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
Griffith Central, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Bidgee (
talk) 06:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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
Griffith Central, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Bidgee (
talk) 05:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing
verifiable and
reliable sources, as you did to
Griffith Central. Before making any potentially controversial
edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Bidgee (
talk) 10:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your
disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to
Griffith Central, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Bidgee (
talk) 09:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked your account. A look at your limited edit history shows that since 2008 you have been returning periodically to resume edit warring over the Griffith Central article and trying to enforce your preferred version of the page. This is unacceptable and violates Wikipedia's editing and behavioural policies. I see on this page that you've been asked repeatedly to stop but continue regardless, refusing to engage in discussion. Wikipedia operates on a foundation of consensus so communication is mandatory, not an optional extra for editing our articles. Additionally, we have policies such as the 3 revert rule which prohibit the kind of editing you are doing and your content edits violate the verifiability and reliable sources rules. I cannot allow you to continue editing our articles in this manner, so you have now been blocked. Please understand that Wikipedia is a privately owned website with a range of rules and editing here isn't a right but a privilege which we reserve the right to revoke once someone shows themselves unwilling to follow the rules and unwilling to engage with other editors. Sarah 12:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- In regards to this, I never said it wasn't reliable, it wasn't verifiable. While the Area News is Griffith local newspaper and could be classified as reliable but since it doesn't cite an article/news story it is not a verifiable nor really is it a reliable source. Bidgee ( talk) 13:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Tomtom33 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have provided a verifiable source - the local Griffith paper - The Area News! Furthermore, I have actually written the entire article and am being banned from further editing. I know that the information is correct as it is me , the company I work for and with, and every item is factual. I find the person Bidgee to be over officious and should really let this go! I am not doing anything wrong here - the article is 100% written by me, is factual and barring me from using this site is farcical! True, I may not be as computer savvy as some, but this shouldnt be a reason to ban me from using the site!!!!!!
Decline reason:
read Reliable Sources. Read WP:COI. At this point, the only way I would be willing to unblock would be with a topic ban. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 6 May 2010 (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.
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
Griffith Central, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Bidgee (
talk) 06:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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
Griffith Central, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Bidgee (
talk) 05:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing
verifiable and
reliable sources, as you did to
Griffith Central. Before making any potentially controversial
edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Bidgee (
talk) 10:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your
disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to
Griffith Central, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Bidgee (
talk) 09:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked your account. A look at your limited edit history shows that since 2008 you have been returning periodically to resume edit warring over the Griffith Central article and trying to enforce your preferred version of the page. This is unacceptable and violates Wikipedia's editing and behavioural policies. I see on this page that you've been asked repeatedly to stop but continue regardless, refusing to engage in discussion. Wikipedia operates on a foundation of consensus so communication is mandatory, not an optional extra for editing our articles. Additionally, we have policies such as the 3 revert rule which prohibit the kind of editing you are doing and your content edits violate the verifiability and reliable sources rules. I cannot allow you to continue editing our articles in this manner, so you have now been blocked. Please understand that Wikipedia is a privately owned website with a range of rules and editing here isn't a right but a privilege which we reserve the right to revoke once someone shows themselves unwilling to follow the rules and unwilling to engage with other editors. Sarah 12:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- In regards to this, I never said it wasn't reliable, it wasn't verifiable. While the Area News is Griffith local newspaper and could be classified as reliable but since it doesn't cite an article/news story it is not a verifiable nor really is it a reliable source. Bidgee ( talk) 13:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Tomtom33 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have provided a verifiable source - the local Griffith paper - The Area News! Furthermore, I have actually written the entire article and am being banned from further editing. I know that the information is correct as it is me , the company I work for and with, and every item is factual. I find the person Bidgee to be over officious and should really let this go! I am not doing anything wrong here - the article is 100% written by me, is factual and barring me from using this site is farcical! True, I may not be as computer savvy as some, but this shouldnt be a reason to ban me from using the site!!!!!!
Decline reason:
read Reliable Sources. Read WP:COI. At this point, the only way I would be willing to unblock would be with a topic ban. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 6 May 2010 (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.