From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please read this policy as it relates to your edits in the Johnny Sutton article. Neutrality is non-negotiable; every article must be free of bias for or against the subject. If you want to include information, make sure it is sourced properly so that others can verify the information. Lastly, calling other editors "minions" is not civil. Please assume good faith when editing. Everyone wants the same thing: a factually accurate, neutral encyclopedia. Leebo T/C 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You have reverted Johnny Sutton more than 3 times within the last 24 hours. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing temporarily. You are receiving this warning because you are new and likely were unaware of it. Keep your edits restricted to the talk page in the meantime. Leebo T/C 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you remove that request for comment template again, you will be blocked. Attempting to prevent a discussion from taking place is completely inappropriate. Leebo T/C 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- That was unintentional. I have replaced the RfC template. Don't remove it again. Leebo T/C 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the
three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
Leebo T/C 20:50, 20 November 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: "Yeah whatever liar. You have some fraud putting "rv v" which appears to mean "vandalism" when I put in sourced material and you blocked ME for undoing their OBVIOUS BLANKING VANDALISM. Obviously you're part of the whitewash. FixtheBorder (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "Not only were you edit warring, but you continued with a sockpuppet, FriendofBorderPatrol, after this block. Block extended to 48 hours. — IrishGuy talk 21:01, 20 November 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 did not revert you with such an edit. That was a different user, who also should not be edit warring. Leebo T/C 20:53, 20 November 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: "so not only are you liars pulling this crap, now you're lying about who I am and claiming I came in as someone else? TYPICAL LYING BULLSHIT from IRISHFAG!"
Decline reason: "Please see No personal attacks. Block extended to 1 week. — Mr.Z-man 21:04, 20 November 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] Block evasion
You are blocked. You, the person, not just this account. If you continue to edit Wikipedia, make comments, or otherwise evade your block, then it may be extended. Continual block evasion may lead to a permanent ban. Please just go away and come back in a week. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read Neutral point of view and Living Person policies as they relate to your edits in the Ignacio Ramos article. Every article must be free of bias for or against the subject especially when discussing a living person, as you did with information about Johnny Sutton and Kathleen Cardone. If you want to include information, make sure it is sourced properly so that others can verify the information. Also, calling other editors "racist" is not civil. Please assume good faith when editing. Jons63 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- You clearly have no intention of refraining from personal attacks or adhering to our policy on living people. As such, you have been blocked for one month. Please consider this your last opportunity to read and abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 10 December 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: "LMAO, blocked by a racist covering for another racist"
Decline reason: "This user was blocked, in part, for making personal attacks. The unblock request is, in its entirety, a personal attack. Therefore, it serves more as further evidence that a block is appropriate than as a plausible reason to unblock. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:57, 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.
