User talk:Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

The burden is met when sources are provided, as they are. Please stop blanking the material and discuss it at the talk page if you have problems with it. Interwebs (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia's Policy on Biographies of Living Persons:

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines."

The burden of evidence when it comes to sources is on the person who adds or restores material that is poorly sourced. There is a greater scrutiny of sources when material is about a living person and is potentially harmful to that person. Therefore, this material needs to remain deleted. Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you made five reverts in an hour I have field a 3RR report. I'm not going to revert the version as it stands because I need to sleep. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Steve Gaines (pastor). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

per this complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Two questions that I need help understanding: 1. My motives or reasons or interests have been divined three times. This is my first attempt at editing a Wikipedia article. How does that give anyone enough evidence to cast disparagement on my motives or intents or interests? I am a newbie but I am merely trying to hold an article to what I understand to be the policy on Biographies of Living People. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to make assumptions about my motives when there is at least arguable room for debate on whether this article meets the standards for BLP? 2. The article on BLP clearly says that there is an interest in Wikipedia maintaining higher standards on BLP to keep them encyclopedic rather than sensational. It even goes as far as to recommend removing well sourced facts of a controversy if that controversy dominates the article on a person. That clearly seems to be the case with this article. Isn't there room for debate on whether these sections meet the standards of BLP? And if there is, doesn't the instructions regarding BLP say that disputed areas regarding controversy should remain deleted while disputed? Am I wrong about the policy? If I am please, point that out to me instead of maligning my motives.

Decline reason:

Well, first of all, you're blocked for edit warring, which you did. Your BLP justification seems to be that The Commercial Appeal -- the major newspaper in Memphis -- is not a reliable source. But that doesn't hold; so you were just edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.