User talk:Iaspiker

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to E.O. Green School shooting with this edit, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. causa sui (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E.O. Green

(edit conflict) 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. A contribution you made to E.O. Green School shooting appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Given the topic of the article and its history of contentious edits, it may be helpful to review the talk page, including its archives, and propose any major edits there first. Thanks for your cooperation. Rivertorch (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit likely violates WIkipedia's policy on the biographical content of living persons, as well as the neutrality policy and the policy on original research.. I assume you're aware that McInerney is on trial right now. Great care needs to be taken with this article. Please propose any substantive changes on the talk page first. Thanks very much. Rivertorch (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at E.O. Green School shooting. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at E.O. Green School shooting, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I'm sorry to clutter your talk page with another warning, but you persist in adding the same unreferenced original research to the article. Once more: a living person subject to WP BLP policy is on trial for murder. It is unacceptable to attribute feelings or emotions to that person without providing a reliable source. As a side note, the "sexual advance" wording is also not supported by the cited source; it constitutes original research. I have repeatedly advised you to discuss your edits on the article's talk page, where you'll find I have explained my rationale for reverting all but one of your other recent edits to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Rehab (Amy Winehouse song). Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Amy Winehouse, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit not this. Do them again and you'll be blocked from editng. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

puffery

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't really care if I remain blocked for a few days so long as you and others combat the puffery on that junkies article.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your words suggest that your intent is not really to help produce a better article. In fact, an administrator had to remove your edit summary because it was grossly offensive. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]