Perrys Conscience

I urge you to please stop adding the text that you are adding that irrelevant to the information on this proposed building. This page was not created to have you "vent" about your concerns on this building or your city government. It was created to list facts about the building. If you continue to do this, you will be reported to Wikipedia. If you want to add any additional information, please add facts and/or pictures of the building or the construction of the building.

Thank you.

April 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Energy Tower (Midland, Texas). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. While I share your opinions, I cannot condone your methods. | Uncle Milty | talk | 05:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Energy Tower (Midland, Texas), you may be blocked from editing. | Uncle Milty | talk | 07:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Midland, Texas, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for as you have been editing Wikipedia only with the purpose of promoting your point of view and have made dubious threats against the editors who tried to stop you from doing this. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Binksternet - Thank you for pointing me to Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View". It specifically states that "Editors . . . should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." So then it is plain to see and to read that every time you and all of your other vandal buddies have deleted my edits you have violated Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. Everyone of you are supposed to "provide complete information" yet you completely deleted all of the facts I had added. Everyone of you are "not to promote one particular point of view over another" and yet all of you chose to promote the vandals point of view over mine. Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View goes on to say that ". . . the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all" and yet you all continuously deleted and excluded my point of view. Everyone of you have violated Wikipedia protocol in regard to this issue. "Ye who are without sin cast the first stone."

Everyone of you have ignored Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View in this situation. NOT ONE of you even tried to deal with this issue fairly. All of you chose to bully and intimidate instead of to act in good faith and attempt to understand. Not one of you have punished, bullied, intimidated or harassed the posters on the other side of this issue as you have me. You've been completely and absolutely partial and have shown favoritism There is absolutely nothing right about what you all have done. Everyone of you deserves reprimanding. Perrys Conscience (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your additions to this article, all of which I have just read, are clearly against pont of view guidelines, and furthermore are largely unrefenced. A "verifiable" point of view, a quote which you specify above, does not mean just your own point of view. And accusing other editors and admins of punishing, bullying, intimidation and harassment does not advance your case. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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 have been editing Wikipedia only with the purpose of promoting your point of view" That is an out right lie. ". . . have made dubious threats against the editors who tried to stop you from doing this." That is also a lie. You are the one's who have been threatening me. Your harassment, bullying and unfair treatment is all documented right here. Perrys Conscience (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just fixed the formatting of the above unblock request so that other administrators note it via the Requests for unblock process. However, please see the policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks - continuing to attack other editors will not contribute to you being unblocked, and will lead to your ability to edit this talk page being removed. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Attempting to evade the block through the MidTex (talk · contribs) account wasn't a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed last trolling per WP:DENY. Btw, just to notify: childish trolling or defamation by any flamer will never receive any answer or consideration by me. That's all. --Dэя-Бøяg 13:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)