User talk:Albert Wincentz

Welcome!

Hello, Albert Wincentz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 06:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

Hi, I see you are edit warring. Please read WP:3RR and abide by it. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on at Adult-child sex. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Mr.Z-man 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though my understanding of the blocking policy was that it was allowed to make up to three reverts during a 24-hour period per article? At WP:Three-revert rule it states that: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. (noting that I did not revert more than 3 times). Albert Wincentz 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITWAR is policy and revert warring is disruptive nonetheless. Mr.Z-man 02:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you are not allowed to make more than 2 reverts, then? Correct? Thanks, Albert Wincentz 02:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't edit war. Especially given you haven't contributed to the talk page since Nov 9, and you edit warred on Nov 11. Daniel 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I accept the block. Regards, Albert Wincentz 02:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adult-child sex

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Adult-child sex, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Albert, the Adult-child sex debacle has completely gotten out of hand, even moreso recently when the "consensus" of three editors moved, renamed, and then began rewriting the article to match their new, preferred name. Already I and some other editors (well, more invites than editing so far) had started work on a provisional ACS article, seeking to cover everything that the Consensus-of-3 claims to be working on, while focusing on a balanced, truly NPOV, highly-referenced article.

I read through many of your past edits, starting with your first edits and through the "edit war" of 10-11 November (2007). You were absolutely right to undo a poorly-done and illegitimate redirect, and it absolutely should not have warrented a block. That's the problem with the article is the vehemence a few people (usually the same 3-5 editors) have to forcing their POV/viewpoint/beliefs of what's best for the article on everyone else and then attack any semblance of outside help or opinion (such as AfD, RfC, edit warring, repetitive listing on deletions/actions, etc.). Anyway, there has got to be a solution and your past edits have shown that you have both an interest and ability to work with people on something like this (and I think probably you are better at finding references and incorporating them than some others, like me).

To that end, I would like to invite your comments, editing, adding, and discussion to the provisional page. Enlarging and Referencing. Making it better, thorough, and excrucioatingly NPOV (either way... "Just the facts, ma'am."). I thought you may be interested in such a project based on your comments from the "current" ACS discussions. The plan/hope would be to get it near-perfect and bring it online - independant of but incorporating from the "existing article" by the end of the month-ish.

Any assistance is appreciated. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB

IAW Wikipedia:Canvassing, the following Friendly Notice is a "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors."

You may be interested in a current MfD discussion. This message is to inform you of the discussion. There is no attempt to indicate on which side of the issue you may or should "vote" or comment.
Recently, the page User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox was nominated for speedy deletion by SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). When that speedy was undone, the user brought the page to MfD.
Based on your past edits and comments, you may have reason to comment or contribute to this discussion. Please do. Initial comments on this issue were left here.
If this message is in error and you do not have an interest in such a case, please forgive the intrusion and bother.

Best wishes and happy editing! VigilancePrime (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]