User talk:Twobells

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

[edit] Bloody Sunday (1972)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. One Night In Hackney303 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. As you did in this edit. One Night In Hackney303 11:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal analysis? The edits I made are factual and on the record, available in any works covering the Northern Ireland troubles. The entire piece is slanted POV against the British and when anyone attempts to set the record straight known pro-republican editors remove their work. What concerns me is that major facts about the day are left out with the full knowledge of wiki editors. No wonder schools and universities censor students for using wikipedia!

I was attempting to edit it to a more neutral pov not remove it but when I returned to the article you had reset it! PLEASE stop interfering with my right to edit obvious bias, and threatening me.Twobells (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. 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. One Night In Hackney303 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


You are up against the Republican Cabal. You are unlikely to win but take comfort from serving on the side of the angels. --MJB (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours 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. CIreland (talk) 16:00, 13 February 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: "We had resolved the edit war and had agreed to leave the pov stamp in place, al I did was set it back yet am being penalised for following wiki guidelines, I made no edits, just re-instated the agreed POV stamp. From discussion page: "Better than edit warring. In any case, I think there is enough here to warrant a POV tag until this is addressed. Considering 90% the damn articles in WP have this or some other such tag on them, it's not exactly a huge deal. -R. fiend (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)""

Decline reason: "The situation is more complicated than that. Clearly, from the talk page, people were objecting to the tag, saying that you hadn't even clearly laid out any specific complaints. Furthermore, you had re-added the tag already several times and been reverted several times. Your continued insistence on adding the tag despite the objections of many other editors makes this rightly a WP:3RR case. When the block expires, don't repeatedly revert others even if you think you have a good reason: that's how edit warring starts, and once it starts it's hard to stop. Mangojuicetalk 17:54, 13 February 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.

Truth? Factual Evidence? None of those things are evident in that infamous article or twisted beyond all recognition.

[edit] Gap Cycle Photos

I am under the impression that because cover art (same as film posters, CD covers, etc) is meant to publicize something, that it permissible to use it. There is an already existing disclaimer you can use if you upload a picture to use in this manner (check a few films for the template). Thanks for helping the articles if you do. RoyBatty42 (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 21:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)