User talk:Meadvillebulldog

Meadville notables

Do you care to give any objective reason for why you keep deleting notable people from Meadville, Pennsylvania? Referring to the notability guidelines is specious, since all of them have Wikipedia articles and, barring a successful AfD nomination, are therefore notable. Claiming that this is an argument over content is likewise specious--what you are trying to argue is that Playboy models and baseball players who haven't played enough games in the majors are, in your opinion, not notable. That's not a content dispute--it's the misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Wikipedias Notable Deletion Policy and Notable Policy. Neither has made a significant contribution or has a substantial following. That is the Notable Policy under Entertaininers. For Notable Deletion neither surpasses the "short burst of publicity", so they are not to be considered notable. I don't know what your bias is, but we can't list everyone who's name has made it in a newspaper or tits flashed on a computer screen for one brief momement. If so there should be a thousand people listed as notable from Meadville. As for the Tessmer ball player, he is listed as a major league ball player. He was not. He played for farm teams and never made it to the MLB. Unlike Erdos who pitched for consecutive years for a real MLB team, multiple teams, including pitching in a World Series.

Meadvillebulldog, if you don't think those people are notable, nominate their articles at AfD. If and only if the AfDs result in the articles being deleted, you can remove the people from the list. However, since they currently have articles, they are rightly listed as notable people. The notability guidelines lay out the criteria for a subject's inclusion as a separate article, not a mention in a different article. The community has to decide through consensus whether or not the people are notable, and if (and only if) the community decides they're not notable, they can be removed from the list. Tim meh (review me) 00:12, 21 August 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).

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

Request reason:

No, There are several users on this IP that feel the same and reverted but don't care as much as me to continue with it. I created an account and have handled this as the other posters on the history suggested. ie not reverting/deleting anyone. so it's your block that's not very logical..don't try to be a censor because you don't agree with me.

Decline reason:

We treat multiple editors at the same IP, who have identical points of view, as a single editor; and as such, you were edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:15, 21 August 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.

3RR at Meadville, Pennsylvania

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Meadville, Pennsylvania. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You continued to revert at this article after your IP, 76.166.222.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already blocked for the same thing. This is not very logical, and it's certainly block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the 3RR report for more details. Note that the IP mentioned in my last comment was already blocked by User:Mazca for edit-warring on the same article. The user's unblock request suggests that he and others who know each other off-wiki are working together per WP:MEAT to influence the article. If the abuse continues I suggest a one-month hardblock of the IP. This would be intended to lock out all the members of the club, whether or not they have accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]