User talk:Louispgagne

I am warning you to cease vandalising the ACN Inc wiki by blanking sourced content. Tristan.buckmaster 01:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second warning to you to stop vandalising ACN Inc.. The content you are deleting is valid sourced content. If you have issue with it please edit the talk page. Otherwise I will have to seek action to have your username blocked Tristan.buckmaster 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok this is my final warning, if you vandalise ACN Inc. again I will request your username to be banned. Tristan.buckmaster 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Simon Abboud, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. John254 02:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Hús ö nd 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your posts to talk pages

Hello. 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. You may also 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. — ERcheck (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2007

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to ACN Inc., you will be blocked from editing. Knverma 08:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

—dgies^t_c 15:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knverma

Hey, you are the one who vandalizes ACN inc by choosing versions that discredits the company over my neutral versions. I said a million times that a court case concerning pyramid scheme allegations filed in a foreign country that has been dismissed 2 years go should NOT be under any circumstances make up 75% of the article. It's an obvious attempt against the reputation of the company. My article was neutral.

Civility

Please adhere to Wikipedia policy with respect to civility and no personal attacks. Your recent edits to Talk:ACN Inc. [1] [2] are unacceptable. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing. Please direct your comments on the talk page to the content of the article, not toward the editors. — ERcheck (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I was behaving correctly until two wikepedia administrator decided to protect a biased article against the company with which I am earning my income. I will repeat that under no circumstances should a court case, that has been filed and dismissed 2 years ago in a foreign country, make up 75% of a article in an attempt to ruin the reputation of a company. Either you protect a different version or at least let me defend my point of view. My article was neutral.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me. Knverma, who is an admin, and Tristan.buckmaster keep editing and protecting a version of the ACN inc. article which clearly misrepresents the integrity of the company. Again, under no circumstances should a court case that has been filed and dismissed two years ago in a foreign country make up roughly 75% of the article and be used in order to harm the reputation of the company. I request that the current version be modified or unprotected. I also request a neutral and well-documented article.

Decline reason:

This does not explain why your block was inappropriate. Clear violation of 3RR for which you have previously been blocked. If you are unwilling to adhere to our policies, you are not permitted to edit here. — Yamla 00:48, 26 April 2007 (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 does not explain why your block was inappropriate."

State your reasons. -- Louispgagne, 00:51, 26 April 2007

To avoid misunderstanding, I clarify that I am not an admin. --Knverma 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To contest a block, you must give a reason why your actions do not constitute a reason for blocking under the blocking policy. In this case you have provided a reason for your edits, but have not shown why your actions do not constitute a violation of the three revert rule—dgies^t_c 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

I note that are continuing the same deletions for which you have been blocked for 3RR violations. I suggest that you don't continue on this path. The complete deletion of this section, for which there is no question of its validity is inappropriate. Please work for consensus rather than continuing in an edit war. — ERcheck (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing versions

I have a hard time understanding why you prefer a version which is clearly biased against the company over a neutral version. The issue is not whether or not the pyramid scheme allegations is valid or not. It's clearly valid. What irritates me is that you keep allocating it roughly 3/4 or the article. This is a direct attempt against the reputation of the company.

Neutral does not mean avoiding addressing controversies; it means presenting both sides. Actually, since the full court held on behalf of ACN and required ACCC to pay court costs, the end result of the section is not negative against the company. I hear your concern that the length of the section feels disproportionate in length compared to the rest of the article. I don't see a shorter way to neutrally cover the court case, and in fact, I did lengthen the section a bit by adding the sentence on the ACCC being required to pay court costs, but I felt it was important to fully explain the ruling on behalf of ACN. On balance, I would guess there is more verifiable NPOV information about the company that can be added. — ERcheck (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts

Hello. 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. You may also 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. — ERcheck (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do sign your posts, in particular, you have not been signing your posts on the talk page for the ACN Inc. article. "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." — ERcheck (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued deletion of Controversy section from ACN Inc.

This is your only warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to ACN Inc., you will be blocked from editing. — ERcheck (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]