User talk:24.115.224.185: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:01, 12 May 2008

May 2008

The recent edit you made to James E. King constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to James E. King. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 23:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to James E. King. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your extensive fixing of my grammar and spelling on my talk page, I applud you. Happy editing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also please respect Wikipedia's policy's on 3RR. Violating these policies can result in a 24 hour block. That is generally reverting an article more than 3 times. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeatedly editwarring over James E. King article in order to insert negative and unreferenced material. Such actions are violations of several Wikipedia policies, namely WP:BLP, WP:3RR, and WP:EDITWAR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

24.115.224.185 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's quite obvious you aren't familiar with what is going on. My edit on James E. King WAS referenced (a Reuters article). The vandalism is on User:CanadianLinuxUser's part. Please see [1] and [2] for more information on the situation. I've been nothing but constructive during my few hours on Wikipedia. I came here from a smaller wiki and planned to register once I was familiar. What is happening to me is ridiculous. I apologize for violating the 3 revert rule, but I was doing it in order to get a constructive edit through.

Decline reason:

Irrelevant. Edit warring is disruptive, and you were asked to stop. If you're being reverted, you need to discuss with other editors instead of continuing to make your clearly contested changes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

24.115.224.185 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So why isn't what CanadianLinuxUser did "editwarring"? I tried discussing the matter with him (as I did with Elipongo, who came to the conclusion that the edit was constructive), but he continued to revert my edits. If you're going to block people for "editwarring", you should block the person that initiated the war as well. BTW, apologies if I wasn't supposed to create a new Unblock thing, I'm not familiar with the process of being blocked for frivolous reasons.

Decline reason:

You were told that the information you added was inappropriate. If you read WP:BLP, negative information about a living person that is unreferenced to any reliable sources may be removed, and repeated attempt to add that information is blockable. You were told to stop. You did not. You are now blocked. Since YOU were trying to add the material, YOU are under the burden of proving that it is both verifiable and relevent. That you repeated refused to abide by warnings to stop is why you are blocked. Don't do it again when the block expires, or you will be reblocked.— Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Revision as of 00:48, 12 May 2008 edit 24.115.224.185 (talk) This is just silly. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:01, 12 May 2008 edit undo Jayron32 (talk \| contribs) Administrators 105,509 edits →‎Blocked: decline. Clear BLP violation. Next edit →
Line 22:		Line 22:
	{{unblock reviewed\|1=It's quite obvious you aren't familiar with what is going on. My edit on [[James E. King]] WAS referenced (a Reuters article). The vandalism is on [[User:CanadianLinuxUser]]'s part. Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CanadianLinuxUser#THIS_ISN.27T_VANDALISM] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elipongo#James_E._King] for more information on the situation. I've been nothing but constructive during my few hours on Wikipedia. I came here from a smaller wiki and planned to register once I was familiar. What is happening to me is ridiculous. I apologize for violating the 3 revert rule, but I was doing it in order to get a constructive edit through.\|decline=Irrelevant. Edit warring is disruptive, and you were asked to stop. If you're being reverted, you need to discuss with other editors instead of continuing to make your clearly contested changes. [[User:Hersfold\|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t\|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a\|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold\|c]])</sup> 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed\|1=It's quite obvious you aren't familiar with what is going on. My edit on [[James E. King]] WAS referenced (a Reuters article). The vandalism is on [[User:CanadianLinuxUser]]'s part. Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CanadianLinuxUser#THIS_ISN.27T_VANDALISM] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elipongo#James_E._King] for more information on the situation. I've been nothing but constructive during my few hours on Wikipedia. I came here from a smaller wiki and planned to register once I was familiar. What is happening to me is ridiculous. I apologize for violating the 3 revert rule, but I was doing it in order to get a constructive edit through.\|decline=Irrelevant. Edit warring is disruptive, and you were asked to stop. If you're being reverted, you need to discuss with other editors instead of continuing to make your clearly contested changes. [[User:Hersfold\|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t\|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a\|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold\|c]])</sup> 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)}}

	{{unblock\|So why isn't what CanadianLinuxUser did "editwarring"? I tried discussing the matter with him (as I did with Elipongo, who came to the conclusion that the edit was constructive), but he continued to revert my edits. If you're going to block people for "editwarring", you should block the person that initiated the war as well. BTW, apologies if I wasn't supposed to create a new Unblock thing, I'm not familiar with the process of being blocked for frivolous reasons.}}		{{unblock reviewed\|1=So why isn't what CanadianLinuxUser did "editwarring"? I tried discussing the matter with him (as I did with Elipongo, who came to the conclusion that the edit was constructive), but he continued to revert my edits. If you're going to block people for "editwarring", you should block the person that initiated the war as well. BTW, apologies if I wasn't supposed to create a new Unblock thing, I'm not familiar with the process of being blocked for frivolous reasons.\|decline=You were told that the information you added was inappropriate. If you read [[WP:BLP]], negative information about a living person that is unreferenced to any reliable sources may be removed, and repeated attempt to add that information is blockable. You were told to stop. You did not. You are now blocked. Since YOU were trying to add the material, YOU are under the burden of proving that it is both [[WP:V\|verifiable]] and [[WP:NPOV\|relevent]]. That you repeated refused to abide by warnings to stop is why you are blocked. Don't do it again when the block expires, or you will be reblocked.— [[User:Jayron32\|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32\|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32\|<small>contribs</small>]] 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)}}