User talk:MR90

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

Lauren Hodges

Scjessey. I am going to quote you now, "If in doubt, leave it out. Consensus before contentious." You are linking two events that occurred eleven years apart in the same sentence. Education should go in "Life and Career" section. Hodges is not known for her college education. Under such reasoning, half of America should have a wikipedia biography.

Additionally, Hodges falls under the category of person known for one event only. As such, facts not related to that event or public profession should be left off a wikipedia page.

Your edit summary was somewhat misleading. While there was one item of synthesis, the other items that you removed were correct and supported by the source. In general terms, it is better to fix something than just delete it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I request that you do not use misleading edit summaries. The appropriate way to raise your concerns is to post a comment on the article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Lauren Hodges is a Biography of a living person. As such, biographical information (such as education) is significant. If you continue to remove relevant, properly-cited material from this article I will give you a formal warning. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

if you reference other actors' wikipedia pages, it is standard practice for the initial section to simply name the actor and their professional capacities. (i.e. "actor/ writer/ director who currently works on...") Education and career are generally placed in another section titled "LIfe and Career." If you wish to create a biography for this person, please adhere to standard practice.

Thank you.

MR90

I am attempting to create a "fair or representative biography", but you keep deleting cited content. The article is young and research is still being conducted. DO NOT deleted cited content without first discussing it on the article talk page and seeking a consensus for your changes, otherwise your actions will be viewed as tendentious and you will wind up being blocked for disruption. As a longtime editor of good standing with over 15,000 contributions to the product, you would do well to heed my advice. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Lauren Hodges, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lauren Hodges. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Scjessey (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Lauren Hodges, you may be blocked from editing. Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Lauren Hodges, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am reporting you for vandalism

Scjessey. While I appreciate your interest in this person, I conducted several internet searches for more information on Hodges. There is no more information on Hodges. You are creating the biography of a living person off of one half-page web blog. This is irresponsible sourcing.

The facts which i left in (first appearance on ER, degree from Columbia) were left because they are verifiable by many sources. While my version is admittedly shorter, it is responsible. And, when dealing with living persons, I believe we should aim for responsibility over haste. Finally, to simply change my grammatical and style fixes is wrong. Check other actor's wikipedia pages. Non-work information is usually listed under a section called "Life and Career" not "Biography."

You are entirely missing the point. The information is properly referenced and should not be removed. I have been trying to fix it, but you just keep deleting it. Your behavior has been disgraceful, particularly with your edit warring and misleading edit summaries. Wikipedia is an enormous project, so it is difficult to understand why you should only be interested in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lauren Hodges. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey. the one editor who arbitrated agreed: hodges has dubious notability. therefore, all biographical information must be left off. Per wikipedia policy, it must be deleted immediately. One corporate biography does not qualify as valid secondary news sources necessary for creating a wikipedia page. you are engaging in tendentious editing by reverting not only my edits but ignoring the opinions of the other editors who looked at this page. my edit summary was not misleading. hodges is notable for one event only. this is a biography of a living person issue. one corporate biography on amc does not constitute valid secondary news sourcing (amc is not a news source). therefore, biographical information must be removed from the page immediately.

I'm sorry, but your understanding of sourcing is flawed. While it is true that good quality sourcing is needed for biographies, non-contentious biographical information does not need the sort of "cast iron" sourcing you seem to be demanding. Extraordinary facts require extraordinary proof, but the reverse is also true. Please be reasonable. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

This is a required notification that I have referred to you in a thread at WP:ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

This is your only warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Lauren Hodges, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. All unsourced information must be left out. What you are removing is sourced and should not be removed. Please stop _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lauren Hodges. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Lauren Hodges. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continued removal of material, as you did at Lauren Hodges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2010 (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).

MR90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

no reason given for block. removed material was mis-cited. opened a discussion of misinterpretation on discussion page. there was no response.

Decline reason:

You were quite clearly blocked for edit warring, as your block log and numerous warnings on this page attest. TN X Man 18:41, 3 November 2010 (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.

I have made a few small changes in an attempt to address your concerns with respect to chronology. Hopefully we will be able to work together more constructively once you are free of this block. I will fix your malformed unblock request with this edit (I assume this is okay, but feel free to revert if it is not). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source that says Hodges shifted her focus to tv in 1997? Or, did you just make that up? MR90 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to talk about the article, please used the article talk page. Also, please assume good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you blocked me. and, violated wikipedia policy by inserting contested info on a blp. so, i can't use the talk page. but, far from fixing the issue, if i understand the chronology you invented... you seem to suggest that the actress quit working in the theater the year she said she started acting. but, she said she did a lot of black box theater. so, if she didn't do it post 1997, when do you think she did it?

the issue would be solved if you could limit yourself to uncontested facts. (facts are exact dates and events. emotions and narrative can be contested). but, you seem intent on writing the biography of a person's life ten years ago. so, unless you know hodges, or can produce a source.... you are a liar. and, there is no good faith in that. you are just plain wrong.

