User talk:Albert14nx05y

Lark Voorhies[edit]

I apologize for referring to your edits to this article as "vandalism", as I do believe you are making them in good faith. However, claiming a living person is a member of a "cult" is not something that we can do unless that information is sourced to a highly reliable reference. The information you wish to add to the article is already in the article, and it is in the article without us referring to the Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult. I hope this clears things up. Chickenmonkey 09:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's good. Thanks for pointing that out.Albert14nx05y (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Harvey Levin. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used was a photograph of the subject himself in military uniform. While you can quibble about where is actual duty station was, the fact that he was a meber of the Air Guard cannot be disputed. The picture is what it is. Albert14nx05y (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he was in the Air National Guard is not particularly important to the article, but if you can't say where or when, it becomes even less noteworthy. As an aside, you don't need the picture to just say he was in the Air National Guard - the tiny bit of prose says that. The picture, without the prose, would not be enough. I suggest you let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military service is an important event in a person's life. There are whole pages on Wikipedia listing the names of famous people along with their branch of service. An example is here: list of US Marines So what is the problem with listing Levin's service? Made because you never served this issue is not important to you. But for thoese of us who did, it is important. Levin is plainly wearing a sergeant's uniform of the Vietnam-era Air National Guard. It is what it is. FYI - I did provide his duty station - it was Reseda, CA.

You've taken the issue to the article Talk page, a good thing, so let's see what other editors think.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Raven-Symoné. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Raven-Symoné, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Citing sources. It is not up to me to "look it up" to find out whether this is true. It is up to you to prove it concretely by citing a reliable secondary source that proves the fact you are trying to assert. As of now, all we have are gossip columns asking "is she or isn't she?" and we have no concrete assertion of any fact about her sexuality. Elizium23 (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment removed due to BLP violation) Elizium23 (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time at the moment, but tomorrow I'll consider how to handle your editing style and comments on Wikipedia. The above comment is inappropriate, just as many of your other comments are.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we set up a vote on the Levin thing to see what everyone else thinks? Albert14nx05y (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

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 or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Short Bus, 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 read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit-warring BLP violations into Raven-Symoné. Any administrator can unblock when editor agrees not to edit-war rumours into articles. 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.

—Kww(talk) 21:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely unacceptable to quote rumors about someone's personal life on Wikipedia. The "source" you used specifically states that it's a rumor, so it's plainly unacceptable here. I've deleted the revision and Kww beat me to the block. I've also reinstated your removals of your signatures. Attempting to conceal your identity by removing the sigs is disruptive on its own. Acroterion (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (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).

Albert14nx05y (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Kww has a long history of tossing out, in what my opinion are, bogus edit blocks. I spent around 45 minutes today going through his history and have found block after block after block for extremely specious reasons. His claim of a so-called "edit war" on the Raymond-Simon article does not pass the smell test. Only two edits regarding the subject [removed due to WP:BLP] were made by me. The sources used were Ramond-simon's own words in which she raised this issue. Obviously, Kww has a personal issue with this. He should not have been the one placing the block. But, again, Kww has a long and well-documented history of handing out blocks for extremely weak reasons. In any event, I agree not to edit war alleged rumors into articles. But, again, I would point out that the so-called rumors were, in fact, words coming out of her own mouth. And what better source could that be? Lastly, to hand out a permanent block for something like this is ridiculous and just shows how far off the track Kww really is. NO ONE that I can find has EVER received a permanent ban for an alleged 'edit war' in which only two edits were made.

Decline reason:

You were indeed edit warring to add content that clearly violated the Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy, under the circumstances it wasn't necessary for you to cross the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR to be blocked. As for the unblock request, you not only failed to adequately address the reasons for your block, but you attacked the blocking admin as well, neither of which is a good idea; I'd suggest carefully reviewing Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks if you plan to appeal this block again. Dreadstar ☥ 22:06, 21 May 2012 (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.

Actually, you didn't receive a permanent block, you received an indefinite block. It will only last as long as it takes to receive a credible assurance that these problems won't repeat themselves. That could have been a matter of minutes, but your first pass at it certainly failed to convince anyone. Now that you've dug your hole deeper, your only real option is to try again with a little bit more of a sign that you understand why your edits were unacceptable in the first place.—Kww(talk) 00:20, 22 May 2012 (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).

Albert14nx05y (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay. Well I have had a day or so to reflect about this. I am sorry and will try to avoid this from happening again. I apologise. Albert14nx05y (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Do, or do not do; there is not try. Read also WP:GAB, you shall, before again requesting (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:13, 22 May 2012 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Albert14nx05y (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have had several days to think about this. I am sorry and it won't happen again. Please unblock me.Albert14nx05y (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I'm going to assume that you're sincere, as I don't see any indication otherwise, and unblock you. If you really understand what the problem was, I think you'll be fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I unblock you, I just want to make sure that you get why your actions were problematic. If you can demonstrate you understand that, with the blocking admin's consent I'll unblock you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have my consent. When I made the initial block, I included "Any administrator can unblock when editor agrees not to edit-war rumours into articles". If you are concerned that his agreement is insincere, go ahead and discuss it with him further.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha; I just wanted to double-check on all counts here. Rather be safe than sorry. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unwise choice of first edits[edit]

This addition of unsourced information to a BLP makes me question the sincerity of your agreement. Don't continue down this path.—Kww(talk) 11:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hardly unwise since the information is all over the net. just google it like I did.

