User talk:DeadSend4

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, DeadSend4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! GlassCobra 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RollingStone.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RollingStone.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BacktoBasicsOpener.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BacktoBasicsOpener.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera and vandalism--important

I've given Baladaz a final warning on his talk page. If he vandalizes the page again, report him to WP:AIV and he should be blocked.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:BacktoBasicsOpener.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:BacktoBasicsOpener.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusjih (talk • contribs) 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BacktoBasicsOpener.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BacktoBasicsOpener.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stephenwebster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stephenwebster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Declareyouselfcampaign.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Declareyouselfcampaign.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera claim

Hi. Thanks for providing a source for the second edit that was being disputed. The first, however, is still lacking an inline citation. Please see the Discussion Page for the Christina Aguilera article. Rather than edit warring, I'd like to mention that the WP:Burden is said to rest with you, the person restoring the information here. If the claim is "sourced," as you say, then please provide an inline citation directly after the sentence. Otherwise, I plan to continue following the proper guidelines mentioned in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --James26 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Christina Aguilera. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. w^{L<speak·check>} 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

Glad we could come to an agreement. But what you don't understand is that the article I was basing this one on as Britney Spears, which is a GA, while the ones you listed with the same format, are not. But anyways, to keep it from not going anymore, I decided to just give up on it. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Justin Bieber, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Creation7689 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

STOP

As stated on that talk page, Stripped is her fourth album, My Kind of Christmas is her third, etc. Changing it again will be considered vandalism. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Christina Aguilera. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTE-I moved this up to a level two warning since you were warned many times prior to me marking it as vandalism. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Christina

I do not appreciate you personally insulting me. "I'll tell you what you're problem is, reading, if you look at the sources, they are not tabloids but reputable magazines/ publications" So you're telling me I can't read now? "There a more than enough events, the divorce, various reports, but you can't comprehend or read things so you wouldn't understand" And I can't comprehend words either?

THERE ARE NO REAL SOURCES FOR ANY OF THIS THAT'S BEING REPORTED. The TABLOIDS are reporting this. Until there's a reason to believe otherwise, a title saying "personal struggles" is not accurate. ℥^nding·start 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 14:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You did a WHOLE lot more in this edit, than removing the singing section. You added ~10000 characters (1/6th of the article). Would you mind explaining what you did? Nymf _hideliho! 09:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

DeadSend4 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Relax, I just copy and pasted a previous edit I made, pretty much it's the same as was there except I removed what was there and copied over a previous edit. The only changes really are mentions of her past nominations for awards, critic reviews and little details about her character etc. I mentioned why I removed the singing section.

April 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nymf _hideliho! 07:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett article

Hi, you pretty much changed this whole article but you did not use the edit summary to let other editors know what you were doing. The edit summary is there so that editors know what and why you are changing things. I'd appreciate it if you would let me know what changes you made to this article. I'm finding it difficult to find your changes though it seems like you moved a lot of sections around yet I know you added more too. Also, you are still overlinking. Sorry to be here like this but I am trying to see what was done and I'm getting frustrated. I look forward to your response. You can do it here or on the talk page. I will be questioning the changes there too. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

DeadSend4 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC) My mistake, I reverted an old edit of mine from a contributor who wrote "If anything of use is here the history can be used to return it. a different article showed that their are major policy & guideline vios too" dated 29 March 2011. I reverted then went back and edited a lot of the wording that sounded to "PR-friendly". The overlinking probably comes from her portrayals of living or historical figures, Lord of the Rings and I often link the year of the award show to her multiple nominations instead of finding citations for each individual nomination. I am not overlinking on purpose nor am I adding to it in my opinion.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Tenebrae. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Nymf _hideliho! 19:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, it finally took this contributor to actually see my point of view on this issue, had I not messaged him that I'm pretty sure he would have ignored my suggestions. Just being honest, but he says he'll stop, so I too will leave him alone. Unless he tries again.DeadSend4 (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page/my complaint

Your continued edit warring and your highly uncivil behavior and your hugely inappropriate post on my talk page, in which you make intemperate, baseless accusations and generally speak in overbearing manner, are prompting me to seek admin intervention. I imagine some of the other editors you've attacked will join me in doing so. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A request for intervention has been placed on the Admin Noticeboard. Please stop posting abusive and insulting comments on my talk page, as this is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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).

