CatUrineCuredMe
Welcome!
Hello, CatUrineCuredMe, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
edit
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 Product certification, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Keith Henson. 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. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to Keith Henson constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Chetblong (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you discuss at Talk:Keith_Henson#Category:American_criminals. I agree with you, but edit warring is not the way to go about it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
—slakr\ talk / 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
CatUrineCuredMe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
. There are significant sources, notability and coverage of the subjects criminal activities and conviction and surrounding legal troubles (incl. imprisonment) for him to be able to assert notability solely because of it. Therefore explain to us why the subject is not clearly a case for inclusion in said category. Enlighten us. And, oh, just like Frank Abagnale (also so categorised) remember that the person being able to assert notability for non-crime things also does not put them outside it. ... this is exactly what I want to say at the talkpage, but which I -can't- because of your WP:DICKishness to block for the sake of your pals w/out even a 3RR contravention or even a proper 3RR report. Unblock.duly, lawfully, and finally convicted by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), can claim notability solely because of the crime, or else the person must have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable criminal acts, etc
Decline reason:
Apart from being the most uncivil unblock request I've read so far, you definitely violated the three revert rule with a total of four repeated additions of point of view statements. When the block expires, try to think about working on consensus, rather than trying to force your view into the article. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:38, 25 May 2008 (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.
CatUrineCuredMe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why is this request being ignored, when you can see from the talkpage discussion at the article that they had to change the definition of the category to win their little attempt at an edit war, because of being forced to acknowledge that there was no vandalism from me and I was right at the outset? Unblock sometime by the end of the decade would be nice.CatUrineCuredMe (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Erm, no. See above. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:38, 25 May 2008 (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.
CatUrineCuredMe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wow, that displays great lack of discernment and intelligence. Pray tell, how is the -first- of four successive, edits, being a novel introduction of previously absent material, possible to be counted as "undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors" - which is what a revert is? So, there's no more than 3 reverts, the latter two each with a justifying edit summary. Is there or isn't there now, dear? So when you've apologised for that error, answer this question too: when is it ever worse to call out others for their bad faith and mistake (as I have) than to be the person unjustly suffering the consequences of the same (as I did & still am). Do the right thing and do it without delay this time. Unblock.
Decline reason:
I feel no more inclined to unblock you. Regardless of whether you reverted or not, you still edit warred. I am not going to apologise to such a rude person, no matter how wrong I may or may not have been. Now please, take the remainder of your block time to straighten up your attitude, and gain consensus on the talk page before forcing your view across. Ta. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:13, 25 May 2008 (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.
- Being a dick when you break the rules never helped anyone. Believe it or not, these rules are here to prevent editors from hurting the project. Being right -or wrong, I confirm that you were edit warring- is no excuse for that kind of behavior and we really don't need that kind of mentality here. I hope you'll take a few minutes to consider how your actions led to this situation before starting editing again. -- lucasbfr talk 11:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)