User talk:EllesmereOntario

June 2008[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.--John (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I provide references for what I include.EllesmereOntario (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. You are adding a sensationalized version of information that is already presented in a more balanced way. Get consensus for the changes you want to make in the talk page before adding them to the article, please. --John (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me anywhere else in the article where it plainly notes him expressing No harm, no foul re child prostitution (as he undoubtedly did), and I'll agree with you.

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Arthur C. Clarke. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Q ^{T C} 05:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it to be considered not notable for a public figure to state: "If the kids don't mind, so what." re child prostitution, as he did. If Tony Blair had said the same thing on the public record, should that be suppressed out of his bio too? Also, don't WP:GAME with intimidation efforts before you've even entered discussion on the matter. EllesmereOntario (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the onus is on you to get consensus in talk before adding it. --John (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2008 (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, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --John (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan to WP:GAME like that why do you do the exact same thing -4- time yourself .. and not issue yourself with the same warning. We're still waiting for the source from you which controverts the multiple sources already there re associates report of recollections and confirmations from the subject re his gay sexuality. How long will we have to wait. Or will you just continue to WP:GAME to avoid that pesky inconvenient requirement? EllesmereOntario (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Arthur C. Clarke. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do grown a brain. What "vandalism"? That just your word for what you don't like and can't contend against with appropriate truthful sources. Do you really even understand what that is and definitely isn't?? Sources are supplied and their content is reflected in the article. It's really very simple and straightforward. Go verify it. I encourage you to. I have. And don't blame me for how other people described and reported upon private confirmations of his sexuality and views on child prostitution. EllesmereOntario (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Your recent edit war at Arthur C Clarke, strong knowledge of policy as a new user and your apparent use of the sockpuppet account ContreJuif all suggests that this is the bad-hand account of an experienced user. I have therefore blocked this as a sock. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages|EllesmereOntario

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).

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

Request reason:

The issue is being productively talked out on the article talk page and you disrupt that with your silencing attempt

Decline reason:

It is good that your proposed changes are being discussed. The three-revert rule, however, is still in place, and you have broken it. Edit-warring is counterproductive- no one can ever win an edit-war. That's why we have a rule against it. When your block expires, seek consensus on the talk page before making the change in the article. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:32, 5 June 2008 (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.

For Talk:Arthur C. Clarke[edit]

"For that reason". What's "that reason" it's that "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field". Toby Johnson isn't 'anyone' 'claming to be an expert in a field'. He's an already WP:NOTABLE author with a known reputation, consequently, to protect. He's also otherwise known to have corresponded with and written about ACC. Using a little common sense here we can visit tobyjohnson.com and confirm that yes, it is indeed the author's personal website (no-one else's) and yes, he does report these things about ACC whom he'd previously written about, and that therefore it is just as attributable to him as anything otherwise in his published works. You do SO want to suppress the ?shameful? secret re ACC's "preference" that I'm sorry for you now. Do you seriously doubt that it is in fact Mr Johnson behind the site and postings and that the content thereof is fairly attributable to him alone as a known correspondent of and (if-you-like) 'expert' on certain aspects of ACC and his writings, representing the honest assessments and recollections of the same? It's not a pretend-Toby Johnson and Mr Johnson, from what he's otherwise had published, is not a pretent-expert on the particular subject matter either. The appropriateness of the additional categorisations and project inclusion is plain and evident. EllesmereOntario (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]