DeadSend4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am being blocked for NO reason. The recent edits that have been reverted make no sense and are incorrect and also unsourced. Please go look at my recent edits on Nicole Kidman's page and you will see that I tried compromising with this stubborn individual. You will see her is reverting the article back to incorrect information FOR NO REASON other than his personal distaste for me. Complain about me all you want but don't edit a page that is correct to begin with. There are many things incorrect in the article that he reverted. What I don't understand is, he REFUSES to look at my edit, he DOES NOT see what changes I'm trying to explain, instead he files a complaint about me and reverts my edits. He is trying to paint me as a bad contributor saying that I'm abusive towards editors...what other editors? It's just him that has the issue with me no one else. Example, the article needed THREE citations in one section, so I went to go look for them and they were all cited and put there correctly. This contributor comes and reverts it back to how he wants it, only because he has a personal issue, this isn't fair by any means, and I have contributed years of information especially to Miss Kidman's article. Can anyone else not see this?

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2011 (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.

DeadSend4 (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked because you continued to edit war on the article — I'm not 100% clear that you broke the three-revert rule, but your actions definitely fit the profile of edit warring, and edit warriors are liable to being blocked. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Note:A violation of this rule indeed occured.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're not clear then why am I blocked? Do you reazlize WHY there is an edit war? Please go look at the page and you will I'm reverting correct pieces of information. Currently the article has unsourced sentences, MY edits have those very sentences sourced, the article lists her SAG Award nominations as five, yet he goes through an edit war with me without realizing this fact. HE is the one that is going through an edit war for no reason, it's his changes that is disrupting the page. Not mine. DeadSend4 (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, this was better vented on the article talk page, where you can convince other editors that you are right. All editors including me have to resist the urge to revert. The lack of reversions, after all, is no endorsement of that version of the page.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I have been doing, if you go to the discussion page you can SEE about 4 paragraphs about my edits, not only that I spend over 2 hours going section by section pointing out my changes. What happens? I get ignored and blocked, you think that's fair? I tried going on the talk page but no one seems to care. Can someone please go and look at the discussion, or better yet look at all my edits for the day and see my explanations on my changes on these edits? I didn't revert any edits today rather than go section by section, but again that went ignored by this user and didn't bother reading ANYTHING. His personal vendetta against me is unfair, I added citations and made numerous corrections yet I'm being blocked. DeadSend4 (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why I can't complain about some when it's that ONE person who is going through this edit war, what edits on the page am I doing wrong? Nothing, it's THAT user. So no, the reason for my request being denied isn't because I'm blaming someone else, it's because it IS that person's issue. I'll probably be ignored again though. DeadSend4 (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If no-one replies, in the future, use WP:Requests for comment, and do not edit war. Ultimately, though, I cannot decide here - the blocking admin will have the final say.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:EBUR.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of honesty, I need to point out that he is being reverted by (and being uncivil in his edit summaries to) not just one editor, as he claims, but several, including User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, User:Nymf, and User:Crohnie. I urge DeadSend4 to be more accurate in his claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

