User talk:Lakdfhia

August 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Patton Oswalt. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Do not add shock quotes to the introduction. They're unnecessary and inappropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Patton Oswalt. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Patton Oswalt, you may be blocked from editing. Do not use terms such as "dumbass" when referring too other editors, or you will be blocked from editing. Edison (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Edison (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Patton Oswalt, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Edison (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why edits are reverted

Since you asked, the reason your edits are being reverted is because they are your personal opinion. Please read WP:NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comedian is his occupation. It does not imply he is funny. It is your opinion that he is not funny. But this is an encyclopedia, so we try not to include opinions. So please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that he is not funny is your opinion. It is a fact that he tells jokes for a living, thus he is a comedian. It is just that you don't find those jokes humorous. That is your personal opinion. I don't find Dane Cook funny, but he's still a comedian. Just a bad one. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very post-modernist of you. I sure Saussure and Foucault would agree with you. But that's not the point here. In English, we use "comedian" to describe the occupation of someone who tells jokes. If you want to argue post-modernist philosophy of neutrality, go do it on Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, you are doing messages okay. Just try leaving a title to your message. Makes it stick out more. You can do this manually by adding a section header (e.g., ==NAME HERE==) or by just putting a title in the box above the edit box when you leave a message. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Patton Oswalt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lakdfhia. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
Message added 06:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lakdfhia reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that this is a revert, and you could be blocked now for violation WP:3RR, correct? —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating WP:3RR and making personal attacks, as you did at Patton Oswalt. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

is censorship! i only make correct to article, then presumption of vandalism on part of bot make go away. is not vandal though, so correct bot's mistake. is ridiculously fascist if administration use power to enforce unreasonable robot over person who can make valid argument for edit. also, user C.Fred refer to me as he. I take offense and ask his insult be addressed in similar manner, along with users who have been engaged in tactic to keep mention of racism quashed. Lakdfhia (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You may not violate our policy on biographies of living persons. You also may not break our edit warring policy to do so. I also see you're personally attacking other editors. Since your intent seems to be to immediately resume all of those activities, an unblock would be an extremely poor decision. Kuru (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2013 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

is not violation of policy if policy not violated. i have not violated policy of biography of living persons--material has been sourced and no convincing argument has present to say why not valid. i am punish for make valid edit while asymmetrical application of rules has politicized event--why user NeilN not punish for their 3 revert? or user C.Fred for their 3 revert, along with purposeful misgendering me in hurtful manner? is corruption in system. unreasonable whitewashing of persons, asymmetrical application of rulesets, and needless complexity in what is a very straightforward matter. Lakdfhia (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring before the bot correctly reverted your edit, and you were warned of the consequences. Policy indeed is violated; if you disagree, you must gain consensus that your desired change is appropriate, by using the talk page rather than by continuing to edit the article. Also, WP:BLP issues are an exception to our edit warring rules, which is why the other editors were not blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:01, 31 August 2013 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

for burden of proof to fall on person putting forth that racism has occurred, it will never be done. society-at-large is racist in itself. wikipedia is interest only in furthering minimization of minority suffering and continuing marginalization of oppressed groups. I request user C.Fred be censured for misgendering of me at minimum. for them to presume masculinity on my behalf is hurtful and has caused pain in self. I also ask that undoing of my bot edit reversion be undone. is ridiculous that must be asked. is not vandalism, is only removal of unsourced claim. for it be undone is inappropriate--questionable material regarding racism not handled in text, was only removal of unsourced claims. Lakdfhia (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly you are only interested in hearing yourself talk, as evidenced by your circular reasoning, puny personal attacks, and risibly fake stage online "accent". So, not only is this unblock declined, you lose access to this page as well. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2013 (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.

{{unblock|reason=should be unblock, was all misunderstanding. if look at discuss here, will see am clearer on broken rules. will do best to not break again now that interpretation is more clear. thought was obeying rule by remove unsource material--was maybe right in case of Patton Oswalt, but not in Catskill Mountain. irregard, was wronghead way to go about in make change. [[User:Lakdfhia|Lakdfhia]] ([[User talk:Lakdfhia#top|talk]]) 04:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)}} *This request was shut off as there was amore recent one below. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Patton Oswalt has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Patton Oswalt was changed by Lakdfhia (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.860904 on 2013-09-02T21:20:13+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Catskill Mountains, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. DPRoberts534 (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Lakdfhia. You have new messages at DPRoberts534's talk page.
Message added 23:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

do not know how report for editor who keep reverting page to include original research works — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakdfhia (talk • contribs)

