User talk:Kevindk: Difference between revisions
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
After reading Wiki's POV link I was given, I did NOT go against such points. This again shows said admin didn't take the time to find out if I was doing so or not, and just assumed. |
After reading Wiki's POV link I was given, I did NOT go against such points. This again shows said admin didn't take the time to find out if I was doing so or not, and just assumed. |
||
:*'''Comment'''- First to defend myslef I would like to say that I was not trying to earn "brownie points" and that I did read the content the pages that you edited. Next, while after you were warned you did include links to a online fourm which does not meet [[WP:RS]] which states that sources must be published to be reliable( there were links in the warnings to this page.) Also the content you added looked like an attack page and since the warnings apparently had no effect I asked that you be banned not as a punishment but to protect the articles also I wished to avoid an edit war. Oh and I am not admin [[User:ChrisLamb|ChrisLamb]] 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
:*'''Comment'''- First to defend myslef I would like to say that I was not trying to earn "brownie points" and that I did read the content the pages that you edited. Next, while after you were warned you did include links to a online fourm which does not meet [[WP:RS]] which states that sources must be published to be reliable( there were links in the warnings to this page.) Also the content you added looked like an attack page and since the warnings apparently had no effect I asked that you be banned not as a punishment but to protect the articles also I wished to avoid an edit war. Oh and I am not admin [[User:ChrisLamb|ChrisLamb]] 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
::*'''Comment'''- Ok, so you didn't know that people who worked for IBanez posted there and was giving you information about such problems. That isn't your fault. |
|||
'''== Your problems == |
|||
You have two basic problems. |
|||
First, a lesser one, was your careless edits which indeed looked as vandalism for an unsuspecting person: you deleted a bunch of old text and replaced it with angry rant, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibanez&diff=prev&oldid=140739192 look here].''' |
|||
And you notice, I went back and changed it. It was a mistake. Last time I checked you only accused someone for DOING something. Not LOOKING like they were. |
|||
'''Second, in wikipedia, forums, blogs, mailing lists, etc., are not valid references, especially when you write about criticism. Please read [[WP:RS|which sources are admissible]] in wikipedia as references.''' |
|||
Even when in said forums said runners of said business came to us an agreed that there was problems? (Again going back to not really doing your research, just knee-jerking. |
|||
The links I provided were from the company's OWN SITE. The people who work there ALSO POST there. The people who work there ALSO have been telling us of these problems. THIS is what I linked to. Again, had you taken the time out to find this out, instead of rushing to label and gain more brownie points, it would have never happened. |
|||
''' |
|||
I am unblocking you now, assuming you will learn from the mistake. |
|||
''' |
|||
The only mistake I made was not giving adequate references in my first post. Which I went back and changed. Had you read said links you'd have seen that there was people that worked for Ibanez that were claiming these things as well. |
|||
But a msg could have been sent to me before labeling me. |
|||
This was not me pushing my POV. But the POV of those that work at the company that KNOW what is going on. AKA Facts. |
|||
Revision as of 16:08, 26 June 2007
June 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Ibanez, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tlesher 13:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Ibanez, you will be blocked from editing. Vandalized same page twice in 10 minutes ChrisLamb 13:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Ibanez S. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. ChrisLamb 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Momusufan 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
** BLOCKED ** /1/
soum talk 14:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Kevindk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There was no true vandalism going on. And after I was requested to provide sources for my information, I did. After fulfilling such requests it was deleted because I was told I was pushing a "POV"
regardless if my POV matches the facts that I did indeed back up my post with links and quotes DIRECTLY from the company's site.
I feel the admins either
over-stepped their bounds
don't understand the subject I was speaking about
or
just trying to pad up their "hit count'
Either way this isn't garnering support for those that say Wikipedia has changed for the worse.
Decline reason:
I understand your frustration, but I am afraid I cannot unblock you at this time. Read up on WP:POV during your block, which will end soon. — Alison ☺ 15:53, 26 June 2007 (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.
User unblocked. The block was with comment: (Vandalism and pov pushing). POV pushing is NOT blockable offense. Vandalism it was not either. I strongly suggest the admins involved to review the policies in question: WP:VAND and WP:BLOCK `'Miikka 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This is getting kinda ridiculous
I know admins and such get "Awards" for blocking spam and Vandalism, which they should, but some competitive people might mark something as vandalism without actually UNDERSTANDING the subject.
I've seen my posts being blocked SECONDS after I've made them. This really shows how much though went into such decision.
My point in post said Ibanez info was to INFORM those interested in Ibanez guitars, ESP the S series, that it was no longer the same as it used to be. This isn't an OPINION. And I was forcing nothing.
I did give the opinions of the customers and their reaction to Ibanez doing such things. I am A BIG FAN of Ibanez guitars. I have owned 12 over the past decade. I would never try to vandalize any such web page.
Someone even attempting to say otherwise is making knee-jerk decisions without knowing what is going on.
I attempted to fix the problems I was asked to fix, and that still wasn't good enough.
I think the admins/mods need to take a bit more time reviewing said article before making a decision. Less than a minute, or mer seconds isn't time enough. Unless of course you are just trying to rack up "browny points"
Which seems the case of those labeling it vandalism. I am going to go home, write from scratch a complete review of this guitar, following all the rules and submit it. If it gets deleted, then there is something fishy going on.
After reading Wiki's POV link I was given, I did NOT go against such points. This again shows said admin didn't take the time to find out if I was doing so or not, and just assumed.
- Comment- First to defend myslef I would like to say that I was not trying to earn "brownie points" and that I did read the content the pages that you edited. Next, while after you were warned you did include links to a online fourm which does not meet WP:RS which states that sources must be published to be reliable( there were links in the warnings to this page.) Also the content you added looked like an attack page and since the warnings apparently had no effect I asked that you be banned not as a punishment but to protect the articles also I wished to avoid an edit war. Oh and I am not admin ChrisLamb 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment- Ok, so you didn't know that people who worked for IBanez posted there and was giving you information about such problems. That isn't your fault.
But a msg could have been sent to me before labeling me.