GO AWAY! You're just doing nothing but be an instigator and trying to slander me. Just stop and quit reverting my edits, I find it funny you actually read what I have to say here but have you even bothered looking at my edits? No you haven't. Because you cannot comprehend. Look at her page right now, there's a broken link, unsourced information, incorrect sentences, but YOU revert them because you have a problem with me. I AM being correct with my claims, you're just nothing but a whining contributor who doesn't get his way and complains. You're not being honest but playing the victim. How many times do I have to tell you you're reverting sources I found, the amount of SAG award nominations is incorrect. Just stop responding to me and quit going to Miss Kidman's page. ARE ANY OF YOU LOOKING AT THE EDIT I MADE? ARE YOU ALL IGNORING EVERYTHING IM WRITING?! WHAT IS GOING ON GUYS? DeadSend4 (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, there are at least three other editors who find your edits questionable and your behavior here objectionable; see the links that I provided just above, and the comments that other editors have made here. It is inappropriate and inaccurate to say that only one editor has objections. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way I can block (talk) from my discussion page? He only comes in to discuss things when another admin has blocked me. If it's not going to bother to look at my edits or my suggestions I want it away from my page and the pages I edit. It's it enjoys following me. DeadSend4 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at this: They maintain homes in Sydney and Sutton Forest, New South Wales, Los Angeles, California,ref>Ryon, Ruth (6 April 2008). "Nicole Kidman, Keith Urban buy Brentwood home". NashvillePost.com Retrieved on 7 April 2008. http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/hotprop/la-re-hotprop6apr06,0,5978028.story. </ref> That's something that's in the article, I fixed it, but it's ok for it to revert my edits? How many times am I going to repeat myself? I'm not going to stop until I'm heard. DeadSend4 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit while you are blocked like you did on the Nicole Kidman article. Evading your block is not a good idea and is also called socking even if you are just using an IP. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but DO NOT accuse me of editing while blocked, check the IP it does not match mine. I did not edit the page and the person who did edit is correct. I deserve an apology. Go look at the edits that were made, please, I doubt you will because no one seems to care but can you please look at the reverted changes. Can you see several citations that have been reverted? Can you see the miscount in award nominations and other missing citations? All of the responses I've been getting from admins do not address the issue at hand, instead it's "You are reverting several edits" yet they haven't themselves checked the edits. Fine I was a rude to someone, block me, but why revert the edits? I haven't been rude to anyone, but one, but when I tried compromising....ugh nevermind I'm just repeating myself and waisting my time explaining myself. I've been sounding like a broken record, yet I've yet to hear ONE person say, "yes I've read the edits". If anyone were to read the edits you will see that I've even went section by section (compromising) and explaning my edits. If you are too busy to read it then can you find an admin or someone with power to read the edits? That's what I don't understand, I've been getting such robotic answers that leads me to believe no one is reading what I say. I don't understand how none of you are understanding what I'm telling you. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you checked it yet? Because I did, the IP is hundreds of miles away from where I'm at, so don't accuse me of editing while blocked. This treatment is unjustified and unfair, I hope someone can step in, someone who has read the reverts and can defend me. I'm very much waiting to be unblocked, and will continue to improve this article despite someone's constant need to blindly revert my edits. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Without saying that this is the case here, it is not uncommon for blocked editors to use "meat puppets," which are friends who may be hundreds of miles away. DeadSend4 is giving a straw-dog argument with the potential to mislead. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't come and post in my talk page, read the edits. Stop trying to slander me too, you're just shifting the issue at hand. This doesn't concern you anymore. DeadSend4 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC

You make so many wholesale changes all at once — at one point you made 25 edits in a row — that the good edits get buried in the mountain of questionable edits, overwhelming the attempts of other editors to pick through the morass. If you were to discuss changes beforehand on the article's talk page — calmly, rationally and pithily — then you could collaborate with other editors, which is the basis of Wikipedia. The first step is to treat fellow editors with civility. Good manners are extremely important in any collaborative effort. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't question the usefulness of your edits, but first, please review WP:Civility and WP:BROTHER, and maybe WP:SOCK. All-caps text seems to be the civility problem here, as on Wikipedia, it is considered shouting. After all, your block is temporary, and, blocks are not punishments - they are just to prevent further disruption.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I told you twice to stop posting on my talk page, please do not come in here, you have no business here. DeadSend4 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Your content may be right, but, you must not edit war. Actually, Wikipedia's editors are all volunteers, and all have business talking with other users.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how any of you expect me to be cheered up and calm when none of you are reading my edits, none of you. If you would you would see the errors. My 25 edits in a row were followed by a summary of my changes, they were done to show everyone what I was doing. Did anyone respond? I'm still waiting on an actual admin who has the time and isn't busy. DeadSend4 (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if you explain, you must obey the consensus reached by other users, and not edit war - if others don't discuss then don't insert the edits. Again, please be civil and assume good faith.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I get it thanks. DeadSend4 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

