User talk:Thedocjd

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Trusilver 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thedocjd. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#One for WP:LAME. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

— iridescent (talk to me!) 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have egregiously violated Wikipedia policies on biographies of living persons in your edit here, you have violated Wikipedia's standards on edit warring on this article, and it is virtually certain that you are abusively using "sock puppet" account. Owing to this disregard for Wikipedia's policies your account (and your likely sock puppets) have been temporarily blocked. Once the blocks expire you are welcome to edit Wikipedia constructively. Raymond Arritt 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain State University

You may find it helpful to familiarize yourself with some core Wikipedia guidelines and policies; notably our policy on verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. The content you are attempting to add to Mountain State University is not adequately sourced to a reliable source and has been removed. You may also wish to review to reversion policy. Continuing to add this content without addressing the sourcing issues on the talkpage is not productive or helpful to the encyclopedia building process and will lead to a block of this account if it continues.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Mountain State University, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If these statements you are adding are in fact true, please find a reliable, third-party source to corroborate them. DodgerOfZion (talk)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to HPV vaccine, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are substituting properly referenced material with material that violates neutral point of view. As "an expert" you are also likely breaching the conflict of interest guideline. I suggest you stop editing the page, or take your proposed changes to the talk page instead, as continuing to edit will likely result in your being blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to HPV vaccine, you will be blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you disagree with sourced edits that have been made to a page, the proper way to handle the situation is to seek a consensus on the talk page, or talk it out directly with the editor you disagree with. Removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content that appears to violated the neutral point of view is considered vandalism and will result in your being blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And when adding a comment to a talk page or user talk page, the comment should be added at the very bottom of the page. If you have specific reservations about the HPV vaccine article, you can post said reservations at Talk:HPV vaccine. I have the page on my watchlist, and so long as I am online, I will see that you've posted there very soon after you do. If you have claims that can be backed up by reliable sources, I would be happy to look into it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My page

Vandalizing my userpage is not the way to make a point. Seeking consensus on the article's talk page is the best way to go about it. DodgerOfZion (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked on Christmas Eve

Blocked
You have been blocked for repeatedly adding unverifiable information to articles and generally disruptive editing for 24 hours. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]