You didn't read my comment above. The burden is not on us to look it up, it's on you to prove it! Elizium23 (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=Lindsay+Pulsipher&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7RNQN_enUS468

No one cares how easy it is to look up. If you add the information, you add the source. If you continue to add unsourced information to BLPs, your block will be reinstated.—Kww(talk) 10:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, I have to say I agree with Albert14nx05y. Has Lindsay Pulsipher birth date been an issue in the past?

This is a case of WP:CHALLENGE, i.e. only "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed". I've been doing this a long time and I would have added that information without sourcing it, since I wouldn't think it "likely to be challenged".

Additionally I don't see how burden applies, since her date of birth isn't going to "damage the reputation of living people"

However, now that it has been challenge, it should be cited, but I think that things need to be calmed down here. It is not required that every sentence on a page be cited.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is source now using the NY times ant IMBd.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Albert14nx05y, you really really need to sign your comments. No one know who is posting them unless you do. Just hit the "~~~~" choice in the edit window and it will add it for you.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he tends to latch on to rumors, never properly cites material, and can't seem to tell the difference between them and facts. Elizium23 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Elizium, the problem is that I am being STALKED by you on Wikipedia and I am getting damn sick of it. I have asked you before to stop, yet you keep on doing it. FYI - the so-called "rumor" about Jena are words from her OWN MOUTH in an interview. Albert14nx05y (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a fact for you Elizium23 - http://www.biography.com/people/jena-malone-17176434

“The product of a one-night stand, Malone was raised by her mother, Debbie Malone, and her godmother – her mother's lover. Although she only met her father once, as a four-year-old, Malone says she did not miss the absence of a father figure: "The thing is, I had two loving parents. Love in any shape or form is a beautiful thing. I didn't grow up missing my father." ” Albert14nx05y (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HOUND#Wikihounding

June 2012[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Albert14nx05y. 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. Please be careful with accusations, because if they are unfounded, they can be taken as personal attacks. Elizium23 (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for proving my point.

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones[edit]

I have answered your question at the Teahouse/questions

You must not consider any of those. Instead, immediately seek administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC) at the Teahouse/questions -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. thanks. Albert14nx05y (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ...

? ?[edit]

... I was interrupted mid-flow, altering the Talkback direction from my Talk page to Teahouse, and then, when I got back to you, I hit an edit conflict. Sorry for being a bit too quick to help. I hope you enjoyed some of the trawl through it all! Do you know what to do now? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I got it. thanks! Albert14nx05y (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I wanted to help you, because I have been experiencing a similar annoyance from one particularly irritating individual since April 18, and I wish that I had followed my advice to you earlier. All the best! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Albert14nx05y. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Worm^TT(talk) 17:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

I've taken your question a little further, given you my opinion on what's happening. It may not be what you want to hear, but hope it helps. Worm^TT(talk) 17:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man.

Nate Webster[edit]

If you want the information about Nate Webster's and wife and children in the article, you must provide a source. I also disagree with you adding the number of mothers being that it sounds a little derogatory. If you can provide a source and wish to add the information, add a personal life section (Family details shouldn't be in a legal trouble section) with something like this (just a suggestion): "Webster is married to Jennifer (Maiden name if available otherwise just say Jennifer). He has seven children, ___ with his wife, and ___ from previous relationships.(source)".--Rockchalk717 07:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The numbers of kids and numbers of mothers is a fact. i don't care if you think it is derogatory. Reality is what it is. Wishing so does not make it otherwise. Albert14nx05y (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring of unsourced information into BLPs.. 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.

—Kww(talk) 18:22, 8 June 2012 (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).

Albert14nx05y (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Kww is just being a jerk and trying to throw his weight around. Edit war? I think not. The number of kids Webster has is the number of kids Webster has. It is reality and not negotiable. Kww, I am sooo sick of your BS. Seriously, dude. Unblock me or not, whatever. But exposing you for the jerk you are is golden. I am just going to unplug my router right now and get a new IP so I can continue editing. Kww, being a jerk is a situation you can rectify. But you have to make the effort. And trying to toss your weight around on Wikipedia just shows what a jerk you are. In real life, I'd've stomped your head into the ground by now and would feel no more emotion about doing it then I feel when trying to decide whether to supersize my fries. Seriously. But, whatever. Kww, we can play this game as long as you want. You start acting like a jerk again, I just unplug my router again, ad infinitum. FIVE, FOUR, THREE, TWO, ONE....router unpluged. Cheers - Albert14nx05y (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests with personal attacks and threats of violence are not considered. I've removed your ability to edit this page. Kuru (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2012 (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.

That's charming. I leave you alone for a while - by request - and you come up with personal attacks, more edit warring, more unsourced BLP vios, vandalism of a random IP's talk page, an indef block, and open threats of sockpuppetry. Well mate, I'm going to continue to follow you with alacrity, because you are the disruptive one, and I have a mission on Wikipedia to root out and eliminate the disruptive element here. Elizium23 (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]