User talk:BenSpecter

Welcome!

Hello, BenSpecter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Toadtastic.com, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RadioFan (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Toadtastic.com

A tag has been placed on Toadtastic.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Toadtastic.com

A tag has been placed on Toadtastic.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JPilborough^{-Leave Message} 02:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Early life and career of Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing. Brothejr (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Early life and career of Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to introduce those edits without first discussing on the talk page. Brothejr (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Early life and career of Barack Obama. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 12 July 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).

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

Request reason:

My edit of 'Early life and career of Barack Obama' was determined by 'Brothejr' to be "vandalism" and "disruptive". No explanation was given of how my edit was vandalism and from my reading of the wikipedia Vandalism page, my edit was nothing close to vandalism. I have been blocked for trying to keep others from removing my legitimate edit and have a feeling that this 'three-revert rule' did not apply to them and that they therefore have not been blocked. I would like someone to please explain to me how my edit was vandalism according to the Wikipedia page on Vandalism and if you cannot logically make a case for it, then I would appreciate it if my edit of 'Early life and career of Barack Obama' be returned and my block removed ASAP. I would also like an apology for the obviously vehement suppression of any truth or controversial information that might question the narrative given to the American people by Mr. Obama. Wikipedia is a private organization, I understand that, and can therefore do whatever it wants with their website. They have clearly exercised this right in my case. However, I, and many others, would appreciate it if Wikipedia would at least try to be objective.

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for vandalism. You were blocked for what we call edit warring, and specifically for violating our guidelines regarding the number of times you may revert an article to your preferred state. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:27, 13 July 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

So I assume then that 'Brothejr' has been blocked for constantly reverting the article back to his preferred state? It doesn't look like he has been. Also, under Wikipedia's EditWar section[1] it states that "reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason". So far, 'Brothejr' nor anyone else has given a good reason why my edit was reverted back to the original text. So it appears that his and other's reversions were against Wikipedia policy and that my reversions back to my original edit, were completely justified.

Decline reason:

Brothejr's reversions are not to his preferred state. They're reversions to remove Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons violations which is permitted under "Exceptions to 3RR". If Brothejr was removing referenced material instead of original research, then yes, he would have also been blocked for violating WP:3RR. -- Netsnipe ► 02:23, 13 July 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.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BenSpecter for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Matt J ^User|Talk 22:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]