User talk:Buswkycaveshottest

July 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Luca Pacioli has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Luca Pacioli was changed by Buswkycaveshottest (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.873711 on 2015-07-16T14:38:27 00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Luca Pacioli. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alex2006 (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing any vandalism and Jonathan Barrett is a deceiver.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Luca Pacioli. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Alex2006 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Luca Pacioli

Hi, Buswkycaveshottest. I see you reverted ClueBot, our anti-vandalism bot, when it had removed your addition on Luca Pacioli.[1] You have also reverted perfectly good edits by User:Jonathan Barrett and called his edits vandalism,[2][3] and added non-neutral unsourced wording about Luca Pacioli several times. Please don't edit like that — stop and discuss with other users on the article's talkpage instead of reverting them. May I ask if you have edited under another account earlier? Bishonen | talk 18:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hello contributor. Cluebot would be a machine and it makes mistakes regularly. Pacioli was also the introducer of accounting, a gift given to the world. There are several sources online. Vandals want to demolish his article. Yes I had more accounts, but I always forget passwords and sometimes those accounts don't work.

I haven't seen any vandals trying to demolish the article. You realize that creating new accounts might give the impression of trying to avoid scrutiny, so please list your former accounts (the ones you can remember) here below. There's a discussion of whether Pacioli was or was not the "introducer of accounting" on the article talkpage, in the section "More reverts in the lede" and it's clear there that you don't have consensus for your edits. Please don't restore them again; instead I suggest you take part in the discussion and give your sources. They need to be reliable sources, and you need to give them, not just gesture at "several sources online". Are you User:115ash, who tried to introduce similar edits before? Bishonen | talk 19:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

There ARE vandals there. I also made some improvements on the article. In regards to admin 115as, if this was me.

Please sign your posts. I don't understand what you say. Did you mean to say "In regards to 115ash, yes, this was me"? Please try to give a coherent answer, either yes or no. I would really like to know, and it's beginning to look like you're playing games to avoid answering. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

What do you mean? Why should I avoid answering. I forget to write ONLY. I wanted to write "if only" I was that admin. He/She will hopefully help me to fight against vandals.

I see. Please sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~, they will turn automatically into your signature and a timestamp. 115ash is not an admin. And he's unlikely to help you edit war on the article, as he hasn't edited since 26 June. (There is a useful button in the left-hand margin of userpages, "User contributions", and if you click on it, you can see when the person last edited.) Also, I think he's experienced enough to know he'd be in trouble if he did. I, on the other hand, am an admin, and I'm telling you you need to either stop calling people vandals, or explain in a reasonable way why you think they are. Also, for the third time, you need join the discussion at Talk:Luca Pacioli and explain why the people who are against your edits are wrong. Don't simply revert, and don't try to recruit other users to support you, while you ignore advice (from me and Alessandro57) to discuss on talk; that's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. It's time to put your listening ears on. You still haven't told me a single account you've used previously. Are you telling me you can't remember any of them..? Bishonen | talk 14:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alex2006 (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Yes, you were certainly edit warring on Luca Pacioli. Please take this as an official warning; if you do it again, you'll be blocked from editing. More urgently, next time you go online, please answer my questions above. Bishonen | talk 07:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]