FYI, I've added a subsection break so that we don't have to edit the entire section to leave a comment. To respond to your comment above, "If you're not clear then why am I blocked?" — while everyone who violates 3RR is edit warring, not everyone who is edit warring violates 3RR: it's possible to be edit warring without violating it. One part of the edit-warring policy has the following to say: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring." This is the basis for the block: I am confident that you were edit warring, so it doesn't really matter if you violated 3RR. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but I have yet to have my question answer, the question that actually pertains to the issue. I keep getting responses about my blocks but nothing about anything else. This is getting tiring and it is extremely unfair. DeadSend4 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer:Content disputes do not justify edit warring, regardless of who is right and/or wrong.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense, so because I add a citation which is correct and IS NEEDED it can be reverted for no reason? Am I in the twighlight zone? No one is understanding what I'm telling them. I appreciate your response but we're just going around in circles, yet I haven't had my question answered, so until you (or any admin with power who isn't busy) read my edits or answer my question, I only want that. Thanks. DeadSend4 (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But it does make sense. Even if your citations are right, if people have not agreed that your edits should be made, don't make them. Also, your WQA thread specifically mentioned incivility and personal attacks, which I think you know better than to do.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Again this just proves that no one has read my edits. I'm done going in circles about this, if you're not going to contribute anything other than what's already been repeated the past three days don't respond. I heard it already. DeadSend4 (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits were not an issue themselves (yes I've seen them), but, the community didn't want them, regardless of any other policies (no consensus). If other users undo your edits, they do so for a reason, and according to our policies.

But you need to really understand this: Your edits are not OK if you edit war, regardless of their qualities. The reverts of them were according to policy, and, you edited them in despite the fact that consensus (the views of other editors) were against it. Many edit wars also include similar perfectly encyclopedic edits as well.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I said if before I GET IT But you haven't answered my question so stop respoding if you're just going to repeat yourself. Did you not read what I wrote? I heard it already thanks. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I answered your question. The reverts occured for a reason, most likely explained in edit summaries. If this is not your question, please re-ask it. We have read your edits, no, we cannot schedule specific times and/or dates for discussion as discussion occurs constantly, it is fair that lots of contributions get reverted - it happens all the time, consensus was about the content. If someone reverted you and did not reply on the talk page, a request for comemnt could've been useful, but, you ultimately failed to not edit war. Again, no shouting, or I will endorse an extension of your block.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Had I not shouted you probably would have continued to not answer me question, so it was needed and it did work because you finally answered it (well not really and like I said I'm not going to repeat myself). LOL @ "we" have read. So again, thanks, and I get it. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouting should be avoided at all times, as is all incivility. After your block ends, I hope you contribute a lot to Wikipedia. Please keep in mind in the future that we generally don't use internet slang on Wikipedia, though it's permitted. "We" refers to the community-specifically in this case me and the blocking admin. Admins rarely block without real cause.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

K. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it laughable no one is agreeing that she doesn't have five SAG Award nominations and not four (one of the many corrections I've been trying to make). But I guess my correct counting doesn't matter right? I'm sure everyone else agrees that it's four, it's just me who can't count right, that's it. So it isn't five because the general consensus says four, which although her award page and the official Screen Actors Guild Award says otherwise (a reputable website not wiki). But because everyone has such an issue with my correct edits the real facts don't matter apparently. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your source may be interpreted differently by others.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who can count can see it's incorrect. This shouldn't even be an argument, it's like saying she's gotten two Oscar nominations, when she has a third one. That's like if I were to revert someone's edit that said that, but it's for everyone to do that to me. Ridiculous. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

