User talk:Devilmaycares

Your edits to Brian Flemming

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Laurence Boyce 07:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Laurence Boyce 09:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Devilmaycares, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 17:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LAST WARNING!

This is your last warning.
The next time you remove warnings from any user page, including your own, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —12.72.72.208 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by repeated vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Rx StrangeLove 23:10, 26 September 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

The person who requested the block adds nothing to wikipedia he's only here to game the system and frankly I was previously told that actual editors had control of their talk section

Decline reason:

Looking at your contribs the block seems more than reasonable, regarding talk page ownership see below. --pgk 06:20, 27 September 2006 (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.

Perhaps, but edits like this is why you are in the position you're in at the moment. Rx StrangeLove 23:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages

For user page areas please see what your user page is not, "More importantly, your user page is not yours.". --pgk 06:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As already instructed please dont blank this or I will have to protect it moving your only communication source. Thanks Glen 06:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you have yet to say anything about this?

"..I haven't to fear from your last warnings; I don't vandalize pages, as you have. I try to ensure that they report brute facts, however inconvenient they may be to this-or-that party; and I work to adjust word-choice to leave normative judgments to the reader. —75.18.113.152 02:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)"

And what would you expect them to say? I am confident that any investigation will show that I have not engaged in vandalism, hence I have nothing to fear from your warnings or complaints. —75.18.113.152 01:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. User:shy1520 22:12, 07 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

This is your final warning. If you continue to vandalize pages on Wikipedia, make inappropriate edits or personal attacks, including inappropriate or offensive edit summaries, or continue to cause problems in other ways, you will be blocked from editing indefinitely.

per [1] Naconkantari 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Daily Kos page

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Please dont stalk me. Jasper23 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Are More Equal than Others

If you have a strong stomach, then you want to look at this:

So the behavior that got you blocked for 48 hours is acceptable for others. The only rules here are that the Admins do what pleases them. —12.72.71.46 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again

The only rules here are that the Admins do whatever pleases them. —12.72.69.31 00:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter

It's a good thing I announced in my edit summary I was on my third revert, then. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Doolittle

I'd appreciate it if you used real sources and not your personal website with a pdf from god-knows-where. In addition, your paragraph don't assert the relevance of the inclusion. ---J.S (t|c) 03:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Begging the question is inherently POV and is unacceptable.
Box.net is a personal web-host and is an unacceptable source
lindar.dailykos is a highly pov blog, a tertiary source as well. Both reasons make it unacceptable.

Continuing to add this junk to wikipedia is vandalism. Poswall, continuing to add it will get you banned again. Find reliable sources and justify why it's not "begging the question" and then we'll see about adding it. ---J.S (t|c) 03:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in John Courage

With this edit I removed information you included in the article on John Courage with this edit. That was a violation of copyright policy on wikipedia. If your unfamiliar with copyright law... here's the short of it: Don't plagiarise. ---J.S (t|c) 04:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What we see here is evidence of tendentious editing, vandalism, multiple warnings and blocks, violation of our policy on biographies of living individuals, and a strong possibility that this is a sockpuppet account. Are you in fact here to help build a neutral encyclopaedia, or just to advance an agenda? Guy 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the right answer is. 03:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)~

“[[Category:Anti-Catholicism]]”

“[[Category:Anti-Catholicism]]” isn't for listing anyone and everyone who opposes the Catholic Church, and certainly not for listing those who are generically opposed to Christianity or more generally to theism. See the article entitled “Anti-Catholicism” for a discussion of the reference. —12.72.69.215 06:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"dead people are non political"

You reverted the category added to John Wayne Gacy based on the above grounds. Ann Richards and John Denver are but two other dead people in that category. I don't think we erase all memory of one's political leanings just because they no longer have a pulse. Dubc0724 13:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit a little while after Devilmaycares made sure to mention that the BTK Killer was a republican. [2] ---J.S (t|c) 19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Dubc0724 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was done to point out that we shouldn't include psychos unless we want to include all psychos. Devilmaycares 00:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was done to associate a political party with a serial killer. ---J.S (t|c) 17:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise his attempt to claim that Ebenezer Scrooge were a libertarian. —12.72.71.247 01:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

This is your final warning. If you again delete the comment of another user in an attempt to conceal your pattern of edits, you will be blocked from editing. —75.18.113.152 05:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I have filed a |Request for comment on user conduct regarding your editing. You are invited to comment in your own defence if so you chose. ---J.S (t|c) 20:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

As I'm sure your aware personal attacks are highly discouraged here. Please refrain from attacking other editors. ---J.S (t|c) 19:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Nerd, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]