User talk:Gingerboy06

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to RSPCA Australia, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what is on that page is uncited and unverifiable. What I have posted is common knowledge and hence, as with common knowledge sources, rarely cited. Gingerboy06 (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

RSPCA AUSTRALIA Despite claiming to raise money to care for animals many people are bewildered to discover that few animals remain alive following the minimum holding times. Furthermore the support for and lobbying for breed specific legislation has resulted in many turning away from the organisation as the end result of that legislation is to make it easier to seize and kill peoples pets. Shockingly the organisation refuses to change it's stance.

Please cite sources which contradict any of the above.Gingerboy06 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continues to delete without citing sourcesGingerboy06 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to RSPCA Australia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Dog fighting. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dog fighting. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not unsourced. No sources for the lies written are cited and allowed to stand. Hypocritical editing AGAIN!Gingerboy06 (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly provide verifiable sources for all that is on the pages you altered or I will seek arbitration.Gingerboy06 (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to the editor removing unsourced content to find sources since it's up to the editor who adds the content and nor is it up to the remover to source the whole article since I added no content to the article. Bidgee (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Dog fighting, you will be blocked from editing. Bidgee (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be seeking arbitration and your fitness to act as an editor by placing your own POV onto pages that you disgree with without citation. I am still awaiting your citations for removing my posts, just coz u disagree is not enough.Gingerboy06 (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Based on your contributions and disregard for our neutral point of view, reliable sources, and edit warring policies, I have blocked your account indefinitely. If, at some point in the future, you are interested in contributing sourced content and working with other editors, you may request reinstatement with the {{unblock}} template. --B (talk) 02:35, 1 January 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).

Gingerboy06 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hypocrisy on the part of blocking admins. Uncited statements are allowed to stand while mine are removed and when cited am blocked because they disagree with what has been said.

Decline reason:

Bad faith unblock requests are never granted. — Smashville^talk 06:05, 1 January 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.

This whole process makes a mockery of Wikipedia's founding principles and Jimbo's aims, all of which are disregared by a few power elites who have abused the system for their own nefarious ends. I will e-mail this whole process to Jimbo and let him see what this site has degenerated to. And then they ask for donations to enhance their own status. It is people such as this that give Wikipedia a bad name in the on-line community.