User talk:BetterThanSuchAsYou

February 2014

Hello, I'm Newyorkadam. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Dumb and Dumber, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Newyorkadam (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dumb and Dumber 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. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Culture of Canada sidebar. 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.'
Marking edits that are not being accepted by others as minor is not helping. Meters (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marking edits as minor

Please read WP:MINOR. You are making major edits and marking them as minor. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:36, 3 March 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. Thank you. -- Moxy (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Template:Culture of Canada sidebar. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

BetterThanSuchAsYou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason:

Illegitimate. "incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in 24 hour blocks, longer for successive violations". This is the first finding of 'disruptive behaviour'.

Decline reason:

"Typically" does not mean the same as "always". Peridon (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Hello, I'm Fraggle81. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Eliot Ness because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Fraggle81 (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ali template OK

Sorry. I missed the reference to Ali on Dillman's page when I checked for it. Meters (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right there in the lead, bro.BetterThanSuchAsYou (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I looked but I missed it the first time. If you want people to bother checking twice then don't make vandalism edit slike this one [1]. Meters (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep making the douche mistake then blaming it on me for some pure irrelevancy. Should help for future predictability.BetterThanSuchAsYou (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can already predict your future. Meters (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Culture of Canada. 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.
Just back from a block for edit warring, and right back at it. Meters (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Culture of Canada. 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. Atama頭 20:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you pledge to stop re-adding the material to the article while discussion is ongoing at the talk page, and promise to instead join the discussion, I'll consider unblocking you early. Otherwise you can wait out the 2 day block, which is following the recent 31 hour block you received for the same behavior. -- Atama頭 20:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Moxy (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox

I'm writing to warn you against adding information that could be seen as promoting a specific point of view. First off, you stated that Amanda Knox was a promiscuous convicted murderer. Now the whole "promiscuous" thing is way out of bounds but the whole "convicted murderer" thing isn't exactly true. She was convicted of murder, but there's a fairly big consensus that Knox wasn't the one who murdered Meredith Kercher. Being convicted of a crime doesn't always mean that they did the crime and there's a huge controversy over the whole Knox trial. Secondly, you said that Knox violated namus conventions. That's kind of open to interpretation, as the various cultures within the US is fairly different when it comes to stuff like this. Basically put, you seemed to be editing this to make the article seem more negative against Knox. This might not have been your intent, but it did come across as fairly WP:POINT-y. Now don't get me wrong- I don't want the article to be a love-fest for Knox, but you have to be very, VERY careful about what you add and how you add it because it comes across as intentionally negative. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the namus of Duke University which has apparently been violated, hence the threats and promises to take it out on her and restore that from those who feel some sort of investment in it (current students and alumni etc)— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The reason Knohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violationsx's name has been used by a porn star is because of the former's accepted history of promiscuity

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Belle Knox, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist in this kind of behavior, particularly in light of your history of disruptive editing, you risk being blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like an additional reference?

That's the same source you cited above. The Daily Mail is a horrible source. That aside, it says nothing about the subject, Belle Knox, only about Amanda Knox. What you're doing is WP:COATRACK. You're using the material about Amanda to smear Belle and to smear Amanda. Also, please learn to WP:SIGN your posts to talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mail there is reporting sworn testimony in open court from the person referred to herself. A further source is here. Apologies for the duplication error.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It doesn't matter what the Mail says. The material doesn't belong in the Belle Knox article. You sign a post by clicking on the pencil or by manually adding 4 tildes (~). You don't use {{unsigned}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Belle Knox, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being smeared as "defamatory" for referring to a convicted murderer as a convicted murderer; no way am I going to wear that.BetterThanSuchAsYou (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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. D P 10:18, 14 March 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).

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

Request reason:

Do you not realise that when someone with a confirmed conviction for murder is refused to be acknowledged as a murderer, that then implies her co-conspirators are solely responsible in the crime, which is a WP:BLP offence against them.

Decline reason:

You ignored multiple warnings from multiple users to stop making disruptive WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK edits, and you have yet to acknowledge these issues. Looking at your overall contribution history, I'm surprised that this block isn't longer.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:49, 14 March 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 is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Belle Knox, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block 2 weeks for resuming the same BLP/POV edits that lead to the most recent block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning before longer block

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used to contravene Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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. Atama頭 14:02, 1 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Are you serious?? "Klippert was sentenced to "preventive detention" (that is, indefinitely) as a dangerous sexual offender.", as we are told - to which the appropriate categorisation, and nothing else, was supplied.BetterThanSuchAsYou (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:18, 1 April 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.

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BetterThanSuchAsYou, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Iselilja (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]