See Eagles247's comment below please.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you're point? It's the same thing I've been hearing. The same thing. No one is listening to me. Until you have something other than telling me how bad I've been I'm going to ignore you. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi DeadSend4. I apologize for Jasper Deng's contradictions above, and I would like to give you some advice for how to proceed. It is clear to me and other users who started up the Wikiquette alert that you need to tone it down. Writing in all caps and bolding makes it seem like you are yelling, and can be construed as not being civil. Wikipedia is a collaboration among many people, and you have to give a little once in a while. Apparently there was consensus about how the Nicole Kidman article should look, and even if you cannot find it anywhere, you should calmly discuss the changes you would like to make with your fellow editors. Edit warring does not appear to be the reason for your block, even though it appears in your block log as such, but I think this is more of a incivility block. Take a breather, calm down, and when this block expires, try to discuss civilly the changes you would like to see at the article. Please do not insult users with personal attacks or yell at them (writing in all caps). There is also an issue of sockpuppetry in that you have tried on more than one occasion to make your version of the article seem better by acting as multiple people who feel this way. If you have any questions (but please do not copy/paste the above message again), please ask here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What you are telling me I've been hearing for the past three days, nothing you are telling me is new. What I want to know is why everyone is ignoring my requests. Until you have an answer or can tell me something other than explaning to me the rules here (which I have heard) then please don't respond. I think admins are just coming in here, seeing I'm being disruptive but aren't bothering on reading what's at the core of this issue. You realize it finally took someone to respond after writing in caps and bold? I had to shout otherwise I was going to get ignored, so far we're at 10% of progress in my terms. Nothing has moved forward but the same repetition robotic responses which are doing nothing. I am calm, so can we move on? I already know about my complaints, after being blocked two days, you'd think I know. I do. So I don't need to be reminded on what I did. In ancient Sparta, people shouted the loudest based on how important the issue is. Clearly no one was reading what I was saying, it wasn't until I had to shout until someone came in (though was of no help or contribution in the first place). Now please don't respond on how we aren't in Sparta and repeat the whole "well you were being disruptive" because that doesn't answer my question and that's been the constant scapegoat here. That's unless you actually take the time to read like really really really read what I wrote (something I have yet to see from anyone here).DeadSend4 (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Which requests is everyone ignoring? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it's listed about 10 times in this discussion page, but since I've been repeating myself all day I don't mind repeating myself again, the request is to go and look at the history, look at the edit summaries I've made. Look at the discussion page, look at the countless of responses, look at how many citations I have added and for no reason were reverted. Please don't respond with "well it's because you were disruptive" or "went through an edit war" because A) This is what I've been told B) It doesn't answer my question in the first place and has nothing to do with what I'm requesting. Also look at the two paragraphs below (I'm 100% sure you haven't read it either - join the club). I listed many specific things. By the way I appreciate you actually taking the time and really read, let's see if you'll follow through. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Why must this be so difficult guys? Why did it have to take over 20 hours for someone to read my request? It's like I'm editing with people who hate me. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand why your addition of those citations had to be reverted as well, but I'm assuming that the user(s) reverting did not feel like adding them back. They are reliable sources and help to remove citation needed tags, so I think that if you had just added them without changing anything else in the article, they would stand (not saying that is what you should have done, just an example that your citations were good ones). Speaking from experience, users who help build up an article kinda freak out when a chain of massive changes are added. This may be the reason all of your edits were undone at once. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I admire you for actually reading and going through, you don't understand how I appreciate that. If you notice however, a few edits back you will notice that I even went through section by section. One of those edits was just to add the three citations alone, don't you think personally, it's unfair for the person to not even read that and revert it? This is where I'm going at. One of several correct edits and citations I've done. Yes I know people get freaked out, I've edited many pages but this...this page has gotten me into so much trouble and I honestly think it's over the stupidest things. I mean evem my Cate Blanchett article was reverted just for the fact that I was blocked and nothing else. The sources working, nothing wrong with it. Unfair. Completely unfair. DeadSend4 (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and hopefully this doesn't happen in the future. There are always a few venues in which you can take your concerns, including dispute resolution. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but after what I've been through, no one is going to bother to help and continue to ignore me. But thanks. DeadSend4 (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• DeadSend, I have just reintroduced some of the sources you had added. I really don't want to comment too much on content, but allow me to say a word or two: much of what you added is valid and helpful. Some of what you added is not (and especially Jane his wife, if I remember correctly, sounded almost like a PR agent), but even that is not really a problem. It's the yelling and the all-caps that rubs editors the wrong way, and at some point everyone is tone-deaf and no one wants to address questions of content anymore.

