Vwjr

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Dr. Stephen Kaplan article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

December 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yobol (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Vwjr reported by User:Yobol (Result: ). Thank you. Yobol (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:26, 9 December 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not start the edit war. I was only trying to create a more objective article. I noticed many, many complaints in the Talk section about how skewed the article was. If you payed attention I was doing very simple edits from credible sources to make the article appear more even handed. The article is a rant. Also, the other contributors were switching accounts and reversing my edits constantly, being careful to encourage that I was either blocked or bullied out from giving up. I wish I had more support. I want my edits returned to the page, blocked or not. At the very least, something needs to be done. I would like to report the article for bias. Vwjr (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were warned to stop, and you persisted. Also, textbook example of a WP:NOTTHEM unblock request. Three of the other users who reverted your edits, DocJames, Yobol, and Zad68, are veteran editors, and to suggest that they are "switching accounts" in some concerted fashion is ridiculous. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 9 December 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Veteran bullies. I am so glad I did not use my other Administrator account for this. I smelled trouble before I began editing. I have been editing Wikipedia since the year it was created. I have never seen this kind of petty behavior. You have not even acknowledged the rampant bias. Also, DocJames, Yobol, and Zad68's behavior is so obvious that only a simpleton or companion would believe otherwise. Which are you? You should be ashamed of yourself. Veteran editors! You are ridiculous to take they're side when I was clearly trying to appease the consensus of the Talk section (Also something you failed to mention). I not even going to ask if you read it. Either you did not, which is irresponsible, or ignored it, which is worse. As soon as I am unblocked, I will use this account to file a complaint against you too. What does it matter when I was asked to stop by the worse kind of people? No principles and no scientific objectivity. Contemptuous ineptitude. Vwjr (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM, also what looks like an admission of sockpuppetry. That won't get you unblocked. Huon (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2014 (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.

You should just use your "other Administrator" account to block all of us, problem solved. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Eckharts

Hi, from what I can see the Eckharts aren't notable enough for Wikipedia since they've received limited coverage. Wikipedia list articles generally don't include subjects unless they already have an article. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Email

I have received your email. I have blocked you from sending me any more emails via Wikipedia. Discussions about article content belong on the article talk page. You asked "Who are you exactly to have authority to edit a bizarre magic page?" - Wikipedia is (famously) the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. As for your edits being "accurate and easily researched information" they are not. You need to read WP:RS. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

A discussion concerning you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please sign your posts on talk pages

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Bizarre magic, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)