User talk:Garconsaxon

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Pornographic actor, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tabercil (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Pornographic actor. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Pornographic actor. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Pornographic actor, you will be blocked from editing. Howard Stern and his radio show are not reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pornographic actor. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru ^talk 18:09, 18 November 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).

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

Request reason:

(no reason given)

Decline reason:

We need explanations, chummer. If you can't give a reason you should be unblocked, there's no reason we should unblock you. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 00:32, 19 November 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.

November 2009

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Pornographic actor. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You may have blanked your talk page, but your actions still show you do not understand the importance of properly sourcing controversial statements. Tabercil (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic actor

The statement you are adding to Pornographic actor might be true, but Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires a source. Here are some articles on proper sourcing:

Wikipedia:Attribution – policy on what can be cited
Wikipedia:Citing sources – how to format and present citations

Let me know if you need help with this. It might also be helpful to bring this up on Talk:Pornographic actor so that you can achieve consensus with other editors, and to work on the proper wording. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Pornographic actor, you will be blocked from editing. Wikipedia's policies require you to provide a source for contentious material. You have repeatedly added this assertion: "One thing that can decrease a girl's earning power is if she has done interracial scenes before. Many white girls will not do scenes with black men because they will make less money in the future." We MUST have a valid source for this. Per WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Tabercil (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Repeated Vandalism. 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. FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:23, 21 November 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).

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

Request reason:

not vandalism, i reworded the sentence in an attempt to negotiate with these terrible editors

Decline reason:

Not vandalism, maybe I'll give you that, but certainly disruptive edit warring. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 21 November 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.