CakeMace

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Mowbray College, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattinbgn\^talk 21:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattinbgn

Thank you for posting about this, fortunately this is verifiable via witness accounts and thus will remain changed.

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Mowbray College. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattinbgn\^talk 10:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As you have removed information i have contributed (Which is accurate information) for having no verifiable sources to back it up, you have effectively given me the green light to wipe all non verifiable information from the page, and thus i will do so immediately.

Thats fine. WP:V and WP:RS allows any editor to remove any uncited information. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Mowbray College has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Mowbray College. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove all content from pages without explanation, as you did to Mowbray College. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Mowbray College. Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Mowbray College

While I have no doubt you are trying to improve this article, removing information willy-nilly as you have been constitutes vandalism, which may lead to you being blocked without further warning. Instead of cutting parts out, consider tagging them with {{citation needed}} or, better yet, finding references! Thank you for contributing, and if you have any questions, you may contact me on my talk page. -RunningOnBrains 03:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. 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}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. -RunningOnBrains 03:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that there was unsourced and trivial information in the article, but continually blanking an article because some unsourced and fairly trivial information you added was removed is just going to keep getting you reverted and blocked. Instead, what you can do once you are unblocked is look for sourced and verifiable information, so you can improve the article instead of wasting your time and the time of others. -- saberwyn 04:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Contest my block

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).

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

---

Request reason:

because i was doing everything legitimately within the policies and an admin overstepped his authority. please see my user page!

Decline reason:

The blocking administrator did not overstep their authority here by any means. If you take a look at WP:EDITWAR you will see that your actions meet the requirements for a block ([1] [2] [3] [4]). Understand that just because you think you are right does not mean that you can continually revert the content you disagree with. Wikipedia is based upon consensus, and that is not achieved by edit warring. Take this as a chance to read over WP:3RR, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DISPUTE then come back from your block and discuss the issues you have with the article on its talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 04:16, 18 May 2009 (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.

I wish to contest my block as you have clearly overstepped your authority as an admin by allowing constant vandalism and additions of unverified information, please note that i would like to resolve this without having to get senior admins involved, if you look at previous edits on my page you will know what im doing is in fact right and in fact well within the bounds of wikipedia's policies.

Nobody has overstepped their authority at all. Tiptoety explained why the block was appropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

It is clear that i have followed the rules, as edit wars where being conducted from someone who evidently admitted to not having NPOV via being a student of the school, as what he has written could have originally been seen as biased. the admin HAS overstepped his position according to the 3RR exception (listed as obvious vandalism). this admin has not only overstepped the bounds but has clearly and completely disobeyed guidelines on wikipedia. such contempt should at least have the admin issued with a warning. information should come with reliable cited refferences, i was just trying to do the right thing and was not intending it to be in a bad natured way

Decline reason:

No, sorry, undoing your removal of nearly all text from the article is not obvious vandalism. You disagree with those edits, but it is a gross violation of WP:AGF to assert that others were making those edits in order to intentionally damage Wikipedia. 3RR was clearly correctly applied here. You need to realize that your edits were causing substantial disruption. Your block will not be lifted if you do not properly address your own behavior, rather than flinging accusations at others. If you wait out the block without understanding it, I can predict you'll soon find yourself blocked again. Mangojuice^talk 05:21, 18 May 2009 (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.

Damn wiki admins

What is it with all these wiki admins and THEM not being able to follow RULES and policies such as the NPOV, 3RR and rules pertaining for VANDALISM.

if anyone knows how i can get in touch directly with SENIOR Admins i would greatly appreciate it as some admins just make their owns rules up on the spot while disobeying wikipedias rules and effectivly slamming banhammers

and no, im not talking about all admins, but i am talking about quite a few admins!

I think you misunderstand the reason why you were blocked. I will try to explain it best I can:

I blocked you from editing for a short time (31 hours). This was less of a punitive measure than a protective measure. You and at least one other user were embroiled in an edit war, reverting each others changes back and forth. Even after I contacted you personally, you continued to revert, and promised to continue doing so, in violation of the three-revert rule. In accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption, you were blocked, not necessarily to punish you, but to restore stability to the article so changes could be discussed and a consensus reached. The other user, whom I also contacted, was understanding of the situation and discontinued his edits, so was not blocked.

