I have done in this sentence. In any event, I took note of Spanglej's comment that it would be better to keep everything organized on one page, and seeing as the discussion had been dispersed across numerous talk pages, I felt it would be helpful to move our earlier discussion on Sonic_Squids' talk page to the article's talk page. In regards to my decision to move Sonic Squids' response about Jonathan Schang to the article talk page, I would have otherwise posted a response to indicate the question had been answered -- just so it wouldn't have been left open-ended. That response would have taken up some bandwidth as well. He didn't reply in the place I was hoping for, though I felt it was necessary to establish that the question on the Sound of Contact talk page had been answered.

If you don't recommend transferring comments like that, I'll try not to do that. I don't think bandwidth would necessarily be the reason for it, though, as I would have needed to indicate the question had been answered in any case. If it isn't quite mandatory, I feel it at least helps organize the discussion, in my opinion. I do wish to keep everything transparent and clear so that we, as well as future editors, can have a sense of the expectations, progress, and information we have established, as well as to clarify some of the unclear information about the content itself. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and I feel the talk pages really help us provide a sense of where we are at and what we can achieve. Lately, I've been trying to keep all of the discussion on the article talk pages, but in Sonic Squids' case, he answered on his user talk page rather than on the article's talk page despite my request. I don't blame him -- he's likely in the middle of rehearsals for the upcoming tour. I did want to be helpful by transferring his comment, though. I don't think it will happen too often. As long as we all post on the article talk pages, we should be fine. Thanks for bringing it up. Vuzor (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed too many of your recent edits to Sound of Contact do not have edit summaries. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. This has been mentioned to you before. Please remember to include edit summaries from here on out. Winkelvi (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Winkelvi. I don't believe the edit summaries were mentioned to me before, and if they were, I must have missed it by mistake. I apologize. Thank you for letting me know. I will try to do so from now on. Vuzor (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like I did miss it. I noticed it just now in one of Spanglej's comments yesterday. Sorry about that. Vuzor (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your hard work on music articles and for your grace under fire. Thanks. Span (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sound of Contact

Category:Sound of Contact, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dimensionaut

A tag has been placed on Dimensionaut, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

The album hasn't been released yet - delete per WP:CRYSTAL

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Winkelvi (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, you won't take this personally. I just think it's premature and obvious advertising for this article to exist before the album is even released. If it does get deleted, why not just hang onto the content of the article on your computer and then recreate it after the album is released? Winkelvi (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Dimensionaut for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dimensionaut is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensionaut until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dimensionaut album.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Dimensionaut album.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For example

Writing that the album was released on May 28th - knowingwp:crystal has already been an issue - is a perfect example of why I am having a hard time trusting your motivation in editing the articles involving Sound of Contact. And you're still not using edit summaries when you should. And yet, you criticize me claiming the article hasn't been edited or improved in your 'absence'? WTF? Winkelvi (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. Perhaps this derives from my lack of faith in anybody else editing the page, and a subconscious effort to edit things in advance. That's the last time that will happen. I had a feeling you would catch it. I am glad you are keeping an eye on it. Hopefully you understand I can't be doing the majority of the work on these articles. I had to manually edit the release information of the album on the Sound of Contact page as well. It seems if I'm not here to make any changes (and I do see your recent changes), very little is done. I still feel you are the only one who understood why the COI tag was up there, and it would have been helpful if you could have listed what you felt specifically was wrong with the article. Let's actually work on the article and not clash. If we can agree to that, we can accomplish much more. Vuzor (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Really confused as to why you think this article, or any Wikipedia article, must be worked on at all times. Unless it's an article someone is trying to get to GA status or is a current events-related article, what would you work on it continually for? Until something else new or exciting happens in the life of Kerzner or Sound of Contact, what else should there be? Wiki articles are constantly in a state of 'work in progress', and that's why there is no deadline. Work on it at your leisure. If you are starting to feel responsible for the articles in question and don't recognize trust any one other than your self to edit it, then you've got ownership issues. You might want to read the article on wp:own to get a handle on that concept. Ownership isn't how it's supposed to work, my friend. And if the article doesn't have anything new in it for days, weeks, or months -- who gives a crap? It's just the internet. Relax, dude. Winkelvi (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy, you keep misunderstanding me. The release date for the album in North America is two days away. I have a feeling nobody is going to be working on it, so I changed the information to state it "was released." In two days' time the tense I chose would have been correct. It's not that I don't "trust" anyone to edit it in the sense that people . ould not edit it; have I not already invited others to edit the pages and help out? I want people to contribute. Quit trying to grasp at straws. I used "trust" in the context that I don't "believe" people will edit the. age or that anyone actually gives a crap about editing it. I'd rather have the page use the past tense for two extra days instead of using the present tense for however long I might be unavailable.

