User talk:GWP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from causing disruption.

 This page is currently protected from editing to prevent GWP (talk • contribs • block logauto) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template.
If you have come here to issue a new message to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Contents

AfD nomination of Rotten Boroughs

An editor has nominated Rotten Boroughs, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotten Boroughs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hackwatch

An editor has nominated Hackwatch, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackwatch and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Rogue editor"

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotten Boroughs. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Would you have the kindness to not add libel on his article ? Anthere (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As well as on Cybill Shepherd. Be aware of our policy on living persons and that violating this policy by inserting unsourced, controversial information will lead to a block. John Reaves 02:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I warned you, now you are blocked. John Reaves 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Great, just what wikipedia needs, another shoddy administrator! GWP (talk) 14:00, 25 March 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: "no reason for my block"

Decline reason: "No, the information you added has no citation at all. See WP:CITE. And any further personal attacks may result in an extended block and/or this page being protected for the duration of your block, as per WP:NPA. — Yamla (talk) 21:34, 27 March 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.

I inserted referenced, relevant information from a valid source. Administrator John Reaves simply reverted it all without providing a valid reason. He then blocked me. Once my block had expired I re-instated the information, giving a legitimate reason for its re-instation. And he blocked me indefinitely.

I've been contributing to wikipedia for over 2 years, this doesn't seem right! GWP (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


If you follow the edit thread on Shepherd you will clearly see that I started by adding 'expanded from autobiography', there was debate on this, it was resolved, and I expanded further from the autobiography.

Can anyone provide any information I inserted not from the autobiography?

As for personal attacks, don't be over-sensitive, if someone is acting like an idiot I will point that out, just because you are an administrator does not make you exempt from the rules of society. GWP (talk) 22:09, 27 March 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: "John Reaves has personal vendetta"

Decline reason: "Not a valid unblock reason. Please stop abusing the unblock template. — IrishGuy talk 02:40, 28 March 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.

He has not followed correct blocking policy - going from a 24 hour ban to indefinite simply because i re-inserted referenced information?? GWP (talk) 23:59, 27 March 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: "no reason for block"

Decline reason: "Read this page, and see there are plenty of reasons, as you were already told in a previous unblock request. — Rjd0060 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 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.