User talk:Agoodbadhabit

Your edits to RPGnet

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to RPGnet, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here at Wikipedia, you may feel free to edit as much or as little as you like. However your edits must follow our established standards, which this edit does not do. Specifically, your insertion of editorial comments in parenthesis is original research, which is not allowed in any Wikipedia article, and regardless, it is not encyclopedic in tone. Additionally while neither one of us like citations that require a paid membership to view, these sorts of sources are permitted as per our source rules. As such, I am reverting the article back to its prior state. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to RPGnet, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, RPGnet‎. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at RPGnet, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2011 (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 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RPGnet

Your source doesn't back up what is written. Says nothing about bans being common.
Please read WP:SPS "...Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." The only time I've seen where it is allowed is a person writing about themselves. For example, a person tweets about themselves on their known twitter channel. It's hard to verify who is who on a forum.

We are not out to get you. Just trying to uphold the "rules". Now excuse me while I return to Warhammer Bgwhite (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to come to this posters defense. Everyone knows that bans are very common on RPGnet, and there are online rpg sites where this is actively discussed or blogged about. By the reasoning you've listed above, the entire RPGnet article should be eliminated because there are no reliable sources that even talk about the forum. Any news or information about rpg.net takes place on forums and blogs. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist to provide you with a medium to grind your axe

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing. 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. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

User Kralizec! is a fan of rpg.net (and apparently supports their shady business practices), and has now used his/her status at Wiki as a club. 'Nuff said...

Decline reason:

There were actually three editors reverting, who left a few links (WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:SPS) explaining as to why they made the reverts - please read those first. Also, see the guide to appealing blocks. An unblock requests should only deal with your actions, not the actions of other editors. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:18, 24 March 2011 (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.

I see you have promptly returned to the behavior that got you blocked here before. And now you've made sure to include repeated personal attacks speculating on motive as well? This is your only warning: you will be blocked if this continues. DMacks (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Agoodbadhabit. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 05:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I've explained what original research is on my talk page. In the future, antagonizing and name calling isn't a good idea when you'rve been blocked for it in the past. OlYeller^Talktome 05:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at RPGnet, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DMacks (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your account indefinitely because your account is now only being used for disruption and attacking other editors. User:Excirial pointed you to the relevant policies above. Despite that, and the multiple warnings you have received, you don't seem to have made any effort to understand our policies or to constructively engage on any issues. You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.--Kubigula (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To any admins addressing an unblock request, please see the following information. Agoodbadhabit has been warned several times about adding defamatory information with no sources or unreliable sources (see all the warning on this page and [1][2][3]). The user has consistently attempt to defame Kralizec! (talk · contribs) as a "croney" of RPG.net when I'll I've ever seen is Kralizec! patiently attempting to educate Agoodbadhabit. I'm not particularly sure what Agoodbadhabit's MO is but he seem to have some sort of motive to defame RPG.net ([4][5]) and anyone who attempts to stop him are dismissed as some sort of participant in a conspiracy to protect the subject of the article ([6]). If an unblock is granted, I hope that there is an agreement made to stay away from the RPG.net page or at the very least, show an understanding of WP:RS. OlYeller^Talktome 13:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]