User talk:WEWhistleBlower

Hello, WEWhistleBlower! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! DoubleBlue (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Serious violation of NPOV

While I had unblocked you, that did not free you from your responsibility to contribute in a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You have previously been accused of having come to Wikipedia only to push your agenda which includes publishing negative information about Remo Mancini. Since I unblocked you, you continued your campaign to smear Remo Mancini. You are now blocked indefinitely for continued failure to observe Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Toddst1 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Blocking of My Account by User: Toddst1

Regarding the indefinite blocking of my account by User: Toddst1for reverting the [Remo_Mancini] article to that which User:DanielRigal and I jointly authored and which quoted referenced articles from the Windsor Star newspaper, please note that I was merely following the instructions which are posted on the header of the [Remo_Mancini] article which clearly state: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately".

The material which was replaced by the prior version was poorly sourced and, given the Windsor Star articles which User:DanielRigal and I cited, were palpably contentious (as well as fallacious).

Having said that, would User: Toddst1 kindly explain how I 'smeared' anyone and further, how the reversion of the article was anything other than neutral in its point of view?

I did nothing wrong and ask that User: Toddst1 kindly unblock my account.

WEWhistleBlower (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Regarding the indefinite blocking of my account by User: Toddst1for reverting the [Remo_Mancini] article to that which User:DanielRigal and I jointly authored and which cited referenced articles from the Windsor Star newspaper, please note that I was merely following the instructions which are posted on the header of the [Remo_Mancini] article which clearly state: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately". The material which I replaced (with the prior version) was poorly sourced and, given the Windsor Star articles which User:DanielRigal and I jointly cited and referenced, was palpably contentious (as well as fallacious). Blocking Administrators are invited to read the comments of User:DanielRigal on Talk:Remo_Mancini and see for themselves how User:DanielRigal had expressed concerns that there was a concerted effort by certain anonymous editors and registered editors since mid-April 2009 to 'whitewash' the problems at the WEDC. User:DanielRigal went so far as to state that he may very well revert the article back to that which User:DanielRigal and I jointly authored and cited. What I did was exactly that - I reverted the article back to that which User:DanielRigal and I jointly authored and cited. Having said that, would User: Toddst1 kindly explain how my following explicit instructions on the header of the Remo_Mancini article and doing precisely what User:DanielRigal stated that he might do in any way constitutes a "continued campaign to smear Remo Mancini"? Futhermore, would User: Toddst1 kindly explain how, given that the version of the article that I reverted to was jointly authored and cited by both User:DanielRigal and I could be anything other than neutral in its point of view? I have done nothing wrong and ask that Blocking Administrators kindly unblock my account in order that the integrity of Wikikpedia (which has been called into question by this unwarranted blocking of my account) may be restored.

Decline reason:

You clearly violated the Three Revert Rule at the article in question, one at which you have a long history of tendentious editing. Given this history, your prior unblock under the condition that you tread carfully, and the lack of assurances that you will not continue to be disruptive in this manner, I can find no valid reason to unblock you at this time. You may want to try to focus your future unblock requests on assuring administrators that you will not continue to violate policies such as WP:EDITWAR and WP:NPOV and WP:3RR in the future rather than nitpicking the details of wording behind this valid block. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:26, 1 May 2009 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Regarding the indefinite blocking of my account by User: Toddst1for simply reverting the [Remo_Mancini] article to that which User:DanielRigal and I jointly authored and which cited referenced articles from the Windsor Star newspaper, please note that I was merely following the instructions which are posted on the header of the [Remo_Mancini] article which clearly state: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately". The material which I replaced (with the prior version) was poorly sourced and, given the Windsor Star articles which User:DanielRigal and I jointly cited and referenced, was palpably contentious (as well as fallacious). Blocking Administrators are invited to read the comments of User:DanielRigal on Talk:Remo_Mancini and see for themselves how User:DanielRigal had expressed concerns that there was a concerted effort by certain anonymous editors and registered editors since mid-April 2009 to 'whitewash' the problems at the WEDC. User:DanielRigal went so far as to state that he may very well revert the article back to that which User:DanielRigal and I jointly authored and cited. What I did was exactly that - I reverted the article back to that which User:DanielRigal and I jointly authored and cited. Having said that, would User: Toddst1 kindly explain how my following explicit instructions on the header of the Remo_Mancini article and doing precisely what User:DanielRigal stated that he might do in any way constitutes a "continued campaign to smear Remo Mancini"? Futhermore, would User: Toddst1 kindly explain how, given that the version of the article that I reverted to was jointly authored and cited by both User:DanielRigal and I could be anything other than neutral in its point of view? I have done nothing wrong and ask that Blocking Administrators kindly unblock my account in order that the integrity of Wikikpedia (which has been called into question by this unwarranted blocking of my account) may be restored. WEWhistleBlower (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but this doesn't persuade me that you understand what the problem was with your edits, or that you would edit differently if unblocked. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:04, 3 May 2009 (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.