User talk:Evianboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wentz article

You have got to wrong person because I have only erased the Wentz article because I do not think it should be on Wikipedia. Check the history, please, especially this edit from March 14:

(cur) (last)  19:32, 14 March 2006 Spuddy 17 (the whole scandal section is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. let it die, people.) 

Thanks. Spuddy 17 20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have presented a reasoned justification for why the Scandal section belongs on this article. Many encyclopedia articles contain controversy or scandal sections, especially in cases where those incidents are a part of the individual's notability, which is the case here. I asked, two edits below yours, that nobody remove the section without arguing against my justifications in the talk page, and you did just that. Please do not remove information without discussing in appropriate in the talk page. -VJ 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the Peter Wentz article. If you would like to continue discussing the inclusion of the Scandal section, please do so on the talk page. Thanks. -VJ 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -VJ 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -VJ 17:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Wentz

Evianboy, I understand that you are frustrated that the nudity scandal is being included in the article on Pete Wentz . It seems mean-spirited and gossipy. However, if you peruse the articles of just about everyone, you will find the good is included with the bad. NOt all things that happen to a person are fair or pleasant, but in an encyclopedia, most events of a persons life are up for grabs, especially if the event was famous (or even infamous). "If a fact or incident is notable, relevant and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Even if you totally disagree, Wikipedia is a cooperative endeavor, and part of making it work is (1) following the policy of the community and (2) coming to decisions based on consensus. Your conduct in relation to this issue has not done neither. And this is why you are being threatened with being banned from wikipedia. Typically, reverting something three times in one day, is grounds for blocking. While you have not done that, you have taken out that section (reverted) a total of eight times! That is not acceptable. I am not recommending you to be banned right now, because I'm trying to give you a chance. But if you revert that section again, you will probably be blocked.--Esprit15d 13:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [[Emily Dickinson] link

I did not claim that the link you added was vandalism, just that it was thoroughly unnecessary and apparent linkspam. There are already links aplenty in the article to sites containing many more of Dickinson's works; there's no need at all for one more link to one more ad-bearing site with a few of her (public domain) works. Also, please sign your comments (using four tildes) and refrain from deleting vandal warnings from your User talk page. Thanks. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)