I see where you've removed large portions of text from a page, claiming it was original research. However, it was cited to reliable sources. Your removal appears to be disruption to make a point, which is not allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Catskill Mountains shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. See also WP:POINT NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for resumption of edit warring at Patton Oswalt after expiration of last block and new edit warring at Catskill Mountains. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

i make valid edit, revert when is undone for no good reason, and get blocked from edit for correct mistake? did no edit warring at patton oswalt either, is simple libel. undo edit of bot on instruction from bot is edit war? further, am see user DPRoberts534 is not censure for involvement, request escalated arbitration in matter of asymmetrical application of rules. see pattern of bully here. request block be put on hold and seek arbitration in matter of bullying by administrator Bbb23. further, seek arbitration in censure of administrator Daniel Case for display of racism through mockery of english as not native language. even further, seek arbitration in censure of user C.Fred for callous and unapologetic misgender. Lakdfhia (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You continue to edit war; ergo, you continue to get blocked. Regarding all the rest of your request, WP:NOTTHEM applies. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:48, 3 September 2013 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

block is unjust. am not edit war. is circular reason in case of blocking--am not be cited specific instances with reason for asymmetrical application of rules. am just told am edit warring because am edit warring. is not instructive. is not helpful. am novice and not sure why what i do count as edit war when what other do is not, and all involved party not explain; rather, am simply told my opinion not worth that of other people with constant barrage of odd policy citation that not really sure am relevant. in this case of bizarre citation of irrelevant policy, does not apply. request arbitration for matter to be handle in most expeditious manner. request further arbitration in matter of administrator jpgordon blocking reasonable request and for assume bad faith in request for being unblocked. is conduct unbefitting person in position of power. will not be denied moment to be heard in cases of possible misconduct by administration. again request arbitration in these case, not as part of request for unblock but as other matter: this simply only place i know to make request. please see previous unblock request for information regard unblock requests. implore reviewing administrator not assume bad faith as all previous administrator have. Lakdfhia (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, if you would like to request arbitration, email contact information for the Arbitration Committee can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Mailing lists. Setting that aside, I looked at the situation that led to your block, and you appear to be justifying the removal of content merely because it is unsourced, and not because it is contentious or in dispute as to its factual accuracy. When it comes to Patton Oswalt, your actions are more defensible as its a WP:BLP, but there is no excuse for editing warring at Catskill Mountains. If you believe the unsourced information is actually incorrect, please provide an explanation for what is wrong, and why you believe it to be so, and do it on a talk page, don't just continue to remove content. If you have specific items in the Patton Oswalt article that you believe are actually false, are actually controversial, or are likely to be controversial, feel free to provide them here as well. To be clear, the last unblock decline referred you to WP:NOTTHEM, that is because your unblock request focused on it being unfair that you were blocked, and someone else wasn't. Arguing that point is unlikely to be successful. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:19, 3 September 2013 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

thank for explain, administrator Monty. I do believe is right to remove unsource content from Patton Oswalt article under policy, but am still unclear on why not right on Catskill Mountain one. is different standard? can other standard be pointed to? was under impression that unsourced assertion was original research and forbidden from appearance. is this not correct? what is correct application of original research standard? have read explain of original research in policies and am still unclear on matter. think better explain will help prevent misunderstand like this in future. are biography article under more stringent guideline for source? what are tangible different between two policy? Lakdfhia (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - this is not an unblock request. Please only use the unblock request template to make an unblock request as instructed at the guide to appealing blocks. The template is not meant to be used to continue ongoing discussions. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:36, 4 September 2013 (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.

Lets start with Catskill Mountains, as it doesn't involve BLP Policy. The most relevant link is WP:BURDEN. The policy requires that content that is challenged or likely to be challenged have an inline citation to a reliable source. But, as far as I can tell, your not disputing the factual accuracy of the information in that article, only objecting to the lack of sources, so that part of the policy isn't applicable. The next part of the policy states that Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, so on at the simplest level, and not considering the Edit Warring issue, your right that you may remove material that is unsourced. However, there is an expectation that editors wont just go around removing unsourced material for the sake of it. There is a great deal of material on Wikipedia that is unsourced, but that is both factually accurate, and that is WP:Verifiable, meaning that if anyone cared to, they could find acceptable sourcing for the information. It does our readers a disservice to remove such material. So while defensible, I would still urge you not to make such removals, again, unless you have at least some reason to believe the information is wrong.

Now with respect to Catskill Mountains, you run into the WP:Edit warring rules. Generally speaking, you may not edit war, regardless of whether you are right as to the underlying policy. So even if WP:BURDEN says you are allowed to remove the content from the article (which again, I would urge you not to do if you don't think its inaccurate), you are not justified in edit warring to enforce that policy. There are several exceptions to the edit warring policy, and I will discuss one with respect to Patton Oswalt, but none of the exceptions apply to your edits at Catskill Mountains, so your edits were improper edit warring.

