User talk:ATWA WOLF

Welcome!

Hello, ATWA WOLF, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Bility (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

January 2012

How convenient you people would find my contribution non-constructive! Any bit of information that might reveal something other than what you have been trained to believe is a "no-no" apparently. How sad that is:( I guess only YOUR word is law right? Well, I intend to appeal this by any means necessary and I will protest your actions against me!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Charles manson, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Charles manson was changed by ATWA WOLF (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2012-01-24T19:01:07+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Charles manson with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Calabe 1992 19:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Helter Skelter (Manson scenario), you may be blocked from editing. -- WikHead (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Power Hungry Censorship!

I have no interest in the rant you've left on my talk page, nor am I interested in following up on the details. However, when a contributor blanks nearly the entire article (11,285 bytes from 70,448 bytes), removing categories, inter-wiki links, and other necessary components of the article, it is indeed blatant vandalism. This is why you were reverted, and I won't hesitate to revert again if such disruption continues. If you have a problem with the article's content, take your concerns to the article's talk page. Regards, -- WikHead (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Tgeairn (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Post whatever you like to your blogs, that's not my concern. This is proof that you did indeed blank the entire lower page as I stated above. You were reverted for it, and that's all that matters to me. -- WikHead (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEASEL

If you go to the style guideline WP:WEASEL you'll see that unattributed weasel words are not permitted in Wikipedia.

Basically, anyone (allegedly) can (allegedly) add (alleged) weasel words to any sentence (it has been alleged). This can cause big problems, and isn't (allegedly) permitted unless you have an (allegedly) specific reliable that (allegedly) supports that it is (alleged) to be in doubt.

If you think about it, Wikipedia couldn't operate otherwise.

Anyway I expect you're going to be banned now.GliderMaven (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATTA WOLF, I've reported you for edit warring. You might also like to consider why you are continuing to disrupt a serious encyclopedia in order to whitewash the history of a mass murderer. Not exactly a position most people would consider taking. Either way, its highly disruptive and you have failed to stop when multiple editors have asked you too, so please understand that any consequences that flow from your actions are your responsibility alone. Sparthorse (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. —C.Fred (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have attempted to evade your block by editing without signing in, I have extended the block to one week. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and yet further attempts at block evasion have led to an extension to 10 days. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia is not a right. WP:FREESPEECH. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only have you continued yet again to evade the block, but the nature of the block-evading editing you have done, including personal attacks and other unconstructive edits, have made it clear that you have no intention of fitting in to the collaborative approach on which Wikipedia works. The block has therefore been extended to indefinite. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 February 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Helter Skelter (Manson scenario), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)