User talk:JasonDeanBrock

Hi JasonDeanBrock. You have violated the 3 revert Rule with your latest revert. What is more, your edits are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for biographies. And one of your latest reverts, removing a NPOV tag without contributing to the discussion or settling the dispute that led to the tag, is considered poor form for Wikipedia -- the tag is meant to avoid endless revert wars by letting readers know of a dispute. Please revert your self or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

In addition, I would urge you to look through the talk archives for this page and to read the rest of the article. The issues you raise have been discussed over and over again the past few years, and many of them are already dealt with on the page. There is no reason to rehash them.

In either case, however, you should revert your last changes as soon as possible or you will be blocked. And if you continue to add material calling Wilson a "liar," or a "perjurer," I will also report the BLP violations to Wikipedia administrators, which could lead to an extension of the length of the block. It's really not necessary to do any of this if you are willing to engage in the discussion page and follow the rules. Thank you. csloat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have [1] reported your continuing 3RR violations. csloat (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

This is unjustified and reported due to a disruptive editor (Commodore Shoat) who has justified his edits with deceptive claims. I was warned and I complied with the 3R rule. I did not violate it after the warning. What editing I re-inserted after the warnings were not the same as the original edit. Commodore Shoat obviously has a personal stake in this issue. Commodore Shoat has not only used false charges for his editing of my edits, but he has abused the reporting function by claiming I violated the 3R rule.

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=This is unjustified and reported due to a disruptive editor (Commodore Shoat) who has justified his edits with deceptive claims. I was warned and I complied with the 3R rule. I did not violate it after the warning. What editing I re-inserted after the warnings were not the same as the original edit. Commodore Shoat obviously has a personal stake in this issue. Commodore Shoat has not only used false charges for his editing of my edits, but he has abused the reporting function by claiming I violated the 3R rule. |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=This is unjustified and reported due to a disruptive editor (Commodore Shoat) who has justified his edits with deceptive claims. I was warned and I complied with the 3R rule. I did not violate it after the warning. What editing I re-inserted after the warnings were not the same as the original edit. Commodore Shoat obviously has a personal stake in this issue. Commodore Shoat has not only used false charges for his editing of my edits, but he has abused the reporting function by claiming I violated the 3R rule. |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=This is unjustified and reported due to a disruptive editor (Commodore Shoat) who has justified his edits with deceptive claims. I was warned and I complied with the 3R rule. I did not violate it after the warning. What editing I re-inserted after the warnings were not the same as the original edit. Commodore Shoat obviously has a personal stake in this issue. Commodore Shoat has not only used false charges for his editing of my edits, but he has abused the reporting function by claiming I violated the 3R rule. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

JasonDeanBrock (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]