- 49

Cranbourne, Victoria

I have no desire to enter into an edit war with you. You have done some good work with this article, but you really but this line has no place in an encycolpedia article.

Cranbourne has been dubbed as a "hole" especially by Cranbourne's youth for its lack of excitement and services.

If you want to add something along these lines, you need to add a source. Furthermore the line needs to be reworded. Maybe something like.

The youth in Cranbourne have criticized the lack of excitement and services in the town.

Or something like that. Teiresias84 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second Teiresias' words; some of what you have added is inappropriate and at odds with Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines. michael ^talk 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please respond, either here or on my talk page? michael ^talk 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the criticism section hould be left in the article but it does need to be less biased. - 49 02:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to back up your claims with references, otherwise it is original research and subject to deletion. You can't write your own opinion peice on the suburb. michael ^talk 02:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not only my opinion but it's an opinion shared by numerous people who live in the area. Please leave it in the article. I may find sources from local newspapers. - 49 02:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I will remove it until you can produce a reference. michael ^talk 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You cannot include a section in an article which is biased and original research. You do not own it, and you cannot violate policy. michael ^talk 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- JamesTeterenko 03:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

blocked

You have been blocked for your violation of the three-revert rule on Cranbourne, Victoria. Before reinserting content, please discuss it on the talk page: Talk:Cranbourne, Victoria. -- JamesTeterenko 03:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have extended your block to 31 hours due to your use of a sockpuppet to evade your block. -- JamesTeterenko 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)