3rdRockFans
July 2010 edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 3rd Rock from the Sun. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Sottolacqua. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 3rd Rock from the Sun, you may be blocked from editing. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ckatzchatspy 01:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)We object in the strongest possible terms to the scandalous accusations made against us by the User named 'Ckatz'. We are informed that we "have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to add spam links." There are two things that are wrong with this statement: Firstly we did not add any links - they were already there when we commenced editing. The record will support this claim. In one case we fixed a broken link but none of the links in question can be considered spam and this is where we also take exception to Ckatz scandalous accusations. As Wikipedians will no doubt be aware, terms like 'spam', 'spammer', 'spam links' have pejorative connotations, casting the accused in a negative light.
We are neither vengeful, vexatious nor vindictive people. We also consider it an act of intellectual mediocrity on the part of those who attempt to hijack a platform like Wikipedia to pursue such objectives. In that context we cannot but begin to wonder what to make of the threats that have been issued against us, without the slightest provocation. These threats involve having 'our websites blacklisted and potentially penalised by search engines'!? would the person who made that threat care to explain how he/she/it is in a position to know which websites, if any are 'ours'? Come to think of it - how does he/she/it even know who 'we' are?
We also take exception to the equally scandalous slur leveled against us by the User named 'Sjones23' who says that we are engaged in 'continuous vandalism of Wikipedia' (not just once-off vandalism then?). Vandalism is defined by Wikipedia as:
"any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."
What did we add, remove or change that was obscene, crude, nonsensical or involving of page blanking? Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines go on to specify that:
"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."
Our efforts were entirely made in good faith. For our efforts we encountered sustained, hostile behaviour from elements who provided no rationale for their actions, made no effort to explain or to engage in dialogue. In that context, why should we have to explain our motivation?
At this time therefore we will confine our comments to re-iterating our categoric rejection and refutation of the fraudulent and scandalous accusations that have been raised against us. As the accusation have been made pubicly we invite those who have made said accusations to publicly withdraw them, using Wikipedia as the platform.
We also urge Wikipedia to take a strong view of this matter and to issue the appropriate sanction against the offenders. We cannot help but feel slightly aggrieved by the fact that we have been blocked from editing for far less. At least our accusations contained a kernel of truth, were in no way scandalous and contained nothing that could potentially jeopardise the integrity or viability of Wikipedia, a project which we admire and support.
Sincerely,
3rdRockFans (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)