User talk:Konformist

You have to read the sources to say it's not there.

The Ripleys believe it or not specifically says this was a family project. Go back and read the four or five lines again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use Jim's "own" words unless it is under application to WP:RS. It doesn't matter what is known locally, it only matters what we can source. For example here in Pueblo it is well rumored he took the land using the law of Laches. I've found him say out and out he bought it with a savings account. If you research the sources the story changes over the years many times. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures) please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware you have a talkpage?

Hey, I found a source that verified the bit about the cottage. I do want to clear up that our references are not required to be free. If the person wants to verify it they have to pay. We include books too.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 Hours for Repeated Vandalism and Disruptive Editing. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Feel free to terminate my Wikipedia account permanently, if you cannot tell constructive contributions (Jim Bishop making stairs and a classic booklet) from vandalism Konformist (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Konformist, take it from me—calm down. Wikipedia depends on collaboration, not munchkinning, so talking to others using discussion pages and being reasonable, rational, and relaxed will do you far more good in the long run then trying to aggressively shoehorn something in while being unreasonable, irrational, and angry. As an aside, there is no way (technically thru MediaWiki or legally due to the GFDL and CC-By-SA 3.0) we can delete your account. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 04:55, 22 January 2010 (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.

It's more of a pointing out you have a talkpage thing. Here on Wiki we are based on collaboration...I've tried to get you to discuss a few of your changes and either you were ignoring me or didn't know you had a talkpage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]