User talk:Richmondky

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Daniel Mongiardo. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Daniel Mongiardo, 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. Willking1979 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Roosterdem (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Willking1979 (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Daniel Mongiardo, you will be blocked from editing. Willking1979 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Daniel Mongiardo. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. 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. Black Kite 00:01, 24 January 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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I understand I was blocked for deleting information from Daniel Mongiardo. I did delete the information as I believed it to be a simple attempt by a supporter of a political opponents attempt to discredit Daniel Mongiardo. There is an upcoming US Senate race which seems to have already started folks posting damaging information. As for being a sockpuppet, I have no other identities, My name is Lee Murphy of Richmond, KY. I am a friend of Daniel Mongiardo, I have been reviewing information on this page for the last 10 days and have seen a BLATANT attempt to post erroneos or simple damaging infomation for the purpose of discrediting the Lt. Governor. I understand simply deleting may have been the wrong thing, and I have read the instructions for reporting Conflict of Interest issues. I will attempt to follow proper procedures in reporting COI issues in the future.

Decline reason:

You were edit warring, and you've supplied no evidence that the information was erroneous. It was properly sourced to newspaper articles. People may disagree whether the information is important enough to include, but that is something for editors on the Talk page to decide. Your idea that you should have posted this as a COI issue is hard to fathom. (Does every person who posts well-sourced negative information about Mongiardo have a COI?) You did not provide any understandable reason for us to unblock you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 24 January 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.

From what I can see, you seem to be removing a section that is properly sourced with no explanation. Removing a section with Verifiable information is normally considered vandalism, and when you do so over and over it is edit warring. When your block is either lifted or expires on its own, I suggest you go to Talk:Daniel Mongiardo to make your case for the removal of the section, and discuss it with the other editors. If the consensus is indeed in your favor, then the section can be removed without editwarring and blocks. Templarion (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Please refer to the sockpuppetry allegation.

At present, I see no reason to doubt that you have engaged in the use of multiple accounts. It would be appreciated if you could clarify the situation (if you did use multiple accounts, a frank admission and a promise not to do so again is the best way to avoid a long block). Mayalld (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]