CarpeVeritas1

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Several of your recent edits to congressional member articles regarding the Dodd-Frank bill violate Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view. Not every vote is notable, and the source give was not a neutral source, rather a "shame list." Please review the policy on editing bios of living persons Thank you. DCmacnut<> 05:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Anthony Weiner. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Scott Murphy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is your final warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Tim Bishop.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, CarpeVeritas1. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

69.181.249.92 stop editing my talk page I rather look at numbers then have to look at the false claims of the censors.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  7  06:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to keep me blocked on the day of Americas Declaration of independence, I will never use Wikipedia ever again. Because I can only imagine how much valid information has been thrown down the memory hole in this Ministry of Truth's wet dream.

You were blocked because you engaged in an edit war. It's best to ask why editors removed your contributions in a civil and polite manner. It's important to gain consensus at this stage. Instead you re-added removed information and yelled at users. Perhaps your contributions were reverted because it didn't flow with the article; it was poorly expressed and written; or the information wasn't required based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?  Davtra  ^(talk) 08:18, 4 July 2010 (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).

CarpeVeritas1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

All I did was post information regarding a congresspersons vote. I expressed no opinion I didn't focus on a special interest such a Defense of marriage, medical marijuana, civil rights etc As many of the Wiki pages already had posted by other users. If a vote on the financial reform bill which has a impact on every Americans financial status is not general and dispassionate enough than I think those with the power to block such information should be under review for their POV pushing.

Decline reason:

With your choice of section headings like this, I think we'd be better off without your help. Read WP:CIVIL because that is why you shuold remain blocked. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2010 (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.