User talk:The Man Hole

Pippen

There are several problems with your edits. As I said, the material isn't supported by the sources you're using. Also, much of the content is simply copied word-for-word, making it a copyright infringement.

Even if the material was presented correctly, it would still be better to wait until more information is available. Wikipedia is not a tabloid; we should try to be responsible and mature. Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zagalejo^^^ 01:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing what you are trying to reference here. Which notice board incident are you talking about?The Man Hole (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has already been archived (not by me), but here's a link: [1] Zagalejo^^^ 05:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TMZ

Material that is from TMZ or indirectly sourced to TMZ is not acceptable in a BLP. If you reinsert that material, you will be blocked from editing.—Kww(talk) 02:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Your recent editing history at Scottie Pippen shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Dusti^*poke* 02:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello. Your recent edit to List of multi-level marketing companies appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is strictly YOUR opinion. You are not in charge of Wikipedia, nor are you in charge of that list.The Man Hole (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is the consensus guideline for all similar lists, as you can see from the link in my message. And it's explicitly the requirement for that specific list-of article, as that article itself states at the beginning. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a list for people, not businesses.The Man Hole (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Here is is: WP:STANDALONE. DMacks (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of multi-level marketing companies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. This is your second warning of this kind in less than two weeks. If you are unable to collaborate with editors, you risk being blocked and your access to edit articles removed, potentially on a permanent basis. If you need help with collaboration, please don't hesitate to contact me. I'll post some links below this message to help you. Dusti^*poke* 06:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Welcome![reply]

Hello, The Man Hole, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dusti^*poke* 06:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The block also covers your repeated reinsertion of copyrighted material after several warnings. You also need to review WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP. Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

There was no edit warring. I was attempting to add additional material to the Scotty Pippen article regarding a $4 million lawsuit that was just filed against him today regarding the assault incident that took place several weeks ago. A fan of Pippen's has been repeatedly blanking the information in the Pippen article regarding the assault incident despite the fact that it has been reported in major news sources across the country. This block is completely unjustified. See, e.g., http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-scottie-pippen-lawsuit-20130711,0,6616968.story With regards to the claim that I was attempting to insert copyright materials, that claim is also completely bogus. This block was made for 'edit warring', not for copyright violations. In fact, there were no copyright violations. Just a Chicago Bulls fan trying to blank the article.

Decline reason:

There was edit warring to keep in a copyright violation. No thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:47, 12 July 2013 (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.

I initially blocked for blatant edit-warring: you don't get a pass by waiting a couple of days to resume the reverts. I then checked for copy/paste, since you'd been warned for that too, so you're blocked for that too. You reinstated a word-for-word copy of copyrighted material. I'm not interested in who you think is a Bulls fan. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that the LA Times article gives a significantly different picture than the version you keep reverting. Pippen hasn't been charged, arrested or convicted. Did you read WP:BLPCRIME yet? Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well since I wasn't even done editing, you don't know what I was going to put in there. You issued the block as soon as I started working. So you're claim is BS.The Man Hole (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Well how about instead of slamming the editor who tried to add the assault investigation information, you ladies get up off your asses and fix the article to your specifications so that this valuable information is included in a manner you see fit? Or would that be too much like work?The Man Hole (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your appeal does not address the reason you were blocked (adding copyright information and edit warring to keep it in). Insulting other editors is not going to help your case. kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:09, 13 July 2013 (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.

I'm not going to comment on the block itself, but I should note that there is material on the lawsuit in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 05:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doyley. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Deniable encryption because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Doyley Talk 09:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your vandalism.The Man Hole (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Deniable encryption, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Doyley Talk 09:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring at Deniable encryption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't edit warring. Some fucking jerk off came by and kept deleting the article over and over and over and did not provide an explanation. Deleting without explanation is vandalism, isn't it? Anyways, this asshole just kept doing it over and over so I got tired of his BS. As you can see, he deleted the article SEVEN TIMES - all without explanation. Why isn't he blocked, then?The Man Hole (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:35, 19 July 2013 (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.

.

You say "I wasn't edit warring". Do you know what "edit warring" means? You repeated the same edit seven times over a period of 26 minutes. That is edit warring.
Nobody "kept deleting the article", somebody just kept deleting the text that you kept adding.
If you have read the guide to appealing blocks, as you were advised to do before posting an unblock request, you will know that complaining that another editor has not been blocked will not help your appeal at all. However, since you ask, I will tell you, as a matter of information. The other editor had never been warned about edit warring, so I warned him. You, however, had already not only been warned, but had previously been blocked for edit warring, so you needed no more warning.
Are you sure that you have done enough by calling the other editor a "fucking jerk off" and an "asshole"? Are you sure you wouldn't like to throw in a few more remarks like that, just to make sure your unblock request gets the best chance of being accepted? Because of course Wikipedia administrators are far more likely to unblock you if you go in for such infantile name-calling. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. You didn't say anything to him as there is nothing on his page about it. Plus, anybody who makes a big thing about how fast he can fix vandalism to his talk page (like this guy does) has got to be an asshole! Seriously, who brags about the fact that their talk page gets vandalized so much? Why would someone have that many enemies that this becomes an issue?!? The Man Hole (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that "no you didn't" means that you think I didn't warn Doyley about edit warring. If that is what you meant, then you can see that I did so in this edit, and that the reason that "there is nothing on his page about it" is that he removed it five minutes later, as you can see here. However, don't feel too embarrassed about making that mistake, because it isn't really a big deal. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Its guys like this clown Doyley who make Wikipedia not fun for normal editors. You don't just wander by and start blanking text without an explanation and not expect people to get upset about it. Why do you think that so very few people stick around here an edit for any length of time? Its because of jerks like Doyley. Whatever, block / unblock, do what you want. Wikipedia is not my life and I have better things to do then fight with some random idiot.The Man Hole (talk) 5:09 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I doubt you really expected that request to work. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:00, 20 July 2013 (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.

I've also removed access to your talk page for the remainder of your block. Hopefully, you'll learn some civility during that time among other things otherwise I forsee your time editing Wikipedia to not last much longer. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]