User talk:Veecort
AfD nomination of ITT Technical Institute[edit]
An editor has nominated ITT Technical Institute, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITT Technical Institute and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
AN/I[edit]
Hello, Veecort. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion can be found here McJeff (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Your comment[edit]
You just requested my input, but I don't believe I have ever edited that article. How did you select me? Badagnani (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
You left a comment in the talk:
How could the article possibly leave out what the acronym "ITT" stands for? Badagnani 07:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The article still doesn't say what it stands for. You have to look at ITT Corporation to find that out. Hope I didn't bug you.Veecort (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey[edit]
Veecort, I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot with each other, and I apologize for trying so hard to get you blocked. I was angry because I thought you were sockpuppeting. Meatpuppeting is a newbie mistake. I tried to do that once, although I never got in trouble because I didn't manage to convince anyone to help me. As far as the Checkuser thing goes, you don't have anything to worry about. 1) Since you confessed and apologized for meatpuppetry there's almost no chance it will actually be run, and 2) all it does is gather data on IP addresses and determine if they're the same person... I can't give you any details on exactly how it works, because only a few Wikipedians have the power to run CheckUser.
As far as the ITT Tech article goes, I don't want to censor anything. I'm sure that we can come to some sort of agreement on how to phrase the sources of court cases you've provided in a way that is informative to the casual reader without being a hatchet job.
So anyway, yeah, I'm sorry for the hostility. Care to shake on it? McJeff (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Aw shucks. That was one of the most gracious things I have ever read.Veecort (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Veecort. I remember that you've been involved in a past controversy about this article, and I remember adding comments to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Veecort. McJeff proposed that the sock report be closed since you and he had agreed to work together. I hope this is still the case, since I see what looks like reverting going on. It never hurts to ask for comments on the Talk page before making a change that could upset the applecart. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Re:[edit]
Gather evidence and blow your whistles. I am not sure about anything having to do with God or religion. But I know that hurting people is not okay. (I know that you are not naive and I beg you please don't give me some coy response.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veecort (talk • contribs)
- You left that on my talk page, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you criticising the fact that I removed the reference that cited thesop.org? McJeff (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Zahd, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Dædαlus Contribs 07:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding assumptions of bad faith[edit]
Hi Veecort - although I understand that you have great frustration with ITT Technical Institute and feel like you wasted your time there, it is erroneous to assume that anyone who supports it is an ITT employee. Wikipedia:Assume good faith states that you should attribute any opinions, mistaken or not, to a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, and discuss politely why you disagree. This is the best way to ensure your voice is represented. Dcoetzee 13:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
March 2009[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Be careful with potential issues with edits while not logged in as well please, as they would classify was WP:SOCK (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
July 2012[edit]
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ElKevbo (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
talkback@lakh[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Ysangkok (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Veecort. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)