User talk:Stevezdude1

Welcome!

Hello, Stevezdude1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Randy L. Bott ‎. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Randy L. Bott appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Randy L. Bott, 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. Fæ (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Randy L. Bott, you may be blocked from editing. The reverted edit can be found here. Fæ (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Not the way to begin your Wikipedia career. You're going to end up getting blocked for WP:3RR. I'm trying to fix the problems you pointed out. Blanking the section is not the right way to go about things. Why don't you try posting a note on the talk page with your concerns? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Randy L. Bott, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The reverted edit can be found here. NTox · talk 22:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for vandalism. Sorry it had to come to this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2012 (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).

Stevezdude1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is the first I have used Wikipedia in a long time. I did not intend to "vandalize" but rather to set something straight which I felt was deceptive. Nevertheless, I now understand the rules and will not repeat this conduct in the future. I have emailed the blocking party with a request to unblock, but received no reply~ Steve Austin

Decline reason:

No, you were not "setting something straight", you were using a Wikipedia article to post a lengthy diatribe attacking "enemies of Mormonism". If you do not possess sufficient judgment to realize yourself that was wrong, never mind after multiple warnings, then you should not be editing Wikipedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2012 (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.

You received multiple warnings yet continued wreaking havoc upon that article. Why? Also, what do you intend to do if unblocked? Max Semenik (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I remember feeling weird about Steve being reported and blocked as a vandal-only account, and I personally thought he should have received a temporary block for edit warring. This is because Steve's first edit (which I reverted) seems to have been made in good faith, and although it was misguided, it alerted me to the problem that the Randy Bott BLP was in fact being used as a WP:COATRACK, and was full of original research.

Of course, Steve's next few edits and reverts were completely inappropriate, and I'd also be interested to hear an answer to Max Semenik's questions.

That said...if Steve expresses a commitment to abide by the rules, I'd recommend an unblock, perhaps with some temporary editing restrictions (1RR, for instance). Call it rope if you want.

Anyway, I think Scott should answer the questions first, and then we'll see from there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (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).

Stevezdude1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I take your point, and understand it. I was setting forth my motivation, not justifying my conduct. I will commit to abide by the rules in the future. I simply did not understand the seriousness of the editing process. I now do, and in the future I will be careful to be legal. Nor did I understand the talk page, and did not notice the warnings. Stevezdude1 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing you say gives any assurance that you will avoid editing to plug a particular point of view, nor that you will avoid edit warring to try to force your version through. Unfortunately you are right in thinking that many Wikipedia articles are written by editors with "ulterior motives", and it is precisely for that reason that we are careful to stop such abuse when we are aware of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2012 (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.

By the way, some of the above comments seem to imply some anger at myself, which I do not understand. In reading the rules, it seems that civility and courteousness are part of the pattern to be followed. I did not intend to offend anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevezdude1 (talk • contribs)

Probably more frustration than anger. Most of the messages though are simply generic vandal templates...it's nothing personal. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to consider unblocking you, but you will need to give a clearer indication that you genuinely understand what was wrong with your editing, and what it is that you will avoid doing in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to JamesBWatson what I did was to delete significant portions of the article, and to add material which had not originally been there. I will not do this in the future. I believe the correct way to edit a page is to add material which is carefully thought out and documented, with a proper footnote. Stevezdude1 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't want to interfere too much, might I recommend that Scott read WP:NPOV before being unblocked? He obviously thought he was fighting POV, but was doing so from a very biased standpoint himself. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Adjwilley, it is true that I am very biased, being a friend of Mr. Bott. Who among us are not biased? Who knows how many Wikipedia articles are posted by persons with bias and ulterior motives? Many, I suspect. But this does not change my promise to obey the rules in the future.

In that case, you should also read WP:COI :-). Not saying you can't edit articles about people you know, but you have to be extra careful. As a side note, it's not necessary to use the unblock template for every comment you make. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I have a lot to learn about Wikipedia.