Just because you contest sourced info on a BLP doesn't mean it can't be added, everybody else agrees that this is correct sourced information, that doesn't mean everybody else is violating policy. Quote "After a guest appearance on ER caught the eye of Los Angeles agents, she crossed over into television", which was in 1997, so the theater would be before that. All this is perfectly sourced. There is nothing in the article that suggest she started acting in theaters in 1997. In fact there nothing along the lines of what you suggest is a made up timeline. You might consider reading WP:STICK. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

by "everybody else" you mean... you and scjessey? who have still not produced one news article on hodges between 1997 and 2010? hmmm.... and orangemike, myself, sabvaeno... yes. actually, if you read the blp policy, it doesn't say that it can't be added... it says it can be delted immediately without discussion. which means, i wasn't edit warring.

crossed over into televions from being an electrician?? and, according to blp policy, you have the burden of proof of proving that you know about the chronology of hodges if you want to keep it. but, as you all admit, you can't find a chronology. so, you are making it up. so, yes, you are a liar. and, yes, she said she started acting in 1997. so, it would be reasonable to assume, that her acting work came after that.

Sigh, by everyone I mean, everyone except you, none of the users you think are on your side have removed the information you are removing, some have expressed concerns that the person might not be notable, but that has nothing to do with creating imaginary and extreme BLP rules. Quote from WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.", sadly for you the information is properly sourced.

She was an electrician, she used the money from that for her acting studies, she acted in theater until she in 1997 switched to primarily television. So timeline:

<<1997 Electrician
<1997 Actress in theater
1997 guest on ER
>1997 Actress in television
2008 graduated

She crossed over into television from being in theater. There is nothing in the article to even imply what you are saying. The proof is in the article, what you are doing is removing sourced information which is vandalism, and even with good intentions >3 edits <24h is edit warring. I'm giving up trying to explain this, you clearly refuse to read the references. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay. great. a response. is 2008 before or after 1997? why did scjessey place 2008 before 1997 if not to mislead?

what was this early career that scjessey posits she has?

(there was an uncontested version of this page that me, orangemike, and sabvaeno were fine with. the version that slimvirgin protected before you came in and destroyed it. it took out the "early career" which was wholly invented by scjessey. a decent internet search shows that she hodges doing electrician work well into 2004. hmmmm so. the chronology you imagine -- possible that you misread? possible that it's hard to reconstruct a chronology of 13 years off of two sentences? which is why this might be considered irresponsible sourcing?

what was the early career? hodges clearly qualified electrician work to be her entry into the entertainment industry. she categorized all of it as one career. so, what other career do you think she had?

I guess one final time then. She may have graduated only two years ago but she worked before that as is shown by the sources, you don't have to graduate school to get an acting job, she acted well before then as her first acting job on TV was in 1997, if you say she did electrician work well into 2004, where is that source? And even then, people do more than one job at a time, that's not impossible, and go to school at the same time, again, not impossible. Early carrier is not trivia, and just because people graduate doesn't mean they have no work before that, for comparison; Natalie Portman only got her bachelor degree in 2003.

The reason 2008 is so called "before" 1997, is because that is a separate section about her early carrier (electrician and theater) and her education, which just happens to end after her TV/film carrier started. But that is extremely self-explanatory as the section titles are exactly that. That's not confusing that's perfectly in line with other BLP's.

Stop making things up, start providing some references for your information and adjust content, instead of all out deleting it. You'll soon be unblocked and I hope for you that you put the version of the text you think is correct on the talk page and wait for consensus before you start removing everything again, if you don't you will most likely be blocked again. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

did you read the uncontested version before you deleted it?

I altered the text with respect to her work as an electrician after reading about your concern above. Everything is properly sourced, nothing is "invented" and the sections are consistent with those of other biographical articles. Obviously when more sources become available (which seems likely given her role in a Matt Damon movie) it will be easier to find references to further verify what we have. The only editor complaining about the current version is you. Given the bad faith assumptions and personal attacks you have hurled in my direction (even since you were blocked) I think I have been more than reasonable about trying to work with you to address your concerns. I hope you take on board Xeworlebi's comment about seeking consensus on the talk page when you return from your block. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ummmm in bad faith... you clearly miscopied that credit when you posted it on wikipedia. it was clearly qualified as "a small part opposite Michael Kelly" do people in small parts generally press written about them? 4 other editors that said hodges is not notable and/or this text clearly inflates and misstates because it is not encyclopedic -- i.e. limited to facts that she is known for.

I have tried to work with you in a collegial manner, but I can see that I am wasting my time. You have misrepresented the comments of other editors and you have failed to show sourcing that corroborates your version of events. Most damning of all, it is clear that you are an WP:SPA who may have edited under a different account. I am de-watchlisting your talk page so you will need to wait for your block to expire before discussing this further. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so, the source that we both read, said "small part opposite michael kelly" did you not read that? i

the other editors who've given up on this page because you troll it: me, c todds frank, sabveano, oragemike.... there was an uncontested version but you didn't like that it didn't have your inflations and mis-citations. from "veteran" to "began"? and that's not an invention?