User talk:JoshLevine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Collegiate secret societies in North America, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Collegiate secret societies in North America was changed by JoshLevine (u) (t) deleting 12481 characters on 2008-06-07T23:08:54+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Collegiate secret societies in North America

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Collegiate secret societies in North America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Another obvious sock puppet of Mctrain/Societyfinalclub... etc. See User:Barneca/watch/societyfinalclubs for more info or ask me or Barneca. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message for you and you are wrong

I was following your secret society debate, and I reverted that article because I thought that it was Wiki policy to revert sockpuppetry contributions, and you said no, if the material checks out, that talk is on the Collegiate secret societies in North America discussion page- We have Spretti here in NY, I have seen it, and it is also available on line too if you search- your actions speaks of bigotry. Material on the Barbaro family page has been looked into and checks out- you are wrong, you need to go look at the Spretti source for yourself, and if I am not unblocked, than Wikipedia is just running a muck. You can not block an editor just because you have some prejudice against a particular topic on Wikipedia, nor can you belame every person that disagrees with you as a hoaxer. Perpetuating a non-existant hoax is a also hoaxing on your part.[User:JoshLevine|JoshLevine]] (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are also now trying to discredit valid sourcing, without any doubt, there is something unethical going on with certain Wikipedia administrators, you are blocking anyone honestly contributing to this topic and you are falsely trying to discredit good sourcing-no excuse for what is happening here.JoshLevine (talk) 01:06, 11 June 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: "for reason stated above"

Decline reason: "You are clearly editing under an alternate account while blocked, which is called block evasion and the block is definitely justified. Since you are the same editor who added the false information, this is also a false show of support via alternate accounts. Either violation is intolerable on Wikipedia, which is why you are, and will remain, blocked. Mangojuicetalk 02:29, 11 June 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.