User talk:Kevindk
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:
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.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.
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= 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. |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= 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 = {{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= 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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
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.