Hello, I'm
Jim1138. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
User talk:DocOfSoc that didn't seem very
civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks,
Jim1138 (
talk) 03:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
User talk:DocOfSoc with
this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you,
Jim1138 (
talk) 03:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Charles Karel Bouley shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jim1138 ( talk) 04:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Reverting obvious vandalism— is one the exceptions to the 3RR rule so posting it on my page is ludicrous.
- Give it up!your repeating unsourced negative edits is getting monotonous and your are about to blocked my friend. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You are a bully and loser. Stop posting on my page.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japandroids ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there any chance you could edit another article, in the interim, until this is resolved? Any other article, out of millions. There are so many. Please? Doc talk 06:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I thought wikipedia was for everyone, not just people pushing/dominating particular articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japandroids ( talk • contribs) 2:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't put "homosexual" in front of "partner" again. Any other edits like that and you will see how it operates around here. Doc talk 07:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Please maintain an encyclopedic tone and keep a neutral point of view. avoid opinion such as "very insightful". Thank you Jim1138 ( talk) 01:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Japandroids, "They were hired for the afternoon drive slot at Los Angeles' KFI, the duo replaced KFI mainstays John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou." makes even less sense than having "the duo" twice in the same sentence. This sentence seems fine as it is, and I see two grammatically incorrect attempts by you to fix something that is not broken. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you'd like to make, and preview them before you insert them into articles. Thank you. Doc talk 01:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
agreed. sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japandroids ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a subsection of the Verifiability policy. We don't use blogs as sources, particularly in articles on living people. Please make note of this and refrain from using blogs like this as a third-party source in the future. Thanks. Doc talk 07:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Karel is considered a member of the radical left politically." Undoubtedly true, but by whom? You've given up even trying to reference the statements, apparently. It is time to really "expand" into other articles here, Japandroids. Start learning some policy basics. Editing the Ray Lewis article for a few edits and then coming straight back to the Bouley article to bait DocOfSoc isn't going to work. You need to move along, or you can only be considered a single-purpose account. Doc talk 05:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
With that said, sounds overall must easiert simply create another account and start over :) Sees like less of a hassle.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies ( talk) 03:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Drmies (
talk) 15:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Japandroids ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hey, I think this is very unfair- here is why- The edits, in particular to one article in question, Charles Bouley, were overall constructive and helped the article. The article previously read as if it was written by a PR firm, glossing over KArel's controversies and his many interprersonal conflicts. Another editor, Docofsoc, whom it seems transparently has some mental issues or problems, goes on the attack in the following manner. 1. Any change she does not like, she labels the change as vandalism. 2. Any edit which is factually correct, yet is negative towards Karel, is labeled as vandalism. This person clearly has a close personal relationship with KArel, and should recuse herself from editing, as there is no reationalizing with this person. Further, based on information I have gathered from other sources, if you check the IP addresses utilizing the DocofSoc account, you would likely see two different areas of Southern California logging into this account. Bottom line- nothing I placed in this article constitutes slander, and are all factually correct- just because I was bullied by another user here doesn't mean I should be banned.
Decline reason:
Let me see ... you freely suggest another editor "transparently has some mental issues or problems", then throw good faith to the winds, and want us to unblock you? I'd refer you to WP:NOTTHEM, but that seems to be the least of your problems. — Daniel Case ( talk) 14:09, 26 February 2013 (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.
Japandroids ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Nothing I did was ever considered vandalism. In fact, one editor believes if she keeps calling something vandalism, then it must be true. Everything I have contributed has actually been factually correct, even if it is considered inconveniently derogatory for a particular editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japandroids ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not so. Violation of NPA policy is vandalism, as is repeated violation of BLP policy. And you will need to address both concerns before an unblock could be considered.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 11:25, 2 March 2013 (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.
- Even if you remove this post as well: in the extremely remote scenario where a passing admin decides to unblock you without looking into the history, your user name would have to be changed. Japandroids is a musical group that you make no distinction between in spelling, and much as User:Led Zeppelin would be an inappropriate user name for WP, your user name is similarly not acceptable. That's how it is... Doc talk 08:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
With that said, sounds overall must easiert simply create another account and start over :) Seems like less of a hassle.