  As for the talk page, I looked at your commentary and I'm sure you make some valid points, but sweet Jesus those are walls of text. Here on your talk page, same thing.

  Now I'm done preaching. I'm still irritated over that socking issue, but that's in the past. You've added good content, and for that I thank you, and I have no problem whatsoever with the inclusion of good content--in fact, that's what we're supposed to be here for. I may re-insert some more of it, and you can feel good that maybe someone agreed on that issue. When your block is over, well, I don't think I need to say what I would like to tell you. I hope all of us, including all the other editors ganging up on you (because I'm sure you feel like we are), will cooperate and finish writing this thing. Now, enjoy your time off. The article will still be here when you get back and it still won't be perfect. Best, Drmies (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

Ok, I have gone on and on about the PR comment, look at Miss Kidman's talkpage and you will see what I did in order to remove the 'pr' edits. If you notice, even the edits I've reverted, I'm going to copy and paste what I wrote here earlier (something I'm sure you missed): the opening sentence says "Her performance in 2010's Rabbit Hole (which she also produced) earned Kidman further accolades including a subsequent Academy Award nomination for Best Actress." For the record I added this, this was MY sentence I contributed and sourced. I wanted to change MY own edit because I changed my mind to this: "Her performance in 2010's Rabbit Hole (which she also produced) earned Kidman a subsequent Academy Award nomination for Best Actress." But that gets reverted, so my own previous edit gets reverted back to my own edit from weeks ago? Just three of many examples. Don't you think that's unfair? You've only added about three citations there are countless more, countless of hours I went through looking for them and citing them, yet were reverted. I just don't know why I have to keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again. You want to know why I have walls and walls of text? Because everyone has been ignoring me, that's why. Please stop going on about the shouting and talking to other members, read the last 10 messages I've gotten, it's been said. It's doing nothing but beating a dead horse. So please, move on from that, I don't care about that, I care about making Miss Kidman's page beautiful. Not to brag...actually in this case I will because none of you appreciate anything I do, I made Nicole's page what it is. All those sources, all those extra tid-bits of information (which as of right now is still deleted) I added I looked it up, I looked up the reviews. Again, before you accuse me of making her page PR friendly let me remind you (and I said this before) I added her razzie nominations, I added the fact which movies were poorly recieved. You guys keep trying to make me out as her publicist. DeadSend4 (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Eh, I haven't accused you of anything (unless of course you and Jane his wife are the same, and no time has passed since then--I used the preterite; please read more carefully). I thought I was saying helpful things and complimenting you on the good work--I didn't foresee another rant. But not to worry: I won't bother you again here. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that but I'm just saying, you already told me what everyone else has. I am Jane his wife. But I'm going to use that account anymore. You said you may revert my other edits, why may? Why not just actually see for yourself that there isn't anything PR or incorrect about my edits. In my defense you responded to my page with a rant, so if you can't take the heat.... Anyways, I appreciate reverting some of my edits, but there is still so much wrong with the page that everyone is ignoring. DeadSend4 (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I was told earlier no one can schedule a time of day to go through section by section for this article, my writing in the discussion page is ignored, I'm constantly being blocked and when I ask people to see what edits I've made I'm ignored. The citations I add, the fact that the award season linked (thus not needing a citation), SAG Award wins, adding Thandie Newton as her co-star, removing "was a commercial success", adding The Others in her opening paragraphs. I can list 10 actresses that have quotes, awards, praise, etc. women who have been acting less than Miss Kidman. So why is she any different? I don't understand. These are little things that are being reverted, it's so stupid I cannot understand it. Would it make any of you comfortable if I list things I don't like about Miss Kidman, because I can assure you there are other actors I very much prefer over Miss Kidman. Would that make people think less of me being some insane fanboy? I'm not fond of her botox use, though she said she's stopped, I think she's a little overpaid as many other actresses and she's been in some bad films. However, I give credit where credit is due. Why would I go out of my way to look up a Razzie nomination and add it in her article? Which by the way is still there, one of the very few things I've contributed