Maria Barzini
Sockpuppetry case
edit
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Equazcion (talk) 03:35, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Welcome
editWelcome!
Hello, Maria Barzini, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Occupy Wall Street does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SudoGhost 03:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Maria Barzini (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm aware that I was in violation of the "edit warring" but it was completely justified from this individual who seems to think he or she owns the Occupy Wall Street article when it has been open for contributors. The article is in desperate need of editing and removal of rhetorical garbage. I do apologize for violating such rules but I feel that this was justified. Maria Barzini (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Edit warring is never justified. Period. Even if you think you're right -- as does everyone who edit wars. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:06, 27 April 2012 (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.
Read the guide before you make a request. Its about what you did not what other editors did. Man...this was fast.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- NOW....look carefully and see you can still re-request unblock but...if you don't read the guide you will not understand what is being asked of you if you are a newbie. READ THE GUIDE! Then make the next request understanding the process and knowing that this hinges on your wording (hey, we're all about words here) and the outcome of a sock puppet review request. Have patience if you are not the editor in question.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring
editPlease understand as an editor you should not revert for the sake of reverting and should be able to justify a reversal of content in some manner. Three such reverts in a 24 hr perioid will result in a block for a specific period even if any other investigation requested is found unsatisfactory. Consider eviewing the help section at the main page for a good overview of how to edit responsively and in a collabrative way. Your edit removes some material and you di not explain this, you provided a contribution that may be of value if you are editing in good faith. Show that by not reverting again and edting in portions you feel are not here first. Discuss if need be or if politely asked but please do not edit war.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Did you even read my summaries? Did you even read the guy who reverted me summaries? The guy who reverted clearly thinks he owns the article. Maria Barzini (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your edits removed a substantial amount of content without adequate explanation. In my first revert, I requested that you explain first on the talk page before moving forward again with such a massive removal. Further, in several regards your edits parallel those of the banned sockpuppeteer User:CentristFiasco. Since your very first edit demonstrated substantial knowledge of infoboxes, it seems you've at least had previous accounts on Wikipedia before, or have edited as an IP. If you could disclose which accounts those were, it would help us to clear this up. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 03:58, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) what he said basicly and you should edit in your contributions that are not already there without removing any other information and see how that goes. Respect the work of others. It took a good deal of time to get the right coordinates and in the right format for the Infobox.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Dang...and here I thought just perhaps the person just went to the links to see the INSTRUCTIONS that are there....but doesn't matter now I see as we have a newly bitten editor blocked indef and the other editor is just warned. But I will support the final decisions of the admin and hope it will all eventually works out for the best.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- As I've stated on my talk page, if it is determined that this user is actually not a sock of a banned user, the block should be reduced and I should be blocked as well for the same amount of time. I will have been just as guilty of 3RR/edit warring as this user. Maria Barzini can facilitate this by providing the requested information. I'm certain that this user is a sock of CentristFiasco and that nearly anyone who's familiar with that user's behavior will come to the same conclusion, but if I'm wrong, my behavior was almost as inappropriate. Equazcion (talk) 04:20, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)
The Occupy Wall Street talk page is filled with nothing but conflicting arguments, and the article hasn't edited since in weeks. What is wrong with editing the information box providing a simplistic look? The picture is not needed by any means and I'm shocked that nobody removed it before, or even another administrator. The causes of the movement that were there before I contributed was mere political rhetoric which violates the so called, "neutrality" rules. Do you guys know what political rhetoric is? It's the very definition of bias. Maria Barzini (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your content changes aren't really at issue anymore. Answer the questions that have been put to you here if you'd like your situation to change. Equazcion (talk) 04:56, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- *Dunt dunt dooooonn!* (melodramatic background music).--Amadscientist (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)