User talk:Scalabrineformvp

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Center for Economic and Policy Research, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. THF (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Scalabrineformvp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! JRSP (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scalabrineformvp, please take a look at the conflict of interest guideline in case you're related to CEPR. Also do not attack other editors, discuss on content not on editors. Thanks and welcome again. JRSP (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

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 Mark Weisbrot, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

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 produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please 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: Mark Weisbrot was changed by Scalabrineformvp (u) (t) deleting 14052 characters on 2010-02-09T16:56:01+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to the Mark Weisbrot page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Mark Weisbrot. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Mark Weisbrot was changed by Scalabrineformvp (u) (t) deleting 13978 characters on 2010-02-10T20:55:47+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Mark Weisbrot, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mark Weisbrot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Mark Weisbrot. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. NW (Talk) 02:51, 11 February 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).

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

Request reason:

Current guidelines allow the subject of a biography to make edits to his/her own page. All edits made by us were directed by Mark Weisbrot, but it appears users like SandyGeorgia are more interested in spreading false information about Weisbrot than being fair. A letter has been sent to the admin asking for Mark Weisbrot's bio page to be deleted if this cannot be resolved.

Decline reason:

"By us"? Is this a role account? Please see WP:U. You may make edits to an article, however, edit-warring is not permitted. Wikipedia includes verifiable and sourced information. If this happens to disparage the subject, so be it. It is quite possible the article cannot be deleted - of the subject is notable, anyone has the right to provide a properly-sourced, neutral article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 11 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for the confusion. 'Us' refers to the multiple users who have tried to undo changes by these Internet stalkers. I can send you a letter from Mark Weisbrot himself, with his contact information. The problem is that the sources are not verified and credible. One includes an interview that is entirely made up and the other consists of "anonymous" sources. Is this the kind of credible information Wikipedia endorses? We just want an Admin to step in and review this edit warring. The changes I made pointed out that the sources were not credible, so why am I considered the villain when the other users just undid my changes and did not respond?

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. See WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 18:40, 11 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This is a request to unblock the people who are blocked from participating in the discussion on the CEPR (Center for Economic and Policy Research) and cepr-related wikipedia articles. There are no sock puppets here -- just multiple people who were concerned about a smear campaign against CEPR using Wikipedia. We all work in the same place and therefore have the same IP address when in the office. We are not interested in editing the site but it seems unfair and counter-productive to exclude us from at least providing information in the discussion, with our name and affiliation openly stated. To be clear: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scalabrineformvp concluded that "Markweisbrot = Kriswarner = Scalabrineformvp." Mark Weisbrot is the person whose entry is subject to a current (unaddressed!) OTRS ticket; the CEPR article also has issues. Kris Warner is another CEPR staff member, editing using their own name. These two accounts are very recent, created in response to the OTRS issues. Scalabrine (me) is a third CEPR staff member, and has edited Wikipedia in a minor way since February 2009.

Decline reason:

So in short form: WP:MEAT, writ large. You're editing articles with which you have massive WP:COI, and you have admitted that there are others within shouting distance that you have enlisted to assist in both swaying WP:CONSENSUS, and emphasize WP:OWNership over an article. The only possible way that you would likely achieve an unblock, considering the above, is to never edit related articles again. Based on the single-focus of your edits, this might be a challenge (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 15 February 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.

At any rate, that's still a clear CIO and violation of policy. Perhaps others will explain (I'm on vacation). Further, you should all understand that some claims in all of these articles need independent, reliable sources and should not be sourced to "self". You can't say "first", "widely cited", etc. because y'all say so ... you need an independent reliable source to make such claims. Also, Wiki policy (and real world common sense) argues against you calling text cited to reliable sources like The New York Times and USA Today a "smear campaign"; take it up with them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rd232 ^talk 09:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.

You were blocked indefinitely on 15 Feb 2010 by User:NuclearWarfare on the basis of this sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp which concluded that you were abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this was in error, see the instructions above for appealing. Rd232 ^talk 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]