Jane1222556

November 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Quidco, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Quidco was changed by Jane1222556 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.915768 on 2011-11-15T16:30:19+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Quidco with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Calabe1992 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on User talk:Calabe1992 were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in top right. For more details see talk page guidelines. Thank you. Please see my talk page. Calabe1992 16:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Quidco with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Calabe1992 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Quidco, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Calabe1992 22:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR notice on Quidco

Your recent editing history at Quidco shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:42, 15 November 2011 (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).

Jane1222556 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

my considered and very helpful comments are considered vandalism

Decline reason:

The WP:TRUTH is not the goal here: all edits must be verifiable via third party reliable sources. "Forums" are not reliable sources. Your word is original research and is not verifiable, and therefore no good. You were appropriately warned to stop, yet you continued. As such, you're validly blocked to protect this project from such actions (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:55, 16 November 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.

I was blocked for adding a comment that would have been very useful to users of Wikipedia. It could have saved them a lot of time and money being better informed.

Donations anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane1222556 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 16 November 2011‎

In response to your email asking: "Do you think Wiki is to be run by a cabal?" ... please see WP:Words of wisdom, particularly the section titled "On Wikipedia and the Cabal". In short, there is no cabal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the short comment - I was heading out the door at the time and posted that in a bit of a rush.

To explain further ... your block was directly related to edit warring and breaking of the three-revert rule (see WP:3RR). In this case, you were adding material that was not supported by reliable source.

Please be aware that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (see WP:V). Believing something to be true isn't enough, particularly when that material is potentially viewed as judgmental, opinion, or non-neutral - in such cases, a third-party reliable source is required to provide the verifiability (see WP:RS for explanation of what qualifies as a reliable source). Failure to provide a reliable source gives the impression that the material is original research, which fails the verifiability requirement (see WP:NOR).

When your block expires, a few options exist. First, if you can locate a reliable source to support the statement, feel free to provide a neutrally worded version of the material. If it is still removed, discuss the material on the article talk page. Every article on Wikipedia has a talk page (the tab above the article labeled as either "talk" or "discussion", depending upon your settings). On that page, a discussion can take place between interested parties to attempt to establish a community consensus as to how to proceed with the content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Block reset

Due to your obvious block evasion using 217.171.129.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), your block for edit warring has been reset to 72 hours, starting now. Further transgressions will be met with sterner measures. Favonian (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jane1222556 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Calabe1992 21:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)