Hello, JustGettingItRight, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've reverted your edits to Category:American criminals; there was a lengthy discussion on the subject before you got here, which can be found here. If you still believe the category should change, I'd invite you to participate in a new discussion here. Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you ever have any questions about anything. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 02:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a question for you here: [1] Will Beback talk 22:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You commented:
But I don't see any discussion about deleting that criteria. Can you please point me to the month-long discussion of it? Will Beback talk 07:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to contact me if need be, but I won't edit, talk, or check my messages for at least 48 hours. I am going to sign off and only use Wikipedia for reference (i.e. learning stuff a lot quicker than reading the textbook) during this time. JustGettingItRight ( talk) 11:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi JustGettingItRight, just wanted to give you a heads up that I've written a note on the talk page of this article asking you to clarify your recent changes. Thanks. -- Beerfinger ( talk) 20:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi JustGettingItRight, the edited version does appears tobe work of the vandal. That is why I'm reverting the article. The sources are questionable, it appears tobe work of Japanese/Chinese nationalists trying to link their languages to ancient Korean language.--Korsentry 06:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry ( talk • contribs)
You have been blocked for 48hrs for disruptive editing, vandalism, edit-warring and trolling, for instance here and here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
JustGettingItRight ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
How are my edits at Discrimination against the homeless and Suicide methods trolling? These were good faith edits and it appears I am being blocked for some rouge reason without any warning.
Decline reason:
{{subst:I have only examined the edits at Suicide methods, but they are clearly vandalism.}} Lady of Shalott 18:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
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.
unblock|How are my edits vandalism? I'll concede I violated 3RR, but so did Sceptre. However, I take umbrage to this allegation that my edits were trolling or vandalism. In fact, I made only one edit to the Discrimination against the homeless, only asking for citations, just as Mr. Jimmy Wales has asked for. It is clear that admins block for political reasons and because of this, it is no wonder people ridicule Wikipedia and view it dimly as a source. I am done with this project. The intentions are noble, but for the reason given for the block, this is clearly an ideological block. JustGettingItRight ( talk) 19:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In the Explosion section of Suicide methods, you added, "In most cases body parts go EVERY WHERE. This is also rude to those who are around you as they might faint at the sight of blood and gore." You seriously deny that is vandalism? Lady of Shalott 19:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
JustGettingItRight ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
That wasn't my edit and I did that unintentionally. I reverted the AfD closure by a non-admin. If I reverted vandalism unintentionally by the revert war (which I admit and wish to discuss separately if you have time), I apologize, but it was unintentional and it got caught up in what I admit to be an edit war. However, I was not "trolling" or intentionally vandalising either article. JustGettingItRight ( talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The reason for blocking, according to the block log, is "trolling, edit-warring, and vandalism". You can dispute the trolling and vandalism charges, and it's a subjective enough area that many people would probably agree with you - some would see certain contributions as more like attempts to cause disruption than to harm the integrity of Wikipedia; others might view them as misguided but well-intentioned.
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.
One unblock request at a time, please. I've disabled the second request. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. here are also several other problems listed at the talk page. Cptnono ( talk) 10:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
06:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, JustGettingItRight, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've reverted your edits to Category:American criminals; there was a lengthy discussion on the subject before you got here, which can be found here. If you still believe the category should change, I'd invite you to participate in a new discussion here. Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you ever have any questions about anything. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 02:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a question for you here: [1] Will Beback talk 22:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You commented:
But I don't see any discussion about deleting that criteria. Can you please point me to the month-long discussion of it? Will Beback talk 07:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to contact me if need be, but I won't edit, talk, or check my messages for at least 48 hours. I am going to sign off and only use Wikipedia for reference (i.e. learning stuff a lot quicker than reading the textbook) during this time. JustGettingItRight ( talk) 11:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi JustGettingItRight, just wanted to give you a heads up that I've written a note on the talk page of this article asking you to clarify your recent changes. Thanks. -- Beerfinger ( talk) 20:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi JustGettingItRight, the edited version does appears tobe work of the vandal. That is why I'm reverting the article. The sources are questionable, it appears tobe work of Japanese/Chinese nationalists trying to link their languages to ancient Korean language.--Korsentry 06:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry ( talk • contribs)
You have been blocked for 48hrs for disruptive editing, vandalism, edit-warring and trolling, for instance here and here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
JustGettingItRight ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
How are my edits at Discrimination against the homeless and Suicide methods trolling? These were good faith edits and it appears I am being blocked for some rouge reason without any warning.
Decline reason:
{{subst:I have only examined the edits at Suicide methods, but they are clearly vandalism.}} Lady of Shalott 18:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
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.
unblock|How are my edits vandalism? I'll concede I violated 3RR, but so did Sceptre. However, I take umbrage to this allegation that my edits were trolling or vandalism. In fact, I made only one edit to the Discrimination against the homeless, only asking for citations, just as Mr. Jimmy Wales has asked for. It is clear that admins block for political reasons and because of this, it is no wonder people ridicule Wikipedia and view it dimly as a source. I am done with this project. The intentions are noble, but for the reason given for the block, this is clearly an ideological block. JustGettingItRight ( talk) 19:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In the Explosion section of Suicide methods, you added, "In most cases body parts go EVERY WHERE. This is also rude to those who are around you as they might faint at the sight of blood and gore." You seriously deny that is vandalism? Lady of Shalott 19:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
JustGettingItRight ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
That wasn't my edit and I did that unintentionally. I reverted the AfD closure by a non-admin. If I reverted vandalism unintentionally by the revert war (which I admit and wish to discuss separately if you have time), I apologize, but it was unintentional and it got caught up in what I admit to be an edit war. However, I was not "trolling" or intentionally vandalising either article. JustGettingItRight ( talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The reason for blocking, according to the block log, is "trolling, edit-warring, and vandalism". You can dispute the trolling and vandalism charges, and it's a subjective enough area that many people would probably agree with you - some would see certain contributions as more like attempts to cause disruption than to harm the integrity of Wikipedia; others might view them as misguided but well-intentioned.
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.
One unblock request at a time, please. I've disabled the second request. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. here are also several other problems listed at the talk page. Cptnono ( talk) 10:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
06:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)