Norquist9
Violet Blue (author) edit
Why do you suspect that editor to be her boyfriend? That is a fairly serious charge here... --BenBurch (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ben -- "Wikiwikimoore" is Jonathan Moore (http://0x0000.org), and identified himself, in his own words, on the Violet Blue talk page as someone who "has a personal relationship with" Violet Blue. The fact of the matter is more openly documented on Violet blue's blog; there are hundreds of references to him as "hacker boy" and by his actual name, and many photographs of them engaging in sexual/romantic activity (kissing, and more explicit stuff). They've been involved in an intimate personal relationship for more than a year. So, by his own admission, and by the prolific documentation provided by Ms. Blue, they're involved in some sort of long term sexual relationship, and his edits can hardly be considered neutral. She asks him to edit her page for her. (Norquist9 (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC))
- I have left a warning on his talk page and alerted an admin who has looked in on the article in the past. Thank you. Oh, and Welcome to Wikipedia - Go find some article to improve. :-) There are thousands to choose from, or if you want suggestions, please feel free to ask! --BenBurch (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thank you Ben! I joined because I found the personally-motivated edits by Moore and his aliases about Boing Boing on the Violet Blue page to be upsetting, as with the related edits on the Boing Boing page. But I will try to make some other valuable contributions on other topics, because I think Wikipedia is a great thing. I just tried my hand on the Twitter entry, I don't know if I did all of the formatting correctly. Norquist9 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008 edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit 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. —slakr\ talk / 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't understand the rules. I'll be more careful, and I will also seek the guidance of other editors to help resolve the matter. Norquist9 (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, just learn and move forward. A revert with "Take this to talk" followed by a discussion, or better yet discussion first is the best policy. --BenBurch (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yepo, no biggie. I am curious what your fixation is with this issue. =). Or would it be a COI? =)Yeago (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)