User talk:Copycat2012

Your recent edits to the page [Jordan Belfort] are disputed, and should have been discussed on the talk page first. Furthermore, as your account was created in November and has only made edits to the page in question, I cannot see how you claim to have reached agreement with anyone on this when it was last discussed in 2009. In any case, the admin at the time has since edited the page to remove "former", which you have subsequently removed, so clearly he doesn't agree with your stance. Any further discussion should be conducted on the Jordan Belfort talk page, and should be signed with four tildes.Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Jordan Belfort page".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Edit warring I have put a notification on the edit war page as you don't seem to be willing to engage in rational discussion on the use of the word "former" despite more than one other user stating that it is poor grammar. I encourage you to participate in the forthcoming discussion. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Please respond to my comments at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC) You obviously have a personal agenda here, Splorksplorksplork, so before you take out the word "former" again, you need to put it up for discussion first. The word "former" was there for over two years, and it can't just be removed without a discussion. Moreover, you are incorrect in your utterly gross statement that "once a criminal, always a criminal." This shows hat you have no concept of what is actually going on in Mr. Belfort's life and have simply chosen to ignore all the articles written about him n the last three years, which focus on the fact that he is no longer a criminal, but a respected businessman who gets hired by Fortune 500 companies all over the world. Look at the wiki bio on Michael Milken. It mentions his crime in the context of everything else he's accomplished in life, both good and bad. Mr. Belfort's situation is nearly identical that, especially when it comes to his charity work, yet the word boiler room appears three times in the first paragraph and what he was convicted is also mentioned numerous times. An you talk about redundancy with the word former? Give me a break! But of course you don't care about any of that, as the truth seems to be completely irrelevant to you. At this point, I am going to reach out to Mr. Belfort's attorneys and other business associates to see that your little personal agenda is terminated once and for all. Until then, this posting needs to go back the way it was when we all agreed on it a few years ago. I suggest you do not make further changes without first going to the talk page. Copycat 2012 I have made several entries on the talk page of Jordan Belfort but there has been no discussion from you. All discussion regarding Jordan Belfort should take place on the talk page for that article, not here on your own talk page. And signing your posts requires you to add four tildes (these things ~) rather than typing in your user name. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC) December 2012 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Copycat2012 your statements regarding my edits and supposed agenda are both untrue and unwarranted, and I would like them to be corrected. The fact that we do not agree does not imply any agenda on my part. All of my edits are consistent with the public record on Belfort's history, and his own statements in the press, and I have avoided the use of emotive language. I utterly reject any accusation of bias and would like you to withdraw these remarks. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)