that still remain sadly. DeadSend4 (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For those who think I'm being too PR. Here's an example of what I edited, I wanted to change MY own edit because I changed my mind to this: "Her performance in 2010's Rabbit Hole (which she also produced) earned Kidman a subsequent Academy Award nomination for Best Actress." I removed further accolades since that would be better suited in the section itself and it sounds like it's overpraising nomination. Two things, why aren't her Oscar, Screen Actors Guild, Independent Spirit Award and Golden Globe nomination not mentioned for Rabbit Hole. Guys, there's nothing PR about noting an Academy Award and notable industry awards. If Mila Kunis to Bette Davis to Frances McDormand can have even just one nomination whether it'd be a BAFTA or an Emmy it should be noted. So why is it when I want to include it, it's suddenly too PR? I dare someone to answer that question because my best bet is you guys will ignore it. If this is the case then I'm going to make a list of previous actresses I've edited and I'll have somoene (sure in heck not me) to remove the award nominations. For example, Sigourney Weaver, I added her nominations and mentions for her perfomances and her reviews. So if this is incorrect information that shouldn't belong then it also shoulnd't belong in Miss Weaver's page. Not to mention the countless among countless of other actresses that also have nominations mentioned. That's a whole lot of pages. I just think after all these years of Wiki existing, I come along this one page and want to add her Rabbit Hole nominations (and several other award mentions other parts of her article) it's crime. It's unheard of, frowned upon and should be reverted immediately. What makes me so upset is what I've written in the entire paragraph will be ignored. I just know it. If you are sitting there reading this, answer this honestly, is this fair? If you say yes, you're lying, but no one is going to say yes because they're ignoring me. This whole issue has been about me being left in the dark and blocked. Second, I still don't appreciate being accused of editing while blocked from --CrohnieGal^Talk That was an assumption made from someone, the admin read it told me accused me and hasn't looked back. I don't even think she's noticed. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Reposting this since it got buried in redundant talk and ignored, again. Has anyone read the edits I made? If an admin is too busy to read the edits then I suggest someone with power can review what my edits (along with detailed summary of the changes and why I feel they're important) not to mention corrections and citations that are correct and I've found. Even the simplest edit (e.g. me changing Judi Dench to Dame Judi Dench) is being reverted without a reason. Can I schedule a date and time with someone to go through section by section and explain (which I tried doing on the 18th of April) with someone who doesn't have an issue with me personally? Don't you think it's unfair my hours of contributions (which 85% of what I contributed still remain) are being reverted? Again they're the smallest issues, another example (I feel like I have to go out of my way for anyone to understand what I'm saying) there's a sentence that says The Peacemaker has grossed over $120,000,000 worldwide and it needed a citation. I went, looked for one, and sourced it. But it gets reverted amongst other things. Another example, the opening sentence says "Her performance in 2010's Rabbit Hole (which she also produced) earned Kidman further accolades including a subsequent Academy Award nomination for Best Actress." For the record I added this, this was MY sentence I contributed and sourced. I wanted to change MY own edit because I changed my mind to this: "Her performance in 2010's Rabbit Hole (which she also produced) earned Kidman a subsequent Academy Award nomination for Best Actress." But that gets reverted, so my own previous edit gets reverted back to my own edit from weeks ago? Fourth example, this sentence, "That same year she auditioned for the role of Molly in the hit romantic drama Ghost, but lost the role to Demi Moore." One contributor said this wasn't needed, this is a sentence that previously in this article before I came along to edit. So I agreed and removed it. So why is it included back in the article? This issue itself became an edit war but I agreed to remove it since it had no importance. Mind you I never included this sentence to begin with. This leads me to believe it's a personal issue rather than an edit issue. As many of have mentioned to me, the major consensus overrules. The major consensus in this case was to remove the story about her audition, so if the major consensus ruled and I removed it, why is it back on? Anyone? Just four of many examples. Don't you think that's unfair? Don't you think this person should read what they're reverting? Is the general consunsus more about the article or me? Because I don't think the general consensus would revert sourced material back to unsourced material, that's just stupid. DeadSend4 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC) DeadSend4 (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

