User talk:64.13.36.211

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] David Tholen

Your change was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Do not remove sourced information from Wikipedia articles. CRCulver 11:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop, if you continue to remove sourced information from Wikipedia, you will be blocked. CRCulver 06:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David J. Tholen

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to David J. Tholen, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -WarthogDemon 02:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to David J. Tholen, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -WarthogDemon 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Your repeated efforts to vandalize articles makes it seem that you are unaware that Wikipedia is a serious project. You have been reported to the administration group for continuing vandalism and an administrator will review your contributions shortly. You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. If you are blocked, please reconsider your behavior once the block expires.

¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia because of disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism, including page blanking or addition of random text, spam, or deliberate misinformation; privacy violations; personal attacks; and repeated and blatant violations of WP:NPOV will not be tolerated. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David J Tholen

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. (aeropagitica) 20:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "false information has no place in Wikipedia"

You said it. But that doesn't mean that sourced facts don't belong. If you keep removing these, you will be blocked (yet again).

Chrisch 03:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] January 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked. IrishGuy talk 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked. IrishGuy talk 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for 252 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive blanking. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} .

--210physicq (c) 02:14, 25 January 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: "In blocking me on November 29, Persian Poet Gal claimed that Wikipedia is a serious project, yet the text I removed is not of a serious nature. The "Kook of the Month" award is just one of several silly awards voted on by the participants of the alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup. Other examples of their silly awards include the "Busted Urinal Award", the "Looney Maroon Award", the "Palmjob Paddle Award", the "Bob Allison Memorial Hook Line and Sinker Award", and the "Village Idiot Award". Even the participants themselves admit that the awards aren't serious, having criticized those people who appear to take the awards seriously. Instead, they use the awards as a means to ridicule those people whose behavior they regard as unusual. Yet their own behavior consists of extensive cross-posting and massive cascades designed to disrupt other newsgroups.

In blocking me on December 20, Wknight94 called my removal of that same silly text a "disruptive edit" and "vandalism". He claims that Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks, yet the "Kook of the Month Award" is nothing more than a silly personal attack that Wikipedia has tolerated for months.

In blocking me on December 29, Chrisch referred to the same silly text as "sourced facts", yet he presented no evidence that the text contains any "facts" at all. For example, one could just as easily refer to one of the supermarket tabloids, which have carried pictures of former President Clinton having discussions with extraterrestrials, and called that a "sourced fact", when in reality, it's nothing more than sourced fiction. If Wikipedia did any real research into the matter, they would discover that the "Kook of the Month Award" is similarly fictional, in the sense that the voting deadline had to be extended because of lack of interest, and some votes weren't counted, because they didn't produce the desired result. In other words, the pollsters invented the result that they wanted, much in the same way that the supermarket tabloids invent some of their stories. In the end, they could only report 24 total votes, and just 13 for the so-called winner. And Wikipedia apparently considers that result to be a serious award to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.

Also, the link to "The Tholenizer" is hardly a "sourced fact". I defy anybody to demonstrate that Tholen responds to statements in the way that "The Tholenizer" responds to those same statements.

I could go on, but if Wikipedia really is a serious project, then the administrators will (a) remove the block on me immediately, (b) remove the non-serious text from the David J. Tholen article themselves immediately, and (c) block Crculver, Warthog Demon, Draginol (an alias for Brad Wardell, who is known for his personal attacks on Tholen on usenet), and others from restoring the non-serious text as they have done so frequently in the last few months. Failure to do so will demonstrate that Wikipedia is NOT a serious project."

Decline reason: "Your disagreement with an article is not a right to vandalize it. The mood of subject matter does not influence the mood in which it is to be conveyed. This is a serious project, we would like you to stop making these edits. Please suggest ways to improve these pages instead to make them into what they should be, rather than removing the work that has already been put in. Thank you. -- ST47Talk 02:30, 28 January 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.

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: ""Your disagreement with an article..." It is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. Rather, it is a matter of appropriateness versus inappropriateness. Material of a non-serious nature is inappropriate for a project that claims to be serious. Please demonstrate that a significant fraction of people regard the alt.usenet.kooks polls as being serious in nature. "...is not a right to vandalize it." Removal of inappropriate material is NOT vandalism. Removal of appropriate material IS vandalism, and that is exactly what Crculver did on January 9 to the David J. Tholen article, yet nobody lifted a finger to block him. "Please suggest ways to improve these pages..." I have already done that: remove inappropriate material. You have chosen not to follow that suggestion. "...we would like you to stop making these edits..." In other words, you would like to continue having inappropriate material in Wikipedia, thereby demonstrating that Wikipedia is NOT a serious project. "...rather than removing the work that has already been put in" Adding inappropriate material isn't what I would call "work". I'm quite sure that the perpetrators are having great fun taking advantage of their opportunity to make derogatory remarks (carefully couched in a "neutral point of view" way) in a moderated forum where the moderators allow them to do so. Meanwhile, 66.192.208.188 did some work to add serious "sourced facts" to the article, which Crculver vandalized, and that vandalism has been allowed to stand. "This is a serious project" Thank you for demonstrating that Wikipedia is NOT a serious project. Don't bother denying it; the actions of allowing Crculver to vandalize an article by removing serious "sourced facts", while blocking me from removing inappropriate material, speaks far louder than your words do. Therefore Wikipedia is not deserving of my support, either financial or technical (that is, I now have no motivation to fix any of the numerous errors that I have encountered in Wikipedia articles), and I will encourage others to similarly withdraw any support of Wikipedia that they provide."

Decline reason: "Clear 3RR violation of sourced material. -- Yamla 17:21, 30 January 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.