User talk:68.242.153.205

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Killian documents authenticity issues

Your revert back to unsourced allegations was removed. It might help if you read up on WP:VERIFY, WP:PROVEIT and WP:SOURCES before attempting any further, similar edits. -BC aka Callmebc 13:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush military service controversy

You appear to be making unsupported, vandalistic edits to articles related to the Killian documents and Bush's military service records via an anonymous IP. Tsk, tsk, naughty, naughty -- if this keeps up, a WP:CHECKUSER might be in order. -BC aka Callmebc 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious Reverts

I'm sorry, but someone using your IP address appears to be engaging in a series of malicious-seeming reverts in some articles. If you are using a shared IP, you may want to consider getting a Wikipedia account in case someone besides you is doing the reverts. -BC aka Callmebc 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Warning

Unfortunately you seem to be engaged in a series of malicious reverts of ref'd material in favor of alleged, unsourced and unsupported rumors. I am quite willing to leave your reverts in place if you can provide any reliable sources supporting the allegations. -BC aka Callmebc 19:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They are not allegations. Mostly I've reverted original research and have added some citations. Just because you don't agree with the content does not make it incorrect. 68.242.153.205 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
What "citations"? You did nothing except revert to a pile of allegations that don't have a single supporting ref or cite, and wiping out mine that actually have a pile of them. Whatever, I know I'm just "talking" to a throwaway IP address with zero intention to actually discuss or justify any of this. With luck, maybe I can get someone to partially protect the page against this sort anonymous IP editing nuisance. -BC aka Callmebc 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Block

"Please review the edits, they are not simply reverts but attempts to improve the article."? How so? From what I can see, there is a list of allegations without a single reference to even who or what did the alleging, never mind in regards to the allegations themselves. And all you've been doing with your edits have been to protect them from being changed and nothing else. Think of how fair and logical it would be to have an article saying something like "It's been claimed that he beats his wife" and just leave it at that without any refs or cites -- would you be cool with that? That's what you are basically advocating with your editing. Bear that in mind when you return with your next IP. -BC aka Callmebc 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

nattang 20:31, 3 October 2007 (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: "Please review the edits, they are not simply reverts but attempts to improve the article. Callmebc wants to 'win' as his previous edit comments allude to. His pov on this subject is evident at his personal website, aheckofa.com [2]. Thank you, 68.242.153.205 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "Regardless, you definitely violated WP:3RR. The block is legitimate. — Yamla 21:01, 3 October 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.