No problem. It's a steep learning curve, but I found it was a lot of fun too. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Stevezdude1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have read the decision of JamesBWatson. If there is "nothing I can say," why even have an appeal process? I don't see how anyone could ever determine one's motives to determine whether there is an ulterior motive. I can only say that I will follow the rules. I happen to be a Mormon, and there is much anti-Mormon material on Wikipedia. This is offensive to me, but should I choose to edit, I will follow the rules. Perhaps you would consider watching any edits I may do (although after this experience I really don't plan on doing much if anything) and determine for yourself by my conduct, not my words, whether I violate any rules. Your consideration is appreciated.

Accept reason:

In the light of the discussion below, and after consulting others, welcome back. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say there's "nothing you can say", he said there's nothing you have said that is convincing - and those are two different things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've fixed your unblock template for you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevezdude1: I know this must be frustrating. I'd recommend reading WP:NICETRY before diving into the next unblock request though. JamesBWatson was obviously looking for something that he didn't find in your responses, so I'd also recommend re-reading what's been said to try to discover what that missing something is. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if using a colon is the correct way to begin a paragraph. I have been doing a lot of reading, but the Wikipedia system is sort of like a balled up piece of paper--it has many folds, and can go in many directions.First, I was unaware that messages such as warnings would appear on a talk page. I couldn't even figure out how to use it until I discovered the edit button. Second, I thought I was just "warring" with the creator of a page which I felt was set in place from a viewpoint of bias, and with what I now know about Wikipedia, an ulterior motive. Although the author of the page, in my opinion, may not be true to Wikipedia goals and rules, nevertheless, one cannot "trash" a page, I have now learned, even if one is angry at perceived bigotry or bias. I was not aware of the rules of Wikipedia as to neutral point of view, vandalism, etc. I think you know at this point that I understand what vandalism is. I also understand what a neutral point of view is, which means that if I am offended by the content of an article, or feel it was placed there not to inform, but rather to embarrass, I have to tread lightly so that I don't fall into the same trap. Further, I should disclose that I have a conflict of interest so that it will be known from the start, and then I have to be careful not to let such conflict interfere with the goals of Wikipedia. Please let me know if I am missing something else, and I will attempt to educate myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevezdude1 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 June 2012‎

A couple of minor things first. A colon indents your comment by one tab stop, and we generally use that format to show which comment we are replying to - one tab in from the previous one. Also, you should sign you talk page comments (but not article additions) using "~~~~", which will be replaced by your username and timestamp, so we can tell who comments and when.

Regarding the Wikipedia ball of paper, you're certainly not wrong - I've been unraveling it for years and can't find any end to it!

So, regarding the most important thing, it seems to me that you understand what the problem is, and I'm minded to give you another chance and unblock you, but I'd like to check with a couple of others first.

Regarding biased content in Wikipedia articles, we strive not to have any, but it is inevitable there will be some. What we want in an article is a fair reflection of what the real world says about a subject, and we should not judge whether that is biased or not - but we definitely do not want anything biased away from the balance of mainstream sources and directed against, or in favour of, any individuals or groups (be that by religion, nationality, politics, or whatever). The best way to deal with bias when we see it (incidentally, one of the layers of that paper is called WP:NPOV, and it's well worth a read) may be to try to rewrite the article, but that can be tricky if it is something we are very close to ourselves. An alternative is to discuss our concerns on the talk page of the article - you'll see a Talk tab at the top of each page - and hope someone else will help. We also have numerous forums dedicated to help with all sorts of different areas, but I won't burden you with that level of detail just yet. When starting out, perhaps the best way to approach contentious issues is to find an experienced Wikipedian and ask them for help, and I'm happy for you to ask me on my talk page any time you want - you'll see a link in my signature.

Anyway, I'll get back to you as soon as I have done my consultation. While you're waiting, it might be worth your while having a read of that WP:NPOV link, and also have a look at the WP:RS policy on writing from reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to agree to refrain from editing the Bott article, and comment only on the talk page. stevezdude1

OK, you're now unblocked - welcome back. If you're ever unsure how to deal with any bias, conflict of interest, etc, the door to my talk page is always open. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)l[reply]

Thanks for the unblock. I will live up to my promises