User talk:Immersion100

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Lorna Fitzgerald appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. - Philippe 21:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Lorna Fitzgerald. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no need for that

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for 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.

PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2010 (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).

Immersion100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Excuse me, but why was I blocked?? I admit I got annoyed and blanked those talk pages, but really, that was after you threatened to block me for no reason!!

Decline reason:

What you were doing was patently disruptive. What you gave was absolutely no reason for us to unblock you. –MuZemike 22:02, 3 March 2010 (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 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).

Immersion100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasnt being disruptive, I was trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and make it more accurate. And I did explain why you should unblock me.

Decline reason:

Obvious sock of blocked user. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:53, 3 March 2010 (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.

Blanking others' user talk pages is very disruptive (and is also considered vandalism). In addition, [1], [2], [3], and [4] (adding your own biased opinion) does not in any way, shape or form make the encyclopedia any more accurate, and you edit-warred to keep said information in there on top of that! After being warned not to add that again, you do and engage in blatant vandalism. C'Mon Man! –MuZemike 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened here may have been a bit of an over-reaction. While the page-blanking was entirely unacceptable, I am willing to assume good faith that your initial edits were not intended as vandalism. Unfortunately, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, opinions such as the ones you were trying to insert into the article really don't belong here. Information in our articles needs to be able to be backed up with reliable sources, and neutral in tone. It's for this reason your edits were removed. Had someone explained this in the first place, we probably wouldn't be here now. I am willing to unblock you, however I'd first like your commitment that you try to read through some of our core policies, and your commitment to approach an editor and discuss with them should any of your future edits be reverted, before attempting to put your edits back in. Would you be willing to do this for me? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would. And in future I would try and source information and include it only if relevant/approriate Immersion100 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a sockpuppet of User:Ln of x and should not be unblocked. anemoneprojectors talk 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]