This account has been blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Webster121 (2nd) for evidence and further information. (Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Webster121! I am Erik the Red 2 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam war

While I appreciate your desire to help out with this article, the description of the outcome in the infobox has been in contention for a period of years. How to describe the outcome of the war from the American perspective has been an especially thorny issue. I do not believe your version is an improvement. That said, please read WP:3RR and understand that any further revisions on your part in the near future will fall afoul of this hard limit on reversions, since you have reverted to your preferred version 3 times in the past couple hours. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether this edit really can stem from simple problem with the word "after". I have actually long recommended leaving significant parts of the infobox empty and would support a movement toward that on the talk page. However, I note that your edit did not in fact leave the "result" section empty. In any case I have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR for violating the three revert rule. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

3RR on Vietnam War. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Not strictly 3RR, but edit-warring the same. — Werdna talk 13:22, 16 June 2008 (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).

Webster121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I restored the page with a sourced material that has been reverted, pls check I did not violate 3RR

Decline reason:

You have been told already that this particular issue is a point of contention, and yet your tactic is to repeatedly replace things with your preferred version. You've made no good-faith attempt to discuss the issue with others. That's edit warring, so the block is justified. As for User:Pietervhuis, I don't see a violation of the 3RR there, although he also hasn't been discussing very well, but then he wasn't just recently blocked for 3RR on the same article, and he did explain his change, whereas you haven't. But in any case, someone else's behavior does not excuse your own. When you return, engage in discussion and compromise. Mango juice^talk 17:57, 16 June 2008 (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.

You've been blocked for 72 hours. You came back after the above block and all you did was continue to revert - six in the space of about 18 hours. When the block expires, I strongly counsel you not to edit war again, on that or any other article, or the next block may be indefinite. Daniel (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam

Greetings, Webster-- you wrote on my talkpage:

Vietnam

Thank you for your contributions on the Vietnam War page, but it is the U.S. having a hard time dealing with defeat. The sources provided does not state "strategic withdrawal". It says American defeat. We must remove the latter part "strategic withdrawal" and put American defeat as per the sources and "strategic withdrawal" is only pov. It's either win, lose, or draw. In the case of the United States it clearly lose, even with all the post war propoganda trying to deny the fact. Also I see you've made unwarranted edits without going to the talk page, or atleast acknowledge the talk page, this has been discussed before.Webster121 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes have been reverted. The history of edit warring and blockage should make it clear to you that your view is not a consensus one, and it really isn't for you to accuse others of editing without discussion -- my edits WERE in response to discussion. The photo you restored is without good permission. And as you say, this has been discussed before. Your approach to disagreement is not the most productive for improving the article. Please go back to the discussion page and see if you can get agreement on some version of the case that reflects the variety of POV on the question. It should be abundantly clear that there is no definitive position on this definition, and the article must reflect that. DavidOaks (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote some more: It seems that you have not been reading the discussions on the talk page. All my edits have reliable undeniable sources. Also that picture that you put up on the page is disturbing, as it truly shows your uneducated judgment.Webster121 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have been indifferent to the discussions on the talk page. The discussion page does not reflect the view that your sources are comprehensive as well as authoritative and reliable. Your view has not achieved consensus. Now, as to the personal stuff, wikipolicy asks that you keep focussed on the article instead of the person. I do not believe that "disturbing" is a disqualifier for any photo, especially to illustrate a war, and especially a featured picture. DavidOaks (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vietnam War. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 22 June: [1] [2] [3] seicer | talk | contribs 04:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you have edit warred in the past, and have been blocked twice as a result. I am reverting your edits in the understanding that you will take any future contributions regarding the dispute to the talk page. Any further blanket reverts will result in another prolonged block. seicer | talk | contribs 04:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Talk:Vietnam War. Q ^{T C} 04:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're 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.

Edit warring at Vietnam War, continuing past Seicer's final warning. EdJohnston (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

It has come to my attention that shortly after the debate on the proposal to rename Nanyue to Nam Viet had closed, you have engaged in edit warring over, of all things, a map. While I agree that Nam Viet is the correct academic usage, I do not believe that editing the map or substituting 'Nam Viet' for 'Nanyue' in the article itself is going to do justice until the article is formally renamed back to Nam Viet (which is out of the question for now).
Perhaps it would be better if the map that was originally removed by you was put back into the article BUT with the place names deleted from the map and the appropriate area shaded (note that inserting a caption containing the word 'Nam Viet' is also out of the question as that contradicts the title of the article)? I do agree though that the History of China template must stay off the article as it was not there until some misinformed user decided to insert it, perhaps to advance Sino-centric views. 122.105.144.148 (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion discussion

Please see this discussion regarding a map you recently created. Badagnani (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion discussion

Please see this discussion regarding a map you recently created. Badagnani (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion discussion

Please see this discussion regarding a map you recently created. Badagnani (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion discussion

Please see this discussion regarding a map you recently created. Badagnani (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is a final warning. Desist your attempts to insert your copyright infringed maps and stop removing material from Nanyue without discussion. You state to other editors to engage in discussion yet do not discuss any of your edits yourself. You have been blocked multiple times, the next time it will be permanent and we know your sockpuppet IPs. Wikipedia is edited by Consensus NOT by passion or opinion, we do not choose right or wrong or whats best. You need to have some hard cold evidence to support some of your claims, and so far you have not offered one link to substantiate anything you've said. If you would like to participate then abide courteously in good faith and engage discussion. [4] [5] [6] [7] .:davumaya:. 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Triệu Dynasty. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Badagnani (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official Warning: Sockpuppetry case No. 1

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Webster121 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. David873 (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for the case outlined above, where all IP addresses resolve to the same host and this is a pretty clear-cut case of abusive sock use. As such, you have been blocked for one month. This block will be extended by one month for each additional obstruction, with an indefinite block after the third extension.. Please stop. You're 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. seicer | talk | contribs 05:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official Warning: Sockpuppetry case No. 2

You have been accused of sockpuppetry for the second time. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Webster121 (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. David873 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]