User talk:Fredadams

Desiree Horton

I'm glad you're a fan of Desiree Horton but Wikipedia is not a fansite. With unreferenced and unencyclopedic sentences such as "Horton derives great satisfaction from fighting fires because she's saving people's property and maybe even their lives." and "Fans, too, have made it clear they want to again see her on television--at least after fire season. Little wonder. At 5' 7", with long, dark (most of the time) hair and hazel eyes, Horton looks more like a model or a movie star than an aerial firefighter." this reads more like a puff piece in a men's magazine than an encyclopedia entry. Section headers such as "Wanted to be a Helicopter Pilot Since Childhood" do little to detract from this feeling. This article needs some overhauling. Your repeated undoing of grammar, typo, and tag fixes is hurting, not helping. - Dravecky 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove fact tags. They are there because direct quotes require a source citation. Oh, and consider this a formal civility warning. Telling another editor to "get a life" when they are making good-faith efforts to bring an article in line with Wikipedia guidelines is very inappropriate. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me.Fredadams 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You could really make me like Dravecky! Fredadams 21:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I warned you at the article's talk page that removing fact tags would be considered vandalism. That has now earned you a 24 hour block. When your block is up, you are welcome to edit again, but do not remove fact tags, and do not add fancruft material into the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. You have been told repeatedly about this. Please heed the advice. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Horton fixes

When your block expires today, there's some constructive things you can do for the article. I would strongly suggest that you read carefully our policy on biographies of living persons. Please note the parts about refernecing and encyclopedic tone. Then, please go find reliable references for the direct quotes that are in the article. If a few days go by, and those quotes aren't referenced, I'll be removing them. Thanks. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Akradecki, do you ever read back what you sound like to others? Fredadamsx 14:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with our sockpuppet policy, use of a sock, User:Fredadamsx, to evade a block causes the block to restart and can be lengthened. Your block has now been restarted and will run for 48 hours. And, btw, I know I probably sound like a butt to you, but you were asked multiple times nicely to not edit war and to not add fancruft to the article, and you clearly have little regard for our policies and guidelines. I don't like having to be the butt, and I certainly don't like having to block people...I strongly believe in the open atmosphere here, but everyone has to be willing to play by the same rules, and you consistently want to disregard them. So, when your block has expired, you are welcome back here. I've pointed out some serious problems with the article (we take our policy on biographies of living persons very seriously), and you're welcome to work withing the system and within our guidelines to fix those problems. See you then. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by creating a sockpuppet to avoid a block. 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.

Time of block extended to indefinite after yet another sockpuppet creation. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)