- You could, but if your new account were to be caught evading the Japandroids block, that account would be blocked and you'd earn the title of "sockpuppeteer". Since virtually all your edits are centered around one article, I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out who the new account was should the same behavior be repeated. Doc talk 02:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Jim1138. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
User talk:DocOfSoc that didn't seem very
civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks,
Jim1138 (
talk) 03:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
User talk:DocOfSoc with
this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you,
Jim1138 (
talk) 03:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Charles Karel Bouley shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jim1138 ( talk) 04:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Reverting obvious vandalism— is one the exceptions to the 3RR rule so posting it on my page is ludicrous.
- Give it up!your repeating unsourced negative edits is getting monotonous and your are about to blocked my friend. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You are a bully and loser. Stop posting on my page.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japandroids ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there any chance you could edit another article, in the interim, until this is resolved? Any other article, out of millions. There are so many. Please? Doc talk 06:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I thought wikipedia was for everyone, not just people pushing/dominating particular articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japandroids ( talk • contribs) 2:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't put "homosexual" in front of "partner" again. Any other edits like that and you will see how it operates around here. Doc talk 07:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Please maintain an encyclopedic tone and keep a neutral point of view. avoid opinion such as "very insightful". Thank you Jim1138 ( talk) 01:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Japandroids, "They were hired for the afternoon drive slot at Los Angeles' KFI, the duo replaced KFI mainstays John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou." makes even less sense than having "the duo" twice in the same sentence. This sentence seems fine as it is, and I see two grammatically incorrect attempts by you to fix something that is not broken. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you'd like to make, and preview them before you insert them into articles. Thank you. Doc talk 01:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
agreed. sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japandroids ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a subsection of the Verifiability policy. We don't use blogs as sources, particularly in articles on living people. Please make note of this and refrain from using blogs like this as a third-party source in the future. Thanks. Doc talk 07:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Karel is considered a member of the radical left politically." Undoubtedly true, but by whom? You've given up even trying to reference the statements, apparently. It is time to really "expand" into other articles here, Japandroids. Start learning some policy basics. Editing the Ray Lewis article for a few edits and then coming straight back to the Bouley article to bait DocOfSoc isn't going to work. You need to move along, or you can only be considered a single-purpose account. Doc talk 05:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
With that said, sounds overall must easiert simply create another account and start over :) Sees like less of a hassle.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies ( talk) 03:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Drmies (
talk) 15:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Japandroids ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hey, I think this is very unfair- here is why- The edits, in particular to one article in question, Charles Bouley, were overall constructive and helped the article. The article previously read as if it was written by a PR firm, glossing over KArel's controversies and his many interprersonal conflicts. Another editor, Docofsoc, whom it seems transparently has some mental issues or problems, goes on the attack in the following manner. 1. Any change she does not like, she labels the change as vandalism. 2. Any edit which is factually correct, yet is negative towards Karel, is labeled as vandalism. This person clearly has a close personal relationship with KArel, and should recuse herself from editing, as there is no reationalizing with this person. Further, based on information I have gathered from other sources, if you check the IP addresses utilizing the DocofSoc account, you would likely see two different areas of Southern California logging into this account. Bottom line- nothing I placed in this article constitutes slander, and are all factually correct- just because I was bullied by another user here doesn't mean I should be banned.
Decline reason:
Let me see ... you freely suggest another editor "transparently has some mental issues or problems", then throw good faith to the winds, and want us to unblock you? I'd refer you to WP:NOTTHEM, but that seems to be the least of your problems. — Daniel Case ( talk) 14:09, 26 February 2013 (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.
Japandroids ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Nothing I did was ever considered vandalism. In fact, one editor believes if she keeps calling something vandalism, then it must be true. Everything I have contributed has actually been factually correct, even if it is considered inconveniently derogatory for a particular editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japandroids ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not so. Violation of NPA policy is vandalism, as is repeated violation of BLP policy. And you will need to address both concerns before an unblock could be considered.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 11:25, 2 March 2013 (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.
- Even if you remove this post as well: in the extremely remote scenario where a passing admin decides to unblock you without looking into the history, your user name would have to be changed. Japandroids is a musical group that you make no distinction between in spelling, and much as User:Led Zeppelin would be an inappropriate user name for WP, your user name is similarly not acceptable. That's how it is... Doc talk 08:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
With that said, sounds overall must easiert simply create another account and start over :) Seems like less of a hassle.
- You could, but if your new account were to be caught evading the Japandroids block, that account would be blocked and you'd earn the title of "sockpuppeteer". Since virtually all your edits are centered around one article, I don't think it would be that difficult to figure out who the new account was should the same behavior be repeated. Doc talk 02:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)