User talk:24.115.224.185

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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.delanoygabsadds 19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

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)

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)

[edit] Just for you

Image:CopyeditorStar7.PNG 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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: "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)"

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

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: "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 went way beyond WP:3RR; while your addition was sourced, it's also a clear WP:UNDUE violation. Being reverted by multiple editors should have made it clear that the addition was problematic— OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:21, 12 May 2008 (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.

{{unblock|Well, when I attempt to edit pages I am told that my block is for "unsourced and negative" statements. My statement WAS sourced. If your issue is with point of view, you should have changed the wording instead of banning me and reverting my edit. The fact is, my edit was true and I didn't put any spin on it. I just summarized what I had read in the Reuters article. I discussed the issue with Elipongo, who had previously taken issue with the edit, and got it cleared once I found a more reputable source (Reuters). I have no conflict of interest with a Florida lawmaker or truck accessories. I could care less about either, so I don't understand how POV could have been an issue. I'm starting to think that admins are prejudiced against an IP and are allowing this unjust ban to occur without even looking at the edit and the background behind it. I can understand getting a warning for an "edit war", but I made every possible attempt to discuss the issue with people who objected. Some (elipongo) were willing to work WITH me, while others (CanadianLinuxUser) were only interested in revering my edit (which is TRUE vandalism in my view). I edit a much smaller wiki on a regular basis and the community is always willing to work with new users and people who they have conflicts with. This blind banning is crazy. I doubt I'll end up registering and contributing to the Wiki if Admins continue to allow this unjust ban to stand without a fight.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You were clearly trying to discuss this, you had provided reliable sources and you were acting on a good-faith belief that this information was OK to add to the article after your discussion with Elipongo. You had some civility problems earlier in the day, but they don't merit a 24-hour block.

Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome (and I mean it, as you are the first person I've ever unblocked to thank me for doing so, which confirms my judgement). Now go and sin no more! :-). Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)