I am also simply asking you to be accountable if you place the COI banner up to explain why in god's name it was there. Placing it there ambiguously and then leaving the article will do nothing to improve the article. You then left the article for two weeks. There's no timeline, but there are realistic expectations to have things done in a reasonable amount of time. Someone else had to tell you the banner had no purpose there before it was taken down, which meant the banner had no place being there at all. You have a knack for tossing banners around without hesitation even if they do not entirely fit the situation. You make offensive assumptions and manipulate words. Stop. Vuzor (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm officially done trying to work with you. Your words say one thing one moment, you do something completely different the next, and then you say something that totally contradicts what you said and did prior to that. It's like you're two or three people rather than just one editor. I may have left the tag there, but if you notice, the other editor didn't remove it right away, either. Again, who gives a shit whether I edit the article more than I did? IT'S NOT ABOUT A TIMELINE. Get it? this is a community. Everyone is welcome to edit the article. If someone else removes the tag other than me, so what? Nobody gives a shit but you and Kerzner. if i misunderstand you as you claim, it's because your passive aggressive behavior and contradictory statements make it impossible to understand you. as far as the date of album release being two days from now: accuracy and honesty and accurate information counts. You've already been schooled in wp:crystal, so you KNOW you can't put in a future date as if it has already happened. Now what I see is that you tried to slip it in. Who cares why you did it. The fact is YOU CAN'T DO IT. Wp:IDHT is taking on a whole new meaning for me after dealing with you. Winkelvi (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's your accusations and way of talking that have made me address you the way I have. From your accusations of me to your misunderstanding of what sources were allowed to your flagging of pages for deletion for the wrong reasons; it seems you're the one attempting to make disruptive edits. You haven't been free of mistakes either, and your insistence on trying to justify certain mistakes such as the banner is embarrassing. I will continue to edit the page, and as you have said anyone else is welcome as well to. Please address me specifically about issues with the page the next time you talk to me. Vuzor (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That you are keeping active laundry list of perceived wrongs and errors another editor has made and continually bring them up over and over only says one thing to me: you are not a team player and do not understand the Wikipedia community concept. I had considered rephrasing my statement above that said I was done trying to work with you and gentle it down. Now it is obvious to me that no matter what I say no matter what I do you will continue to bring out what you believe are past mistakes and errors on my part and try to use them as ammunition. So be it. As long as you continue as you have in your last post here, I'm done trying to work with you and will just edit as I believe I should based on the Manual of Style. But, if you ever want to try and work with me and others in the way we are supposed to work together in Wikipedia, let me know and I will be happy to give you another chance. Until then, I will just keep editing the articles we both edit and cleaning up your mistakes and non-Wikipedia standard edits. And just for the record, I had every intention of changing the appropriate articles to reflect the album release date and the wording surrounding it. If you were really concerned about it getting done if you weren't able to do it yourself, you could have asked someone else to do it for you. You could have asked me to do it for you and I would have. That is what working together looks like here. But, rather than do it the right way, you decided to do it your way -- the wrong way -- and to hell with what the Manual of Style says. Even though you knew better because of prior conversations regarding WP:CRYSTAL. That behavior, put plainly, is considered disruptive editing and has no place anywhere in Wikipedia. Especially in an article you are saying you care so much about. Again, another perfect example of why I don't trust your editing style and motivation and intent here. You keep giving me more reasons not to assume good faith with you. It would be wonderful if you'd give me reasons why I can trust you again. Alas, for now you've exhausted my patience, understanding, and good will. Winkelvi (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I would love to be a team player. Is the removal of the band template from the Simon Collins and Dave Kerzner pages appropriate at all? They are members of the band. I don't mean to keep a "laundry list," but I have previously attempted to be patient with you and to consult with you and others. The fact that you've spoken in such a harsh tone has made it difficult to work with you. Each time you've accused me of something, I have simply provided a response. Perhaps you don't appreciate that. Please elaborate on the talk pages if you feel the need to place a tag at the top of a page or remove a template. Some of the changes you have made are fine, but others should be discussed with other editors. Vuzor (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD in order to understand Wikipedia's editing progression. Winkelvi (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Dimensionaut

