User talk:9711CA

Welcome to Wikipedia from Logical Cowboy

Hi, 9711CA. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. You also might want to consider being "adopted" by an experienced user, who can show you how Wikipedia works through a program called "Adopt-a-User". Again, welcome! Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 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 Frank Luntz 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. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Frank Luntz. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not posted anything non-factual. Wikipedia is censoring free speech and should be boycotted.

Who are you and how is it that you have deleted my post, when it is a fact, not opinion. Luntz refers to himself as "Dr. Frank Luntz" on his Facebook page, assumedly because of his doctorate studies, but is not a medical doctor.

The boycott is an interesting approach. You might want to look here: WP:UNDUE. The problem is that you are presenting this in the Criticism section. But there is no notable source making this criticism. Perhaps the reason is that it's not a very good criticism. Many if not most PhDs, at least in the US, sometimes refer to themselves as Dr. See Doctor (title. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mahatma Gandhi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose your changes on the article talk page, wait for consensus, and only then edit the article. Please be extra careful with neutrality of highly visible pages like Mahatma Gandhi. In particular, he was criticized in multiple books and news articles for his sexuality, yet this does not mean their wording is widely accepted. Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted Contact to Resolve Editing

I have tried to contact the person who keeps removing my edits. I am waiting to hear back from him/her. Thank you.

Unfortunately you have not followed the standard dispute resolution route outlined above. As to [1], please consult Wikipedia:Free speech; calling that pedophilia is certainly a violation of WP:NPOV. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

9711CA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been unfairly blocked, by somebody who has violated the WP:NPOV policy. Apparently, there was a dismissal about historical facts regarding one of my edits. My edit was removed even after the person acknowledged it as FACT (the history of his admission of the facts can be reviewed on the article's edit history). Even he admits they are historical facts, yet he has censored my editing. I followed the WP:NPOV policy, by using phrases such as "according to..." "claims" "asserted," etc. The sources I have cited are credible such as a Pulitzer Prize-winner, The Wall Street Journal, and ABC News. In fact, it was the person who blocked me, who was in dire violation of the WP:NPOV which states, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems." The person who blocked me made no attempt to make minor editing adjustment, or to even contact me to ask that I phrase anything differently. However, I made an attempt to reasonably resolve these issues, but I was instead simply blocked. 9711CA (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring. You were warned about edit warring. You continued edit warring. You have been blocked for edit warring. The rest of your request is irrelevant to the block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:39, 6 March 2013 (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.

Indeed, it is well documented that Ghandi shared bed with his 17-years old relative. Yet, calling that incest or pedophilia does not agree with most definitions of these strong terms (not that the age of consent in India was raised over 17 years only in the 2000s), and is basically a slander, bordering vandalism. This was raised on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi, and you were kindly advised to proceed there, yet you continued editing the article instead. Materialscientist (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2013 (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).

9711CA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I attempted to follow the normal procedure of dispute resolution, but that proved ineffective. Please review the thread of the blocking. I contacted the person who removed my edit, but it did not resolve the issue. Instead I was simply removed. Also, why is this a one-sided reprimand? A "war" requires at least two parties. The whole point of my appeal is that I was unfairly blocked, even after I tried to resolve the dispute reasonably. How is my last appeal "irrelevant?" I stated that I tried to resolve this issue according to protocol, but I was still unfairly blocked. 9711CA (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The problem is that edit warring is not, in any way, part of dispute resolution. Even if you edit war at the same time as you pursue dispute resolution - it's still an edit war and still prohibited. There's no justification for it. Max Semenik (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2013 (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.

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Brown, PhD.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! _nonsense ferret 20:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Frank Luntz. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Eric Holder

The content you've added twice to Eric Holder BLP has been removed by two different editors. It is not appropriate content or weight for a BLP. If you disagree then please start a discussion on the talk page but please do not continue to add the info as that would be considered disruptive behavior. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Luntz

Heads up. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: Please stop WP:EDITWARRING and engage in the discussion. Your additions have been deleted by three separate editors now and each time you've reverted the deletions with the same argument that's already been rejected on the talk page. If you want your additions to stick it's time to start WP:CONSENSUS-building. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And P.S. I see from the note above about Eric Holder that this is part of a larger pattern for you. If it continues you may be subject to sanctions for disruptive editing. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to keep the material you added to Frank Luntz I respectfully ask you to participate in the discussion very soon, i.e. in the next 24 hours. Otherwise I'll revert your edits citing lack of opposition. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits in Dana Rohrabacher

