User talk:TheGodfather1987

Your recent edits

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 could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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. --SineBot (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for spamming or advertising. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2011 (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).

TheGodfather1987 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why the hell was i blocked and why in the world was i flagged as a SPA's to an individual who is way younger than me on wikipedia. And my Contribution stating that Embry Riddle is Number one school in the world in Aerospace Engineering and aviation is valid!! I showed several references including this one from US. News and World Report, if you guys had any idea that there are signs all over the place in Florida and the Nation Stating this Fact what the hell is wrong with you guys?And if you did not agree with the Fact Sheet that is provided by Embry you better edit the whole article because everything else in that article is based on Embry's statements. reference http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-aerospace-aeronautical-astronautical TheGodfather1987 (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wow, where do I begin? That is by far one of the most abusive unblock requests I have read in a long time. Read WP:TRUTH, WP:NOTTHEM, WP:EBUR, WP:BRD, WP:EW. Read those carefully. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 12 July 2011 (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.

Suggestion

Bwilkins' suggestions above are very good. I'd also be looking to learn what you plan to edit besides hyping ERAU. In fact, a voluntary topic ban on ERU might be useful in any attempt to be unblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref backing my claim!

http://www.amtonline.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=9053 http://www.erau.edu/er/newsmedia/newsreleases/2009/usnews.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/20/idUS216659+20-Aug-2009+PRN20090820 http://news.erau.edu/top-news/find-news-releases/2010/index.html And dozens more.TheGodfather1987 (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you ask us to look at those links, can we ask you to look at WP:RS, which will show beyond reasonable doubt that your links are not reliable sources, or WP:NEUTRAL, which will show beyond a reasonable doubt that your wording is not acceptable in an encyclopedia? I may add that you are not doing your school any favors by dragging them through all of this--it's really bad PR. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tweak: the Reuters thing probably could be cited, though it's indirect, and a reference to the original source is much better. That bit of information can have its place in the article, but not in the way in which you are trying to get it in, and certainly not in those words. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]