Looking at Vuzor/Dimensionaut, I note that in the "Reception" section, you have only positive reviews. I can tell you right now that so many positive reviews are not going to fly. As it is, the section is filled with undue weight. You have to balance it out with negative reviews as well. Don't forget, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine. Find negative reviews and put them in as well -- equal amount of negative as positive would be ideal. Winkelvi (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not finished. Don't panic. I took a dinner break. This is not on any published page yet. I already have a negative review here that I intend to incorporate.

http://gettothefront.co.uk/2013/05/review-sound-of-contact-dimensionaut/

Vuzor (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No panic on my end. Just informing you in case you didn't know. But I'm serious that it needs to be balanced out. Which means if you only end up with one negative review, there probably should be no more than two positive reviews in the section. Winkelvi (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware. Thanks for telling me. I had intended to balance it anyway, but I appreciate the concern. I thought you might have been flipping out because I stopped editing. No worries. Vuzor (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no rule about having to have negative reviews. Many articles don't. Articles get built over time; You start with what you've got. Yes, you want balance, ideally, but the idea with WP is that you have a whole community of editors and no deadline. Beyoncé Knowles (GA) and Michael Jackson (FA) don't have any negative artistic reviews or mentions. Wink, you are about the only editor I've come across who uses WP:UNDUE in the way you do. It's generally used in Israel/Palestine articles, for example, when one viewpoint is starting to dominate. 'A section' cannot really be 'filled with undue weight'. You might not like or agree with the content, but that is another matter. WP was conceived as a collaborative work in progress. Span (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no "rule", but one of the cardinal rules in Wikipedia is NPOV. Undue weight is right behind NPOV. Undue weight in the form of positive reviews takes the article from encyclopedia to fan magazine because the NPOV isn't there. The first sentence in the article on NPOV states, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources." So, there you have it. Not a "rule" but definitely the definition of NPOV in Wikipedia regarding Wikipedia articles.

Since this article is starting from scratch and has already been deleted once, I would think we should be encouraging Vuzor to get it as right and clean as possible from the get-go, not giving him reasons to cut corners. Two artists articles providing an example that proves your point -- out of the thousands of articles that have a "Reviews" section -- is, in my estimation, only showing that unbalanced and POV articles can pass GA and FA. I'm certain there are many, many more articles that have been written more carefully and with more attention to NPOV and have a more balanced tone by giving fairly equal time to negative and positive reviews. There have already been questions as to the POV tone and advertisement and fan magazine nature of the articles surrounding Sound of Contact. No need to add more fuel and suspicion to that fire. Yes, Wikipedia is a collaborative work in progress. Precisely why I'm adding my collaborative 3 cents. NPOV is accomplished when there are critical eyes watching, adding their opinions and edits to the pot from a different POV. Winkelvi (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Dimensionaut

Hi. I've deleted the version you just created, and I've moved the userfied copy into its place - the reason is to retain the history of the article, as it has had some (minor) changes by other people along the way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Boing. You've been really helpful throughout this process. It's all greatly appreciated. :) Vuzor (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on getting the article live. Span (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Dimensionaut, you may be blocked from editing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You can threaten, but in this instance more editors disagree with you than agree. You instigated the change, and have thus far reverted the edits of more than one person in regards to this. One can argue you are editing disruptively. If this is truly wrong, someone else will correct it. Let someone else sort it out; frankly, I do not trust you with your edits. Vuzor (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dimensionaut shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Surprised

Considering the strong warnings we both received in July that very nearly were blocks, I'm surprised you've chosen to revert and change what was rewritten rather than discuss it all first on the article's talk page. Discussion happens on talk pages, not in edit summaries. Thought you would have learned that last time. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was a sentence fragment. I didn't see what was wrong with the sentence prior to your revision. I would have chosen to leave it had it not been a sentence fragment. I'm not sure why you're confused by this decision. I've left all of your other edits untouched.

