User talk:Sovietia

Notability of Jackson Kirk Grimes

A tag has been placed on Jackson Kirk Grimes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pirate452 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. Please see this talk page for why I reverted your edit. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. Pirate^Argh!!1! 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Chris Noth. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tim Song (talk) 18:11, 8 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I have tried to maintain facts that have brought him to wider audience, such as a mention on Family Guy and a simple way to remember his name, and Hullabaloo insists that the Family Guy episode was not true. I had made a case, but he ignores it. It should be included on the Wikipedia page

Decline reason:

Instead of continuing to argue about the case, your unblock request should address your behavior, what led to your block, and what you will change to avoid future problems. TN X Man 19:37, 8 June 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.

Chris Noth

Please try not to use edit summaries as a discussion platform. If you have something to say, it would be better to use an appropriate article or user talk page. Article talk pages are for commenting on improvements to articles, while any comments concerning editor behaviour are best placed in a user talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Noth. Users who continue to perform reversions in content disputes after being blocked following a three-revert rule warning may be blocked again for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule again, as such reverts could constitute persistent vandalism.--Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Chris Noth, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent edit warring following 8 June block and further requests to refrain from including material against consensus.http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Chris_Noth&action=historysubmit&diff=369635713&oldid=369452933 Kudpung (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but this is NOT vandalism...read the definition! Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. Sovietia (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sovieta, whether it is vandalism or not , you are editing against consensus. You are reverting our edits every two or three days to avoid the 3RR, but it is disruptive and equally a breach of policy. I have asked you before to stop, but I now unfortunately have no alternative but to escalate and request that the situation be reviewed - which may incur you being blocked again.--Kudpung (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

You have repeatedly been warned to stop your vandalism of articles, such as those you made to Chris Noth, on Wikipedia when you came here using other IPs. Please stop. You are welcome to contribute real edits to Wikipedia but all vandalism done by you will be reverted and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue. You are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a free user account of your own. See SPI. Kudpung (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is not vandalism, because it does not fit the definition listed in Wikipedia. It is a disagreeing conceerning edits. However, I give you my word that I will never attempt to bring back the Family Guy reference on Chris Noth in return for the Nikolas Schreck page, a niche performer from California who is known and should never have been deleted, to be restored. Sovietia (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Kudpong, who at least is fair, and not Hullabaloo Wolfowitz or muzemike, who are clearly not. If they listen to argument, rather than delete out of spite, then there wouldn't be a problem. I don't know who those two think they are or how muzemike became an administrator. Sovietia (talk) 22:44, 5 July 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).

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

Request reason:

First, if the reason for the block is the Chris Noth article, then I should be blocked from editing the Chris Noth article only. Second, I have attempted to present a reasonable argument for the Chris Noth article reference, but no one presents a reasonable argument against it. Instead, they arbitrarily delete and then block me. If they gave me one good reason why it should be taken out, then that's fine, rather than Wolfowitz saying that something I heard on tv didn't happen. Wikipedia should be about the free flow of information, which they go against by deleting something that expanded him to a wider audience and should be about rational argument, which never happened here.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:22, 6 July 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.

Thank you

Thanks for your message Sovietia. I'm really sorry that in the light of your experience, you've decided to give up editing. You're clearly a patient but determined person with a lucid, concise writing style. I wish Wikipedia could have captured your talents on other articles. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Determined, certainly. Talents too. One admin can be wrong, but... --Kudpung (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]