User talk:Boondocks37

Welcome

Hello, Boondocks37, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I fail to see how this was "POV pushing" and the week long block certainly wasn't warranted for one edit. Request handled by: - auburnpilot talk 01:59, 12 June 2007 (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).

Boondocks37 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

auburnpilot has already been kind enough to remove this rediculous block once. I have signed out, signed back in, and restarted my computer to reset things, and still appear to be blocked. I was blocked without warning for "POV pushing". All I did was remove a word from the opening sentence of The Great Global Warning Swindle article, that in the discussion page of this article, is being called POV to begin with. Could somebody please take care of this? PS, my IP address is 68.145.124.154, and Raul seems to have now autoblocked me. Can somebody help unblock me, and let Raul know this is unnacceptable?

Decline reason:

I've unblocked your main account because I agree a one week block was not appropriate in this case. I will not, however, remove the autoblocke because it is extremely inappropriate to edit both logged in and logged out in this manner. That is edit warring and the 24 hour autoblock is appropriate. - auburnpilot talk 03:16, 12 June 2007 (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).

Boondocks37 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

auburnpilot, I appreciate your reply, and understand. Please let me explain that when I made the first edit, I was not aware that I was not logged in. I usually am logged in automatically, so I don't know how this happened. When I saw that I was blocked, I signed in, and made the same edit. The revision of my edit was not explained, my blocking was not explained, and I was given no warnings. If making the same edit twice, which I still contend is not POV, is an example of edit warring, then isn't raul654 guilty of the same thing? Bottom line is, I did not edit logged in, and logged out intentionally. Please reply if you believe me. Also, the autoblock was also for a full week, according to the message I recieved on my account. If you believe that a 24 hour block is appropriate for making the same edit twice, are you able to reduce the block duration? The 24 hour block would be almost over, anyways.

Decline reason:

Your autoblock does not last for a week. If your 24 hour block is almost up, so too should your autoblock.—WAvegetarian (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2007 (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.

Can somebody please look at my autoblock, as is talked about above? Auburnpilot would not unblock it, because he felt a 24 hour block was appropriate for making the same edit twice. But, my autoblock was for one week. It was given without warning or explanation. Please either unblock me, or give an explanation why I was blocked for one week. Thanks.

Autoblocks don't last for a week.—WAvegetarian (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} OK, then this is not an "autoblock", as I am still blocked after more than 24 hours, and the block message says I am blocked for a full week. Can this please be reviewed by somebody? Does the punishment fit the crime, or did bias come into the decision to block me for a week, without explanation?

Maybe you are editing under a shared IP address? Miranda 00:18, 13 June 2007 (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).

Boondocks37 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can somebody please look at this week long block for me? I thought it was an autoblock, since it blocked my IP address, but I have been told that autoblocks only last 24 hours, and this was a week long block. I removed the word "controversial" from the opening sentence of The Great Global Warming Swindle article. In the discussion page of this article, the use of this word in the opening sentence is called by many as unneccessary and POV. I edited the page twice, to remove this word. My edits were immediately removed, and I was blocked for a week for "POV pushing". I was not given a warning or an explanation. Considering that the edits Raul were making appear to be just as much of a POV edit as what I was doing, this hardly seems reasonable. Thanks.

Decline reason:

No block or autoblock currently active against this account. Please follow Template:Autoblock if you are still unable to edit. — Yamla 00:04, 13 June 2007 (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.

Give it a try now. - auburnpilot talk 00:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, my block has now been cleared. Thanks for all the help.

Misconstrue

"The title of the reference is "Tory bill aimed at cutting greenhouse gases in half by 2050"... and you feel I misconstrued it? What part of this is confusing you?"

I'm not confused, and based on this, and your less than civil comment at User talk:Raul654 (diff), I don't believe that you're here to help positively build the encyclopedia.

But instead of blocking you for your trolling, incivil comments, I decided that I'm going to bring this to a wider discussion for a community ban. (Note that by reverting your edit, I intentionally placed myself in a position where I won't likely be personally blocking you. So I'll be happy to continue this discussion as "just-another-editor".)

As for the edit in question (Which I'll be reverting shortly), the article touches on several points, including the bill in question. However your assertion of what was stated is simply inaccurate.

I hope this clarifies. - jc37 07:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An ANI thread about you

There is a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for community ban about you. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election

If you want to contribute to Canadian federal election, 2008, please note the following:

Contributions must be written from a neutral point of view — yours have consistently been written from a deeply partisan anti-Liberal and pro-Conservative spin that is absolutely inappropriate in a neutral encyclopedia article.
We don't need detailed transcripts of entire interviews; we only require a summary of the main points.
You need to follow proper referencing format. Do not insert a substantial list of external links directly into the body text; link to one, or at most two, newspaper articles about the statement, and enclose that link within <ref> </ref> tags.

Any contributions you make that don't follow Wikipedia's rules around formatting and writing tone can and will continue to be reverted from the article. An evaluation of the leadership issue in this election is perfectly valid if written and formatted properly, but what you've been writing is Conservative talking points, not a neutral summary. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Canadian federal election, 2008. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JQF • Talk • Contribs 21:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Canadian federal election, 2008. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just state the sourced facts and let the reader decide for himself rather than putting your own analysis on it. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I very much agree with DoubleBlue's comment in this edit summary. There are legitimate differences of interpretation of WP:NPOV, and then there's what you're doing. Stop it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]