User talk:Nscotian

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Rodney MacDonald has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Wikieditor06 (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Rodney MacDonald constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Damicatz (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Rodney MacDonald. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Damicatz (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Rodney Mcdonald

To Nscotian: Please provide equal balance to your comments and links. When numerous people comment and say you are unbalanced, you are. I also suggest consulting WP:NPOV and WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not for more information. CMYK4colours —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I gave you warning because you were inserting biased material into the Rodney Macdonald article. It's not simply a matter of backing up your claims, it's the fact that you phrased them in a biased way.

It's fine to put in legitimate polls from verifiable and trustworthy sources but please do so using a neutral tone. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox.

I suggest consulting WP:NPOV and WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not for more information.

Thanks, Damicatz (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Rodney MacDonald has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

If someone would stop removing the refernces that I post then I think that it can clearly be demonstrated that what I have put here is constructive. Thanks.

The recent edit you made to Rodney MacDonald constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Rodney MacDonald. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. sinneed (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you add unsourced negative or controversial biographical material, as you did with this edit to Rodney MacDonald. sinneed (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:56, 9 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).

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

Request reason:

information that I post is backed up, under References, by reputable media including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Canadian Television (CTV), however all information and references that I post is being promptly deleted. I am willing to stop changing any of the existing biography "facts", some of which are a stretch, but the material I submit is being censored. I think that all true info should be allowed, and not censored

Decline reason:

You provided no sources. If you would actually read your warnings you would find out why you are blocked. You are not being censored, you are adding controversial unreferenced facts. — Smashville^talk 21:41, 9 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.