User talk:Reaction93

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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Splorksplorksplork (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of [Jordan Belfort] to a spam-laden hagiography is unwarranted. Please have a look at the guidelines on objectivity and then add to the discussion on the talk page for the article if you don't agree.Splorksplorksplork (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe your edits of [Jordan Belfort] are NOT spam, then please engage in a discussion of the issue rather than repeatedly reverting edits. Unsourced phrases such as "Typically motivational speakers focus on their successes, but Belfort also focuses on his failures and how he made those mistakes" are far from objective and are clearly closer to advertising than an encyclopaedia article. Splorksplorksplork (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring, if you continue to add non neutral content without discussion, you will be blocked. Please discuss your edits on the article talk page. If you are the subject of the article, you may wish to read WP:ASFAQ. Let me know if you have any questions regarding editing Wikipedia. --Leivick (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You have been blocked for 24 hours for continually adding advertising content to Wikipedia. After your block expires, you may take any concerns you may have to the article talk page. I will ask you again to engage with other editors and work with them rather than revert warring, you will find that most people here will be happy to help new users. However continued attempts to add non neutral content to articles will result in indefinite blocks. --Leivick (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that while I was in the process of blocking you that you contacted me on my talk page. This is an excellent first step. When you block expires, I will be happy to help improve the article. Take a look at my response on my talk a page for further details. --Leivick (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I desire: for the article to reflect the full picture. I would urge to review the "objectionable" posting carefully, and you will see that every word comes from a newspaper.

I have reset the block due to attempts at evasion. Just because it "come from a newspaper" doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. I urge you to discuss this on the talk page without reverting to your version once your block expires. --Leivick (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2009 (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 may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Reaction93 (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"History as a former" is poor grammar[edit]

Your edits to Jordan Belfort, namely changing "known for his history as a stock market manipulator" to "known for his history as a former stock market manipulator" is to insert a redundant clause. The sentence doesn't need "former" to establish that the criminal behaviour is something that happened in the past and is no longer occurrinng. For example, compare "George W Bush was President of the US" with "George W Bush was a former President of the US". The second is clearly wrong. So with Belfort we can write either "known as a former stock market manipulator" or "known for his history as a stock market manipulator". Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, this has been completed corrupted with a very negative slant. The opening paragraph had been agreed upon by the page bnarrator, and muct be changed back it its original from. In fact, Jordan Belfort is not a corpoarte criminal. He owned his owned company and was not part of the generation of CEOs who defrauded corporate America. He is a white collar criminal. I am changing that back right now, and I will wait to change the rest of the page until I recive feedback. But I will not wait long. THis has been an outright trash-job Reaction93 (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to discuss a page, you should do it on the article's discussion page, not your own talk page. Also, PLEASE SIGN your contributions to the discussion page by using four tildes (these things ~) Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]