"Designed to showcase the progressive rock genre and the beginning of the band's Dimensionaut world tour with sixteen performances during August and September 2013 that includes twenty one bands" is not a complete sentence. I tried to make it work, but the sentence is completely mangled grammatically. It had to be fixed, plain and simple. I'm not being unreasonable. What you changed the sentence to is not a sentence. Vuzor (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sound of Contact. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dimensionaut. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This is quite immature of you. I have openly asked you if you would like to seek another opinion so we can reach consensus. If you feel strongly enough about it to attack me, I invite you to seek another opinion. Let's try to resolve this in a cooperative manner. I am not edit warring. From the very start, I have asked you to talk about it on Talk:Sound of Contact. Why you would remove the same information from the Dimensionaut page after being asked to discuss it on Talk:Sound of Contact is beyond reason. Please keep the discussion on that page and try to resolve this through consensus, not through attacks on me. Vuzor (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not immature, just making a notification trail. Your personal attack of me through name calling ("immature") is, however, noted.

Not attacking you, just stating a fact and doing so within Wikipedia guidelines.

You most certainly are edit warring. The following is the Wikipedia definition of edit warring:

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring"."

You have overridden the content I removed by replacing it with your own content. In so doing, you have not only created animosity where animosity did not need to be created, you also are engaging in edit warring behavior. Discussion was started by me on both article talk pages, you ignored both and started your own discussions as if my attempts at discussion did not exist. None of these actions by you say "cooperative".

The Sound of Contact article and the Dimensionaut articles are separate. Discussion regarding each article needs to happen at each of the pages, not at a related page. This keeps a trail of discussion in the archives for those editing or inquiring in the future. We are not and never will be the only editors involved at these articles.

I will be attempting to get this resolved through avenues other than article talk page discussions. Previous attempts to do so with you have proven tedious and futile through your use of Wikilawyering, endless arguing of the same point(s) over and over, and the continuous exercise on your part of WP:IDHT. I will notify you where and when I take this up with others for comment and assistance. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

For your information:

Because of his administrative involvement in the last edit warring episode(s) at Dimensionaut (see here:[1]), I have made Bbb23 aware of the edit warring warnings and the events surround same here:[2]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Trying one more time to compromise. Both promotion sections for the Dimensionaut article and the SoC article have been rewritten in regard to the Prog tour in order to eliminate the possibility of using WP:CRYSTAL. Extraneous and irrelevant detail has also been removed as well as references that are no longer relevant and no longer support the corrections surrounding the tour cancellation. Hopefully, this will end the content dispute and keep you from further edit warring at these articles. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No "notification trail" needed to be made. To remove what I had written in the first place is a sign of edit warring. You had not attempted to compromise at all prior to now, but I see you have decided to leave all of the information regarding the tour's cancellation, the initial scheduling, and the recent events intact. It seems everything you had so aggressively wished to remove still remains in the article. I am glad you have had a change of opinion; rewording it is fine, removing it without consensus is not. I have read the discussion at [3] and am glad you have decided not to insist on removing information without consensus immediately after the new content has been written. I have always been open to reaching consensus on changes, and if you can gather the support of others for the removal of information, that is fine. Remember our discussion in July: the easiest way to work cooperatively is to seek consensus for the removal of information, not addition.

As of now, the information you wished to remove initially still remains, although you have rewritten it. That is a fine compromise. Good of you to cooperate. As I have said, if you feel strongly enough something that it should be removed, then you can ask others for their opinions. If others agree with you that the content in question should be removed (and if it truly deserves to be removed, others will most definitely agree), then consensus can be reached on the removal of content. This is a more productive method of resolving a content dispute than simply removing new content and having other users approve of every new addition to the articles. Vuzor (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pavel Bure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pat Quinn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pavel Bure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonpareil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Collins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Collins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Simon Collins. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)