WesternPacific

September 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Homophobia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Homophobia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning on article Homphobia

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homophobia. 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. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have made 4 reverts to Homophobia today; please do not revert again, or you will be blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Homophobia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reported on AN/3RR. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We operate on Wikipedia using a process called Consensus. It is okay for you to jump right in and make a change that you thinkg is a good change. Hopefully with a citation supporting why you feel the change applies. But -- if other editors disagree with you, either on the talk page, or by reverting the change, then you have to stop and work it out with them. I am not taking sides on the information you are changing. If you get reverted, it is time to stop and discuss, not keep making more changes, or re-iterating your edits over and over. We have a policy called wp:3rr that says that if you revert three times, you will have your account and IP address blocked. The correct process is to go to the talk page and discuss the changes and work out your proposed changes. Please also read the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle that addresses this more specifically. Atom (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion

It's great that you have an account now, User:115.130.2.169. It's much easier to have a name to call you by. However, when you were blocked for violating the three-revert rule, you were expected to refrain from editing until that block ends.

By the way, you don't seem to understand that your link is to a different article than the study you wanted to add. You wanted to add a study that says that homophobia is caused by feelings of disgust; we were discussing whether to add it now or wait until it has been peer-reviewed. But you linked to a different study, one that's been peer-reviewed but not yet published, which says that homophobia is caused by conservative religiosity. I'm almost positive that isn't the point you were trying to make.

Anyway, I've blocked this account for 48 hours, for trying to evade your block. Just wait out your block, then join in the conversation again. The article will still be there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)