User talk:TheEmbodimentOfResponsibility

Overlinking

Please see WP:OVERLINK for guidelines regarding linking - the links you're adding to Newt Gingrich are excessive by any standard, and appear to be vandalism. Please stop it - we're here to write an encyclopedia, not play politics. Tvoz/talk 02:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Newt Gingrich. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Again, please stop it. Tvoz/talk 03:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Hagler

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Marvelous Marvin Hagler. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SteveO (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Welcome Back, Kotter. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. rv non-improvements, hardly minor edits Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to sex toy. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Marvelous Marvin Hagler, you may be blocked from editing. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Welcome Back, Kotter. BigDwiki (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you've said that without even contributing to the article talk! That comes first.TheEmbodimentOfResponsibility (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now blocked you from editing for vandalism and hate speech. I am going to review the rest of your edits, and may increase the block length. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I am NOT increasing your block length, but be aware that this block serves as your final warning: the next time you make this kind of edit, it's an indefinite block for you. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

"incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in 24 hours blocks" This issue of the ethnic stereotypes in Welcome Back, Kotter is covered in reliable sources, has been raised by me on the article talk page, and ought not be suppressed this way.TheEmbodimentOfResponsibility (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Just because you feel you hold the truth, Wikipedia goes by WP:CONSENSUS, and consensus also means that the type of xenophobia your edits exhibit are also not generally welcome. When this block expires, you will be welcome to politely discuss your proposed changes on the article talkpage, but if consensus is that they do not get included, then that's the community decision (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 29 January 2012 (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'd describe your addition to the article Welcome Back, Kotter as racism thinly disguised as commentary on the contents of the show. Just because the show makes use of racial sterotypes, it doesn't mean that the article should state the stereotypes as a fact. (Your talk page comment also implies that you subscribe to these stereotypes.)
Likewise, your other contributions - replacement of "Catholic" with "Papist" in Hail Mary pass, addition of "celesbian" to Ellen DeGeneres, addition of a biased definition of homosexuality [sourced to a YouTube video] to Terminology of homosexuality - are unacceptable. See the policies of neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living people. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]