Like I stated above, I have no doubt you are trying to improve this article. However, if we just allowed users who disagreed to revert the page back and forth ad infinitum, Wikipedia would go nowhere. That's why we have the three-revert rule: to prevent edit wars which can spiral out of control.

Most unverifiable information has been removed from the article, with some additional sourced content added last night. If you feel that there is still inappropriate content in the article, the proper venue to state your objections is at Talk:Mowbray College. There is nothing wrong with removing text once, or even twice, provided you have at least a decent reason for doing so. But if other users make it clear that they object to the change (as several others did), then discussion to arrive at a Consensus is the proper route.

You are more than welcome to continue editing after your block expires. You have not lost any status in the community, nor are you "banned" from anything. In fact, if you promise not to continue edit-warring, I have no problem with unblocking you before its scheduled expiration. I bear no grudge against you, and hope you stick around to improve other articles. -RunningOnBrains 17:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good explanation. Let me add further that there's no such thing as a "senior admin" if by that you mean a higher level of admin, short of the arbitration committee which certainly does not need to get involved. I've been an admin for about three years and have a long history of reviewing blocks: I am probably about as "senior" as you can hope for. Mangojuice^talk 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please Note that i have no "Grudges" against you either, i was angry and wrote some stuff i probably shouldn't have. I Don't Hate anyone, but i strongly disagreed with some of the methods used. I believed what i was doing was right as there where no cited references. the whole point of having cited references is so that their is evidence, if we didn't have this i could make outrageous claims and if a bunch of jokers agreed, it wouldn't be reverted. thats why it makes sense to have cited references.

Let me provide you with a hypothetical example of exactly what i mean:

If i wrote that bill gates was a hobo with super powers and owned 9 continents it would be stupid (and i doubt their would even be a reliable way to cite references for that) and if a few jokers agreed with me that would make it the consensus, therefore it would stay. a system like that is clearly not workable.

And before i finish writing this, let me say on another note that i empathize with you. being an administrator can sometimes be an annoying job, as i have on many online games had Admin experience and people can be really hard to deal with. However, please in future look into the validity of such articles being edited as their might be a legitimate reason for this.

- CakeMace

The deal is, if you see info you believe is false, you remove it. If it's merely uncited, the best thing is to go look for references to improve the article or tag it as needing more references. Individual statements that need backing can be tagged with {{fact}}. And yes, you can remove things that are uncited but it should be when you at least believe they are unverifiable as opposed to merely unverified. Mangojuice^talk 12:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good explanation (no offense Mango). Just because you don't think something's true doesn't mean you shouldn't still look for reference which support one side or the other. And if you do remove unverified text, even if you know it to be untrue, and it is restored more than once in a day or so, you should still take discussion to the talk pages. The other editor (or you) might be mistaken, and two people who "know" they are right reverting against each other is never good. Let me know if you have any more questions, and happy editing! -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, in regards to your concern about consensus being wrong, remember that reliable sources are necessary to back up a position. In fact, people occasionally do do dastardly things to try and sway consensus incorrectly (see WP:Sock puppet), but if you feel you are being bullied out of an article unfairly, there is always WP:Third opinion or WP:Requests for comment. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 13:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we should stress the use of discussion once it's clear there is a dispute. And I also agree that merely believing something is false doesn't mean you should remove it, but believing it's false or at least unverifiable should be a prerequisite, except on WP:BLP articles. Mangojuice^talk 13:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't Understand how to add references, can someone please explain this to me?

-CakeMace

See Wikipedia:Citing sources for some information to get you started. Good luck! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources

For citing sources:

1. Add the text/information you want to the article.
2. At the end of each sentance you've added, place the following code (minus the two "nowiki" tags):
   • <ref> la la la </ref>
3. The la la la should be replaced with information about the source (i.e. title, author, date published, date accessed, etc). The easy way to do this is with a citation template, I'd recommend Template:Cite news for the news article you're trying to add.
4. ...
5. Profit!

Theres a lot more that can be done in regards to adding references and sources to information, but that's the basics. Buzz me if you need any more help. -- saberwyn 08:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)