User talk:Fuitilium

Welcome Fuitilium!

Hello, Fuitilium, I'm malo and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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, and use edit summaries whenever you change a page. If you have any questions, need help or assistance, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or contact me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Enjoy Wikipedia!!

malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Jim Howard, Jr. has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Posted By Alex Waelde (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

In line 55 of this article you erased relevant data. also please make sure to cite your sources if you update or revise/"disprove" current data.--Posted By Alex Waelde (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material

Please add only material which comes from a reliable third-party source to the article Jim Howard, Jr.. Your personal knowledge/opinion does not belong on Wikipedia. Only information that's been reported from a reliable third-party source should be used. Axlrosen (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have included cites to reliable third-party sources, i.e., the public record, to support my comments. Fuitilium (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for beginning to add reliable third-party sources to your edits, that is helpful. Let me point out some other issues that need your attention. Your edits do not attempt to maintain a Neutral Point of View. You are not following the policy on autobiography. You also engaged in sock puppetry. Personally, I would be in favor of having your ban revoked, if you'd agree to follow these and other policies. (And, as Sandstein points out below, WP:SOAP) Axlrosen (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Blueboy 96 04:01, 3 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

my "repeated editing" as you refer to it was for the purpose of adding sources to my comments. A quick review of my last edits would clearly show that citations to all referenced statements was added to the page in response to other editor's undoing my changes due to lack of citations. I clearly cited the public record for each allegation

Decline reason:

This and this indicate that you are here to pursue a personal real-world dispute through Wikipedia. That is not the purpose of our project. Sandstein 05:33, 3 October 2009 (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.

{{unblock There is no pesonal real-world dispute being engaged in through Wikipedia by me. The person to whom I left that message is the one that is engaged in a vendetta. I was simply correcting the information he posted. His information was inaccurate and NOT supported by the record in the cited litigation. I will, once again, respectfully request you unblock my account. Your actions appear to be a bit abusive in nature where you result to the ultimate sanction when I responded to the simple requests of the other editors and did not post anything false, misleading, or malicious.}}

There is no pesonal real-world dispute being engaged in through Wikipedia by me. Then how do you explain the posting here that Sandstein referenced? (Please note that, for the purposes of this discussion, it's irrelevant whether you're posting correct information - it's still a violation of WP:SOAP and WP:BIO and WP:COI policies.) Axlrosen (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock Re read the posting I made on his "talk" page, you will see nothing person and no attack. They are factual statements. The material being posted by HeliBotArchive is false. For example, a review of the order posted by Judge Zloch will clearly illustrate that HeliBot has posted incorrect information. My correction was accurate. You seem to be biased in this regard. I received no warning, posted nothing but accurate information, yet you block me? That is indefensible and unconscionable.}}

I did not block you. I requested administrative help due to your unconstructive edits; another person blocked you; and a third person denied your request for unblocking. I do not know either of these other 2 people. All 3 of us listed our reasoning. You think all 3 of us are biased? Axlrosen (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]