User talk:Amandajoan1872

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Drought appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

US Drought

I've notice you have been adding more content which is good but you've added content without sources. Could you please add some sources since the whole US Drought section in Drought article is unsourced or I'll have to start removing unsourced content. Bidgee (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your edits to Randi Rhodes

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Randi Rhodes. 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. --BenBurch (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Duck Creek Flooding

I would be glad to help! What do you need help with? Putting the references up on the page, or finding references? If you just need help putting the references up on the Davenport page, just reply on my talk page with a link to the references, and I'll be more then happy to source them on the Davenport page. If you need any help with anything at all, let me know, and I'd be more then happy to help you!! Ctjf83Talk 03:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, would you like to do the work and search for sources, or do you want me to? Ctjf83Talk 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look..if you want to help, that would be cool! Just find links and post them on my talk page. Also, if you post more on the same topic, you can just put it under the same heading on my talk page, or anyone's and for the 2nd post put :, one colon, and then 2 for the 2nd post, etc. Ctjf83Talk 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits and Sock puppetry

It is very obvious you operate under several accounts, and as such I am sending this message to all of your accounts I know of. First, in case no one has done so, welcome to Wikipedia! This is a great site, and it needs dedicated editors who add correct information to its enormity of a database. However, I notice in several of your edits to hurricane related articles, you change statistics that are not supported, or worse are contradictory, to the previous information in the article. This is considered vandalism; as a result, I am formally warning you that if you continue to add information that is incorrect and unsourced, you will be blocked. To avoid such a potential problem, please include a source for any information you add.

This message is also to inform you that sock puppetry is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If you intend to edit constructively, please use a single account. Your names have been added to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Having to Deal with Dangerous Partners over Wikipedia

People like Hurricane Hink, Tim Vickers and Scarian are really dangerous editors of Wikipedia-these people censored me with prejudice instead of major cause! My partners were censored too! These people are prejudice, using ad hominems towards how me and my partners edit things across Wikipedia! Wikipedia does not realize how really dangerous these editors are-they are fascist censoring editors who wanna bring people down!

Somebody better block them!

Amandajoan1872 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Us with Prejudice and Hate

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).

Amandajoan1872 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

banned under reasons of prejudice and hate under other Wikipedia Editors

Decline reason:

Does not address the reason for the block. east718 // talk // email // 03:25, 15 August 2008 (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.

freedom-of-speech 03:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you were blocked for sockpuppetry according to your block log. Care to make a request without attacking anyone, please? — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Us with Prejudice and Hate

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Amandajoan1872 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Accusing me of sockpuppets

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Accusing me of sockpuppets |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Accusing me of sockpuppets |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Accusing me of sockpuppets |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}