Please do not delete sourced content without a sufficient explanation. As another user already pointed out to you, your vague allusions about "extremely partisan sources" etc. were clearly false in this generality. If you have well-founded concerns about specific sources, I'm sure the other editors of the article are willing to discuss them. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Brown, PhD concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Brown, PhD, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Brown, PhD

Hello 9711CA. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Michael Brown, PhD".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Brown, PhD}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Your recent editing history at Will Hayden shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You've reverted to your version 3 times today with no attempts, ever, at discussion on the article talk page. If you continue, you will end up being blocked. You MUST have consensus for contentious edits like this. Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:9711CA reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Will Hayden. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:50, 12 September 2014 (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).

9711CA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Censoring public information found in multiple reliable/credible sources is not WP policy, nor should it be attacked as a violation of WP or BLP/blocking. This censoring appears to be the result of subjective/bias editing, which may be attempting to give a "better light" to a tragic news story. WP is a source for public information. This is completely relevant public information. It is a disservice to WP for independent editors to remove historical facts. 9711CA (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kuru (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2014 (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.

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).

9711CA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Feel free to keep the block in place. Wikipedia will simply gain a reputation for protecting charged child molesters, by keeping well documented and reliably sourced facts about the crime away from the public. Names, ages, and relations are all well documented in several major news sources, not tabloids. The so-called "editors" who are allowed to keep this historically factual information off of WP and away from public access are doing a disservice to WP, and they are abusing their editing privileges. The only reasons given to remove this information is to preserve the "character" of Will Hayden, and supposedly to protect the identities of the victims. Will Hayden's character has been questioned as a result of the pending charges, and the "identities" (the actual names of the minors were never posted) of the victims have been reported in multiple reliable news sources. Again, it is WP's loss if they continue to keep factual information from the public. WP's reputation will be viewed as accepting the bias of a few editors to white-wash a horrible crime against children, and leave his bio unreasonably bias. At what point are the actual facts allowed to be posted on WP? 9711CA (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's not an unblock request. Please only use the unblock template for unblock requests. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:28, 12 September 2014 (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.

{unblock|reason= If my reasoning is not a basis to unblock me, how do I prevent being blocked again and/or how would I escalate this issue to a senior administrator? I and others will continue to monitor and edit pages accordingly in the future. If multiple users/ips keep editing the same content, how do you block everybody? In other words, the Will Hayden and "Sons of Guns" pages will eventually have to reflect the reality of the scandal, which continues to get more controversial, and more unsettling details become available. So, how do I avoid being blocked or simply avoid another editing "war?" Once my block is expired, and I contact other editors to review the situation what happens then? How do I escalate this to somebody who will not be bias to any of the "warring" parties? I believe there are only a handful of editors who are actively trying to prevent the facts from being added to WP. I am only blocked on a technicality for multiple challenges to their censorship, not for actually violating any other WP rules. So, how do I challenge the challenging editors' censorship and withholding of historical facts pertaining to the respective pages? 9711CA (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2014 (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).

9711CA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay, here is the basis for my request to be unblocked. I believe the block is a violation #1 and 3 of the blocking policy. There are a handful of editors who are "retaliating" against me for posting facts about a criminal case, and they are trying to use the block as "punishment" for doing so. This is based on the previous statements I have laid out. 9711CA (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked, briefly, for edit warring. Since you don't care to address the reason for the block, you'll just have to sit it out. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:14, 13 September 2014 (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.

(Non-administrator observation) Dispute resolution requests should answer all your questions. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The block is for violating 3RR. You violated 3RR. Relax-the block's only for 36 hours, so treat it as a wikibreak. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 23:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion for a proposed topic ban for you on Will Hayden and Sons of Guns

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Kevin A. Sabet

The addition of "Controversy" is a major change, and hardly justifiable as a section that is almost the length of the entire rest of the article.

Also, you keep omitting crucial data about the subject, such as the verified source showing that he worked for multiple presidents.

Finally, sourcing something called ""5 Biggest Lies from Anti-Pot Propagandist Kevin Sabet" is hardly a necessary source for a name, or an unbiased source.

Happy to come to a mutually agreeable solution, if you have any ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elderly1501 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, 9711CA. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 9711CA. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 9711CA. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]