User talk:24.44.253.47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Nardman1 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Ellen Simonetti. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing – Qxz 10:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


This is the only warning you will receive.
Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nardman1 10:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Do not blank sections of the article. If you believe the information is incorrect or otherwise inappropriate, either correct it yourself, or - especially in the case of major changes - discuss it at the appropriate talk page (such as talk:Ellen Simonetti). - Mike Rosoft 10:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Ellen Simonetti. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 10:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring - yandman 12:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. 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.


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: "Unblock text reason: I have been in a edit war with said factions due to the fact that my viable references to the article have constantly been deleted and they have encyclopaedic content that is reference and verifiable. If you look back to my original contributions going back further besides the recent commentary you can see this to be true. The rest of the commentary in the past was objective and kept to a minimum. However I have not been the only person engaged in this contest of facts versus random accusation. I would like to see the page deleted in the interests of amity since this contribution to Wikipdeia will only cause further dispute and it clearly misrepresents itself here. Thank you."

Decline reason: "Sorry, we very definitely do not permit edit wars. — Yamla 14:23, 22 March 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.

I believe my block has extended well past the 24 hr period mentioned.

  • The above unblock request was added as an unsigned comment to this page instead of in the template. I fixed it. Apparently this user doesn't know how to read the clear directions for asking for an unblock, in addition to being a vandal. Nardman1 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I may have been incorrect in following your process. But your slam at calling me a vandal was uncalled for particularly when this article has been the victim of many inaccurate revisions and vandal based attacks before I came aboard and during my viewing of the article. My original contributions at least in the beginning(if you refer back i nthe history) has cited references that were erased repeatedly by unknown parties. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote a fan club but to provide a balanced and objective account of incidents surrounding individuals. If that can't be done then the article should either be locked from revsion or summarily removed by the adminstrators on the site. From what I 've evidenced here Wikipedia is incapable of filtering its information in a balanced format.

At first edits sure, but - [[1]] you blanked an entire cited section.

and again [[2]] then [[3]] you added an unencyclopdiac type statment not an entry with POV feelings about wiki itself not the article. Then [[4]] you deleted once again the same cited portion you had taken out twice earlier and then added the POV part right back in. Thern here [[5]] you take out a cited section claiming it irrelevant and unbalanced? When its directly related to the person who the article is about. Then on the 21st you blank an entire cited section [[6]] Then you procede to make 6 cited portion deletion edits in a row. I am sorry I am trying to understand why you are complaining? How you can say doing what you did is not vandalism? Fan Club? the editors who warned you and changed your edits were putting cited sources back in. Trying to put in pov and taking out cited things is pushing your own form of 'balance' Read wiki's policys on NPOV & the Three revert rule section [[7]], please. When you come off your block maybe things will work better once you have a better understanding of it. Hopefully this helps. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


I disagree, but your ruling stands. I had citable references that were erased by the editors without given reason and so I did likewise in error. This was visited repeatedly on my citations so in my frustration I began to write down uncitable text references as I felt this was unjust and that no one on Wikipedia was doing anything about it. In any case I will not return to this site in the future even after this block has been lifted as my feelings towards this site are now that this place is not even-handed at all.

[edit] Query

Are they the same editor, the owner of the blog? — Athænara ✉ 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Maybe you should address that question to me User 24.44.253.47. I am not the owner/editor of the blog. And what is the point or objective of your query ? The matter has been settled.