24.243.5.146

December 2011

Hello, and welcome! I notice you made a comment that seemed less than civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like us to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner, and to comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Thank you!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ur a bot, so QQ

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Stormy Daniels. Thank you. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Adding negative material sourcing it to TMZ is just unacceptable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Who gives a shit if YOU consider it unacceptable? You ain't tunning Wikipedia. Besides, you have not explained your reasons why TMZ is not acceptable. TMZ is owned by Time-Warner and a branch of CNN news service.

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You've been warned about your abusive language. Continuing to do so will cause other editors to ignore your arguments and get you blocked. As for TMZ, several other editors have deemed it unacceptable [1]. It's not CNN or a part of CNN so stop trying to equate the two. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Stormy Daniels. Thank you. Please see WP:BLPGOSSIP for more information. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Stormy Daniels, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=This is not a valid block and I did not violate BLP policy. On the contrary, the other person did by removing my well-sourced materials. TMZ is a perfectly acceptable source, as those of us in the United States well know, and it has been repeatedly used on Wikipedia as source material. Just because someone has a personal problem with it is no reason to block me. The other guy was edit warring. Perhaps you should take this up with other admins who know about TMZ?}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

24.243.5.146 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is not a valid block and I did not violate BLP policy. On the contrary, the other person did by removing my well-sourced materials. TMZ is a perfectly acceptable source, as those of us in the United States well know, and it has been repeatedly used on Wikipedia as source material. Just because someone has a personal problem with it is no reason to block me. The other guy was edit warring. Perhaps you should take this up with other admins who know about TMZ?

Decline reason:

Regardless of whether or not TMZ is a reliable source, you shouldn't say things like "ur a fag", not even in edit summaries. As long as you think that things like that are appropriate here, you shouldn't be editing here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

24.243.5.146 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Well, that's all good and stuff, but that has nothing to do with the original issue, which was whether or not TMZ is a valid source. That is what started this argument between me and the other guy to begin with - and that is the issue that needs to be resolved. Otherwise, this nonsense is just going to keep happening over and over and over. Yeah, calling him a fag was a bit over the top. But he was acting like one on account of the constent reverts he made to the article and the issue of TMZ. That is the underlying issue and what needs to be resolved. So I would ask you and the others to address it. Perhaps you should take this up with other admins who know about TMZ?

Decline reason:

Please include a decline reason.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• The appropriate method for building consensus is "be bold, revert, discuss"... not "be bold, revert, continue being bold, edit war". Likewise, whether it is a WP:RS or not, would you care to explain this edit summary? --Kinu ^t/_c 06:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want me to explain or what you mean by edit summary? The information that I added is written in plain language and seems pretty understandable. She got a restraining order in court.

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Savant syndrome , even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to File:Man-wolves.jpg , without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---