User talk:BozellHammer

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Nicholas Ballasy. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Nicholas Ballasy constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content without explanation. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained the edits both on the article Talk Page and the edit summary. I've also discussed them on "Uncle Milty"'s Talk Page. The vandalism charge is incorrect. --BozellHammer (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay allegations drudge

Hi, please don't replace this content while its under discussion at the BLPN, can you point me to the consensus to include it that you mentioned, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Check the Matt Drudge Talk Page, as well as its archives. And I'll be replacing the content, in line with consensus. It might be nice to hear from someone without a history of 3RR blocks. --BozellHammer (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus - if you want to discuss and form a consensus then you should do it on the talkpage, if you simply claim one when you desired addition is clearly disputed that would be disruptive imo, but I note your intended comment to simply replace the content without discussion or current consensus and I would in good faith point out to you that your desired addition is disputed and you should follow WP:BRD and move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see consensus? You may want to look a little harder. Plenty of consensus was already formed on the Talk page. Judging by your edit history, your numerous edit-war blocks, and your out-of-hand dismissal of reliable sources like the New York Daily News, you're not in the best position to weigh in on this matter. Also the "BLP-end-run" is a long discredited technique 'round these parts. --BozellHammer (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts

In case it's an issue, remember that blocks apply to an editor not just an account. If you are a blocked editor then you need to get the block lifted before editing with a new account. In not, then not. See WP: Block. Will Beback talk 09:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Eleemosynary (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]