Textwiki132

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Easy Goer. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:AN3

You're way past WP:3RR on this article, so it might be wise for you to promise to stop reverting this article. See the complaint at WP:AN3#Easy Goer. You may be blocked if you continue. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Easy Goer, you will be blocked from editing.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether you are correct or not, edit warring is not the way to resolve the issue. Discuss it on the article's Talk page, if that doesn't work, then dispute resolution is the next step. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't use YouTube as a source unless the copyright owner of the video uploaded it. We don't link to copyright violations. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

1. 1-There are 2 YOUTUBE videos being used as citations already in this article. #2-Those are my videos that I uploaded on Youtube, all 3 of those videos are MY videos on Youtube!!

Then those are completely unacceptable, as you are the copyright violator, and your uploading of videos and then use as sourcing here is a conflict of interest. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Who then was a gentleman? - The copyright of those videos belongs to TVG, NBC, and ??? (I cannot quite make out the station logo, possibly belongs to ABC), although they might ignore your upload (that is up to the broadcasting company), it's still a copyright violation - and they could get their lawyers involved if they so desired.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ronhjones, this question is for you! You were concerned about copyroght violations for my 3 videos I put in the article, that's fine. Why did you conveniently overlook the other 2 Youtube Videos in the Easy Goer article that were CLEARLY also in VIOLATION of copyright Laws?? Why didn't YOU erase those OTHER 2 VIDEOS that were left in the article?? Its a very important question Ronhjones?? Well then, the 2 YOUTuBE Videos that were left in the article NEED to be Removed as they are Copyright Violators. Why would erase my 3 Youtube Videos and Leave the Other 2 Youtube Videos on the article?? And 1 of those videos is MY VIDEO!! REMOVE these 2 videos IMMEDIATELY, they are copyright violators!! They Need to Be removed immediately!

Removed, although certainly not because of your bleating. Tan | 39 22:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My bleating, YOU remove my 3 videos, and leave up the OTHER 2 videos, what is that all about??? Bias of omission?? You erase my 3 videos, and leave up the OTHER 2 Youtube videos which were clearly in VIOLATION of Copyright LAWS!! Hmmm, that's an important question to answer??

Good day, sir. Tan | 39 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring and copyright violations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 20:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Textwiki132 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

76.15.74.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Textwiki132". The reason given for Textwiki132's block is: "Disruptive editing".

• Blocking administrator: Tanthalas39 (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)