User talk:124.191.92.25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Ed O'Loughlin appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Thinboy00 talk/contribs @10, i.e. 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] December 2007

[edit] BLP difficulties at Ed O'Loughlin

Please read my reply to your posting on my talk page, here. I would appreciate your answering my questions on the article's talk page where such a content discussion is most appropriate. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 01:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, 124.191.92.25, 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! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re O'Loughlin, please read WP:BLP#Criticism, and in future, use the article talk page rather than my user talk page. <eleland/talkedits> 09:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ed O'Loughlin

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to Wikipedia articles about living persons. Thank you.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ed O'Loughlin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Note also that 3RR does not apply to derogatory information which relies on unreliable sources or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Editors who re-insert such material may be warned and blocked. <eleland/talkedits> 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. <eleland/talkedits> 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Specifics: Offensive characterisation towards eleland on Talk:Ed O'Loughlin --Manning (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Manning Bartlett. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "==For Dr. Tim Vickers==


Undoubtedly Wikipedia is an important world resource on many topics. Certainly Wikipedia needs to maintain a high quality of references underpinning its articles. That is exactly why the references I have provided in the article must be accepted. They are based on considered conclusions from a wide range of quality sources. They are an accurate reflection of the work of Ed O'Loughlin made by people that know this area. There is no contrary evidence which any editor has brought to light.


Therefore, blocking me (on trumped-up Wikipedia "charges") does not bother me in the least. However, it is a sad reflection on your own processes. Why?

(1) Administrative editors specifically deleted my (concise) position statement in the RfC section and supplanted it with their own statement in an attempt to influence the RfC. These Administrators of Wikipedia were simultaneously advocating a particular viewpoint on O'Loughlin's work, and judging the validly of a contributing editor's references and attempting to silence him.

(2) The repeated deleting by Wikipedia editors of the words "media monitoring groups" and substituting it with the words "Jewish groups" (when they are by no means exclusively Jewish) will be of general wider interest, I think, and may have certain other implications.

(3) The comment by Manning that on advice he would overturn the blockade on me seems itself to have been overturned without explanation and an attempt was made to cover this up. With all the Wikipedia rules and procedures this arbitrary behaviour is rather unsatisfactory.

(4) As a scientist, Dr. Vickers you would realise that in consciously acting as an instrument to suppress knowledge you are acting in a way that must compromise your reputation and makes you vulnerable.

Oh and 124.191.92.25 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)."

Decline reason: "The verifiability policy and the prohibition against original research or synthesis are not negotiable. You have been warned that the contents you were introducing was inappropriate, yet you did not desist. Please use the time remaining in your block to familiarize yourself with those policies. You are welcome to return once your block ends, but further disruption will not be accepted. — Coren (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] Refactoring other editors' comments on talk pages

Dear editor, please do not remove or re-word comments left by other editors, as you have done on Talk:Ed O'Loughlin, [1] by refactoring comments left by 90.204.101.66. This is not acceptable talk page behavior, and you have been warned twice about this on the talk page. If you wish to comment, do so in your own words, and make a new section for your comments. Thank you, Ariel♥Gold 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)