When it comes to Biographies of Living Persons, if material is in fact a BLP Violation, edit warring is permitted to remove it. But again, the question is whether the material is either challenged or likely to be challenged with the addition that negative material, strictly speaking, must always be sourced. But again, the policy is intended to be used to remove only material where there is a real question as to its accuracy. If the material is in fact uncontentious, then the BLP edit warring exception does not apply, and we are back to a situation where you must not edit war, whether your right or wrong on policy. The material you were removing from Patton Oswalt appears to be uncontroversial. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To specifically address your WP:OR question, WP:OR applies when no source exists at all. Usually it comes up when no one can find a source for an assertion, but they want to make it anyway, and have come up with their own evidence to support it. It doesn't apply where sources probably do exist, and just aren't in the article yet. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a-ha, so argue rectitude of original edit inadvisable as subservience to overriding need for stability in project more important than who is right and who is wrong in deciding matter. information which arguably not belong allowed to stay in interest of politics of site. is odd policy, but understand now where was wrong in interpretation. strict adhering to rules also not advisable, yes? is possible for small acts of not meeting standards to sum in large benefit for project. is possible for at first glance benign material to viewed as contentious (for instance, if Patton Oswalt listed as actor in movie but was someone else, is contentious, yes? if information not sourced, is possible), but is neither here or there. is only small point to make. is odd phrasing for original research article too--is basis of entire fields that fusing pieces of known information into new information possible--but believe i understand where was wrong. if say, for instance, Patton Oswalt man because appear to be from picture, is not original research because is verifiable in other source, even if source not given, yes? to then apply male adjective to him not out of order then because uses male gender in self-reference. simple question though: would taking these piece of information and adding statement to affect, "Patton Oswalt identifies as male," from inference of things be original research? would be silly to make note of this in article of course, but is only example. believe i understand now where interpretation and implementation of interpretation went wrong. will make all effort to avoid repetition of transgression. thank you, administrator Monty. you are very helpful person. Lakdfhia (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Actor question, yes, if you believed someone else played a role credited in the article to him, and it was unsourced or not reliably sourced, then you would be very correct to remove it. As for the identification as male, I know your just using it as an example, but there are a great deal of politics and controversy regarding WP:Gender identity, so any claim saying a person "identifies" as a particular gender would need to be very well sourced. Assuming he was a male, and using male pronouns on the other hand would be fine as there is no reason to believe gender identity is going to be controversial. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hm, it makes sense. understand error of ways now. will do best not to infringe on rules in future. was not understanding what they meant before--which is not excuse for breaking them, is just reason. from bottom of my heart, thank you monty. have been very helpful in clearing up mistakes in how my way of interpret rules was at odds with popular way to see them. Lakdfhia (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a-ha, thought of better original research question! microsoft buy nokia recently and bought skype before. pay more for skype than for nokia. if unable to find source to say paid more for skype than for nokia but am able to find source for price of either, is original research to state that one is bigger than other or no? Lakdfhia (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, it is best to simply state the facts. The rules say that you cannot put together many sourced facts to come to your own conclusion. However, there is some flexibility when few would argue with the conclusion. I think your example would be okay. You can find a page about this policy at WP:SYNTH. DPRoberts534 (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is useful: Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary. You can summarize that Microsoft paid more for Skype than Nokia by using the two sources. You cannot say Skype is more valuable than Nokia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lakdfhia. You have new messages at DPRoberts534's talk page.
Message added 05:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[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).

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

Request reason:

am being ignore by administration. please perform duty as given and not choose to not help people whose speech not agree with. Lakdfhia (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry to see that you are blocked for edit warring. Many users find themselves confused as to why they were blocked in such a situation as they believed they were acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. What it is important for you to understand is that as far as the edit warring policy is concerned there is no right and wrong in an edit war. Anyone who edit wars is wrong and is blocked to prevent the disruption from continuing. There are very few exceptions, such as reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. We don't allow edit warring because it never helps resolve an issue, and it always makes it worse.

What to do instead:

Mark disputed statements or, if needed, the entire page with appropriate tags
Initiate discussion on the talk page (note that edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion)
If that does not rectify the issue seek page protection and/or dispute resolution as needed.

If you follow these simple steps instead of edit warring you will find it is actually relatively easy to avoid edit warring and getting blocked for it.

Beeblebrox (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2013 (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.

(edit conflict)Hi Lakdfhia, I think the administrators may not have seen your previous unblock request because it was not at the bottom of the page. Your rationale on the previous one was good. This one is not as good. I cannot unblock you myself, but I think you have shown a better understanding of the rules and will do better when you are unblocked. Be patient. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology per your request

Sorry!

I am sorry for making light of your English. While your behavior is legitimately open to criticism, your language skills are not. Again, I apologize. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning

If you believe that the personal website is a reliable source, you can make that point at the article talk page or at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Several editors have now looked at it and concluded it is not, but you can make the case that it is, in fact, a reliable source.

As regards notifying editors of reverts, that's just not done here at Wikipedia. Each editor have a Watchlist at the top of the page. Any pages you have edited are automatically watched for changes. Also, you should also have a notification button at the top of your page that automatically informs you if your edits are reverted. That is how people are informed of changes here. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit with the new ref. Again it is not RS. It is an opinion piece not a news story. Opinion pieces are reliable only for their opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

am unsure what is meant by "several editors have now looked at it and concluded it is not [reliable source]"--where was discussed? cannot find to give own input. Lakdfhia (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Virgin [1] made the first removal of this material with the note that it was removing personal website ref. I reviewed your edit and the ref and made the same conclusion about the ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you feel this is a Reliable Source discuss it at the article's talk page. Just click on new section, add a title, and begin discussing your proposed addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa O'Brien

Quite correct about Alexa O'Brien. Earlier I had read in her blog that she covered Wikileaks and got into my mind that she was a reporter for Wikileaks. Again, thanks for the correction. – S. Rich (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]