Jump to content

User talk:Woejgoawje

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2009

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Fedor Emelianenko. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Was (Not Was). Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Fedor Emelianenko, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Brantford, Ontario, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive edits, including adding personal opinions and erroneous information. 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. —C.Fred (talk) 04:32, 12 June 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).

Woejgoawje (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I was blocked for no reason. I edited the KJ Noons page by correcting his nickname that was on there. His nickname is "King Karl" NOT "King KJ" as was erroneously put on there by an ignorant person. Also, it says on basketball-reference.com that Adam Morrison was born in Casper, Wyoming. If that site is wrong, then fine. However, Noons' nickname is NOT "King KJ." It is "King Karl."

Decline reason:

Your appeal for unblocking does not address your repeated violations of our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:38, 12 June 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.

  • The problem is that ESPN says Morrison was born in Glendive. That's the site I went to to verify. With no edit summary to indicate why you made the change, I looked at your edit history, saw what you'd been warned for, and decided that the edit warranted a block to prevent further dubious edits.
If you can provide a source for the King Karl nickname, I will unblock you, since you had not violated NPOV since your last warning for that. I strongly suggest you start using edit summaries on all your edits, though (and it would help your case if you use one in your reply to this message). —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I did some digging, and it looks like there are some sources (not sure how reliable, though) that use "King Karl" as his nickname.
Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Upon further review, the two edits that I blocked you for were good-faith edits. I would suggest you make sure to use edit summaries in future edits. I would also suggest that you review the rules for reliable sources and make sure that your edits are backed up by them - and you provide that evidence as part of the edit via <ref> tags or somewhere mentioning the source so it can be verified. In that light:

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

see above

Request handled by:C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.