User talk:Stevewunder

Welcome!

Hello, Stevewunder, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Vejvančický (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Stevewunder. I agree with you - the Kundera´s article is rather a mess of uncited and chaotic POV informations. However, it´s important to find and add appropriate facts with citations. We can´t develop here own essays. Feel free to edit, but always with citation and with explanation in the edit summary. If you delete something without explanation, it may be considered as vandalism. That´s why was your edit reverted immediatelly. I´ll try to help you (with my limited knowledge of English) to find sources and references. The current confusional version of the article is a shame for wikipedia in my opinion. Moreover, with wrong image... Have a nice day --Vejvančický (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ayn Rand. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. See WP:POINT. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration evidence

Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

You have repeatedly vandalized the Ayn Rand article: 12. Further bad faith edits will lead to a referral to admin requesting that you be blocked from editting. Kjaer (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did to Talk:Ayn_Rand, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please note, Wikipedia works on consensus. If consensus does not accept certain edits, that does not provide an opportunity to attack others. You should be aware that topics surrounding Ayn Rand are currently being investigated by the Arbitration Committee. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am hoping that you can tone down some of your edits while we are involved in the ArbCom on Ayn Rand. Putting the business about Nazi's and the 'Yawn' and 'bored' stuff into the lead is easily mistaken for vandalism (yet I don't think that is what you intended). In order to get a good article, our best chance is to not kick off an edit war. Could I ask you take out that 'yawn' and 'bored' stuff? --Steve (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration

This is a courtesy note to all editors who have submitted evidence. Some contributions to the evidence page have been moved to the evidence talk page, per the prior notice given. General comments, observations, analysis and so forth should be posted to the evidence talk page and workshop pages. Main evidence page contributions need to be supported by linked evidence. Material moved to, or posted on, the arbitration case talk pages will still be noted and taken into account by the arbitrators.

Some portions of evidence moved to the talk page may be appropriate for the main evidence page. In the process of moving material, keeping some material on the main evidence page would have required rewriting the evidence, taking bits clumsily out of context, or otherwise deeply affecting the presentation. Editors should feel free to rewrite and reintroduce such evidence (with supporting links) to the evidence page.

Some submissions remaining on the evidence page still require further supporting evidence. For example, claims about broader pattern of behavior need to be supported by comparable evidence. A paucity of diffs, links only showing some mild infractions, or otherwise weak evidence may result in your assertions being granted much less weight.

I encourage all parties to finalize their evidence and focus on the workshop over the next few days as the case moves towards resolution. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to the page Ayn Rand constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a note of your recent contributions at wp:ani. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Stevewunder (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are some very interesting tags you are employing. Boy Wunder??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your sense of humor. I think it's impossible to remain sane on Wikipedia without one. I hope you'll find a balance between outraged humor and the guidelines that have to be followed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I think I'll just break the rules till they ban me forever. Good discussion points get ignored here. Bad edits don't. Cheers! Stevewunder (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits to Ayn Rand. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ayn Rand. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. See WP:POINT. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Ayn Rand. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. SparksBoy (Counter Vandalism)(talk) 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Talk:Ayn Rand. SparksBoy (Counter Vandalism)(talk) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this is not my last warning. Stevewunder (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Nunh-huh 04:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Sanctions

I think the biggest reason that you're getting a harsh sanction is because of this statement that you made: "No, I think I'll just break the rules till they ban me forever. Good discussion points get ignored here. Bad edits don't." My understanding is that this was hyperbole on your part which is why I'm standing up for you in the discussion, but you might want to explain this statement to ArbCom and apologize for vandalizing articles. Keep in mind that the other editors who edit-warred genuinely believed that their edits were best for the article while you were edit-warring on edits that you knew did not improve the article. That's the difference between edit warring and vandalism; neither is acceptable but vandalism is generally worse than edit warring. Idag (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw your post on the ArbCom talk page. I would again encourage you to apologize for the vandalism and clarify that you do not intend to cause further disruption because that's the real reason why ArbCom's lowering the ban hammer on you, not your dispute with Snowded. If you'd like, I could also be your mentor since it looks like I'll be taking a break from the Rand article anyway. Idag (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Idag, I appreciate your help and encouragement. I do apologize and do not intend further disruption. I don't claim I will always be a Saint, or never ruffle anyone's feathers, but I am sincere in hoping my presence here will improve articles. If you can help mentor me, I am all for it. Best regards, Stevewunder (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You've been banned from the Ayn Rand article. I don't recommend going back there as you will be banned from Wikipedia if you do. There's plenty of other articles to edit, try them out. Idag (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Other Articles

I noticed that a lot of your edits were focused on the Ayn Rand article. This article (and the editors who edit it) aren't really reflective of the general Wikipedia community. Try browsing some other articles in subjects that you're interested in that aren't as controversial and you'll find that they're fun to edit and that the editors there are much more welcoming and willing to engage in a constructive discussion. Once you feel that an article you're working on has become really good, you can nominate it to be a Good Article or even a Featured Article. Its always a pretty cool feeling when an article that you've worked on shows up on the front page of Wikipedia.

As far as behavior, vandalism is one of the cardinal sins and should be avoided at all costs. Some of your mainspace edits were amusing, but if you keep doing edits like that, you'll simply get a permanent ban, so its best to just avoid them. In addition, if you find that an editor is really getting under your skin, its best to either calmly reason with them or, if that fails, resort to the dispute resolution process. If you feel like you're losing your cool, take a Wikibreak or go edit another article until you cool down (I've had to do that quite a few times to avoid yelling at some of the editors at the Ayn Rand article). Anyways, I hope this long rant was helpful and let me know if you have any questions.

Take care,

Idag (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also recommend striking out the recent comments you made to Snowded on the ArbCom talk page, as they aren't particularly civil. Just ignore the guy if he's getting under your skin. Idag (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Idag Steve. There are lots of other feuds you can involve yourself in, and I suggest you might actually enjoy working on articles that aren't stuck in endless bickering. It's rather pleasant to work with people who want to collaborate and add sources, pictures and content while editing to improve clarity. You're welcome on any article I'm working or feuding on and I appreciate your sense of humor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

• TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
• Stevewunder (talk · contribs) and Kjaer (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
• SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Snowded (talk · contribs) and Idag (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Ayn Rand talk page

You are edit barred Steve, that means you are not meant to edit here and these two edits thus put you in breech of the Arbcom ruling which could lead to additional sanctions if it was reported (I don't plan to). I suggest you delete both comments with a note of apology or similar. --Snowded (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I've removed your comments from the page, as the ruling was quite clear; you are forbidden from editing there. It's nothing personal, but i'm trying to keep discussion focused on improvements that can be made to the article, and the interpersonal back-and-forth doesn't help. Regards, Skomorokh 07:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as a result of arbitration, you are not allowed to edit any page on Wikipedia, including talk pages, about Ayn Rand. You're on your honor to obey this restriction. If you do not, your account could be blocked for a long time. Please confirm that you understand this. Jehochman ^Talk 09:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand now that it works that way. My first post was really just a test to see what it would tell me if I was blocked on that page, to see what information I might be given. I expected the post not to work. Now I understand the system. Stevewunder (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)