When I make an edit, to avoid problems, an edit war, compaint, petition to have me blocked, a discussion about me, having my talk page filled with a complaint, etc. I will just make a new topic in the discussion page, request a comment, and include a reason for my edit. For example, I wanted to include "but was met with mixed reviews" after the sentence regarding The Human Stain. So before I make this edit, I'll go into the discussion page, make an entry, request a response and ask if it's ok if I add this 6-letter sentence. I will do this with every single entry, per line, per sentence, per headline, per section and the general article itself. By the way if you go to her "Personal Life" section third paragraph down you can see a broken link still remains because the sentence reads ref> instead of closing it. So in one of my solitary edits (this was not a revert which I've been accused of doing) I explained in my summary "fixing broken link". Guess what happens, my edit gets reverted back to the broken link after adding in a bracket. A bracket guys? Has it come down to one little icon on our keyboard that I wanted to add. Now I know it sounds silly but it just proves my point that no one didn't even read my edits that's the sad part to this. The fact that even a small minuscule edit that I made adding this "<" just to close the broken link is reverted. The contributor complained saying "you made 25 consecutive edits", and I'm thinking "of course I did, I wanted to show you individually what I was doing and not revert the entire article." So again, I will go into the discussion page, make an entry and request a comment and ask if it's ok for me to add, "<". I know normally a person would just do it themselves and there would be no issue. But because I'm the minority here I have to be treated like some animal who cannot touch this page (which I've added so much, look at this page in 2009, you'll be thanking me). So I have to resort to request permission (from people who have a personal issue with me - this proving that amongst other things) and see if it's ok to add a less than sign. I feel less than all of you right now. Especially when an admin tells me "there's so much walls of text for me to read", then why come into the discussion without seeing two sides of the argument. You come in, see all these horrible things about me, me being ignored and me repeating myself and all I get is "You are blocked because of this, this, this and you shouldn't do that, that, that, and regarding your request...I don't have time to read all of it". That's basically how a interpreted this, this is just a nicer way of saying my opinion doesn't matter. I find it ironic it was Hitler's birthday today/yesterday because I feel like Woody Allen trying to write and collaborate with Nazis. Ironic in a serious way, not a funny way, am in no means making light of anything. DeadSend4 (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

I will not let this person continue to accuse me of being some other poster I have had enough! None of you understand what I'm telling you! Now I;m being of accused of being another editor? I have no other accounts but this one, I'm am sick and tired of this person coming in making complaints about me. He has no life. Has nothing better to do than to constantly report me. This treatment is ridiculous and stupid. Who's idea was it to extend my block? Why are admins to busy they never had time to answer my questions? Why is it that this editor that has a personal issue with me and has no life himself is able to accuse me of some random person? This is a personal issue this person has with me why would I edit comic book pages all of a sudden? I am sick and tired of being treated like this. First off, I have a social life, so of course I wouldn't edit comic book entries. Stop changing the subject to other pithy accusations of me. You realize the day my block expires this person comes in again, after complaning about me everyday, every week and then starts crying because today I'm unblocked so he makes up an excuse to have me blocked by accusing me of being someone else. What is wrong with you people? Why are you making this a bigger deal than it is? You guys need to stop this! I've enough of this game! I'm sick and tired of it. Sick and tires!

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Willking1979 (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not me and I will not be continued to be slandered. I'm about to get my lawyers involved in this matter. DeadSend4 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)