User talk:Maldoror2

October 2014

Your recent editing history at Edward Snowden shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bob's House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bob's House is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob's House until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Blackguard 06:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not re-add declined speedy deletion tags to articles where they've already been declined. Doing so is disruptive, and if you continue to do it, your ability to do so will get taken away (either by locking the article, or by blocking your account). Another user has already removed that tag, which I've taken as a claim to partial authorship (which is believable). There's an AfD open - make your case there. Wily D 07:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD

He deleted a paragraph, authored nothing, reinstate speedy delete

October 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for disrupting Wikipedia to try and make a point, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob's House. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:19, 2 October 2014 (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).

Maldoror2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I merely outlined a forthcoming book is to be deleted if others are held to the same standard, please refer to talk section of Bob's House Maldoror2 (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's called "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", and that's why you're blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:09, 2 October 2014 (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.

In addition to the several incidents of deliberate disruption that led to your being blocked for two weeks, you have used another account, falsely claiming to be two different people. You have used the second account in collaboration with this one disruptively in various ways, including using one account to pretend to want an article deleted during a deletion discussion, while using the other account to re-create the article when it had been deleted and the discussion prematurely closed. You have attempted to use your second account to edit while your first account is blocked, thus evading the block. Your only purpose in editing has from the start been to try to use Wikipedia as a PR medium. You have even stated yourself that you have created "vanity" pages (your choice of word, not mine) on behalf of a publisher that you are employed by. I could go on, but that must be enough for you to get the point. Since it is perfectly clear that you have no intention of editing within Wikipedia's standards, the block on this account has been extended to indefinite. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]