User talk:Edmundoe

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Mark 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABC on soccer

Hi, please read and apply the policies contained in he following link. WP:RS Continuing to edit without providing sources that meet WP criteria will be seen as disruption. If you wish to dicuss this further pls leave a message on my talk page. SmithBlue (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to ABC, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Satu Suro 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add poorly sourced and opinionated content to articles on Wikipedia, as you have done to Australian Broadcasting Corporation. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources, and must also adhere to a neutral point of view. Further edits of this nature will be considered vandalism, and may result in your being blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your tripod page is not RS

Hi, please read WP:RS and WP:OR. The source you give for the material you have added http://edmundoe.tripod.com/index.htm> - is not an RS because there "is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability". And therefore the material added is OR. And Wikipedia does not publish original research: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

If you do not understand why your posts are a problem please go to the [New contributors' help page] and get some-one to explain it to you.

Continuing to insert WP:OR material can be see as disruptive editing and can result in a block for the editor involved. SmithBlue (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. treelo _talk 11:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

To allow you the time to read the various pages suggested above I have blocked you for 31 hours. If you have already read the policy pages, etc., that clarifies that only verifiable (from good independent sources) content should be added to articles then I suggest that you use the unblock option above, advising the reviewing admin that you now understand the policies. If, however, you simply return to inserting your personal views into articles upon expiry of the block I would suggest that the next block will be considerably longer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Who says that the information is not verifiable? All the information re the abusive use of radio by the ABC has occurred and is no doubt found in the archives of their recordings. In fact the information is more verifiable than the current information on the page.The information provided at the web link has been collected via random tunings into the ABC over the period of the web page. If you read the web page you'll see that there are links to other parties that have similar complaints about the organization. The abusive attack on football has been standard unofficial policy by the sports writers and presenters at the organization. One has to question the integity of the sports presenters who use public monies for personal biases.

Decline reason:

Your edits are in violation of the neutral point of view policy. They also show a serious misunderstanding of the reliable sources guidelines. Because you are editing in violation of those policies, and do not stop when warned, the only way to stop you is to block you. Your request indicates that, if unblocked, you will go back to the same kinds of edits, so you will have to remain blocked. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Jan 2009

Your Talk page already carries discussions on why adding links to what appears to be a webpage you own is not a good idea. Please do not do this again. --HighKing (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

accurate and well documented e.g. Johnny Warren and numerous authors on the media. The current blocking represents bias and inaccurate use of policy.

Decline reason:

You have not provided a legitimate reason why you should be unblocked. Please read our information on reliable sources and original research. TN X Man 02:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{unblock-ip|1=121.219.65.29|2=Continuation of same behavior|3=Tanthalas39}}

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

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

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

Block message:

Continuation of same behavior

Blocking administrator: Tanthalas39 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Declined per other reasons above. Locking the page. — PeterSymonds (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]