User talk:JIM ME BOY 2

Hi Jim. I've undone your recent edit to Harvard and Paul Krugman because they really aren't encyclopedic. Edits need to be neutral in tone. I've attached a standard welcome with some links if you'd like to look at them. Take care, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, JIM ME BOY 2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Last warning

Since you have already received several warnings on your previous user talk page, this is your last warning: Do not make changes to biographies of living people without citing reliable sources. You should always make sure your information is 100% correct before you make any changes, but especially on biographies; even seemingly small ones such as religion or place of residence. And potentially libelous comments such as this are completely unacceptable. Before you make any more edits, please see our pages on biographies, citations, verifiability, and what constitutes a reliable source. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:30, 28 November 2008 (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).

JIM ME BOY 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was given my last warning a little over two hours ago. Since then, I have not made any edits, but amazingly I have been blocked without proper notice anyway. This is completely unfair and violates Wikipedia's warning policy. I am supposed to receive four warnings on this page, yet I received only two. As I said before, I was blocked before I could make another edit. Please give me another chance, like I was promised. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Hi there, per this, the admin that blocked you has already unblocked you. — The Helpful One 20:46, 28 November 2008 (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).

JIM ME BOY 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I still get a "view source" whenever I try to edit. It must be the autoblock. Please help me with that. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
Try to edit the Sandbox.
If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. — Sandstein 22:40, 28 November 2008 (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.

Blocked

Due to persistent violations of our Biographies of Living Persons policy, you have now been blocked. Because this account has not been used to make any productive edits, the block is indefinite. You were warned not to make changes to biographies of living people without citing reliable sources, yet your first edit after the first block was removed was to quote Keith Olbermann without an independent source.[1] While I fully expect you to argue that you thought the link to the website was sufficient, if you had read the BLP policy (as I asked you to) you would know that a site whose sole purpose is to disparage the subject is not considered an independent source.

There appears to be no other course of action but to block this account until you can fully demonstrate acceptance of our policies, as well as an understanding that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:51, 1 December 2008 (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).

JIM ME BOY 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edit was not made to disparage Olbermann. I actually used the quote "what they perceive to be" so I would not be using Wikipedia as a soapbox. The website is well-known and since is not mentioned anywhere on the page, it deserves to be recognized. Proof of that is provided since Olbermann actually commented on it himself. To claim that I was trying to smear him is absurd. I admit that I made some stupid edits to Nancy Pelosi and Tammy Baldwin on my previous account, and I am sorry for that. Also, I was stupid to right "He's Jewish!" on Paul Krugman's page. However, all of my other edits have been innocent. In fact, I actually made my own sandbox to post vandalism on so I wouldn't disrupt Wikipedia. This guy was out to get me banned, probably because he doesn't like my political views, and I don't deserve to be here. Please help get me out. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Sorry, no. Your comprehension of critical Wikipedia policy is clearly insufficient. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 1 December 2008 (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.

I didn't say you were trying to smear him. But the rule isn't "As long as you're not trying to smear them, go ahead and edit biographies without proper sources." I warned you not to edit without sources. I told you to read the policies before editing, which would have told you that the source you used was unacceptable (and was not properly cited, by the way). Where does that supposed quote come from? I tried to find a source for it, but the the only place I can find it is on that attack blog (and its mirrors). If you don't have a reliable source, you shouldn't be putting it in.

I'm not out to get you banned, but I am out to make sure BLP is followed. If you can't do that, you can't edit. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olbermann Watch's goal is not to disparage Keith Olbermann's character. It's goal is to point out the outrageous bias that Keith presents in his daily "news" reports. Read the website and you will learn.

I'd say that statement speaks for itself, as far as determining whether or not you are using this account as a soapbox. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete portions of block review discussion you don't like, as you did here. It's not vandalism, it's relevant to the discussion, and it will remain in the page history even if you try to remove it. If you can't conduct yourself with civility on your own talk page, you will lose the ability to edit here as well. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]