User talk:Bloggyelf

Welcome!

Hello, Bloggyelf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Verkhovensky (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to James Randi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Do not remove cited information about Randi being a self-described and vocal atheist. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding what Binksternet said above (as we were apparently writing out talk page messages simultaneously, resulting in an edit conflict for me), Listing a person's religion or lackthereof in the Infobox is indeed valid, particularly if it's relevant to the person's notability, which is why that option is given in Infoboxes. James Randi indeed talks about religion and his own atheism in his written works, so including it in the Infobox is well-founded. Three people have thus far indicated as much by reverting your three removals of that information [1],[2],[3], and with me, it makes four, which is a reasonable consensus. If you wish to discuss this matter, begin a discussion on the article's talk page, and explain why the above rationale is not valid. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James Randi. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at James Randi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

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. Courcelles 22:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Bloggyelf,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 01:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring, as you did at James Randi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

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. ƒox 01:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent removal of relevant, sourced content from the James Randi article without a valid rationale or edit summary, and ignoring two past blocks for this same behavior. This user needs to be made aware that James Randi's atheism is one of the reasons for which he is notable, and that when a consensus develops on a matter such as this, editing against that consensus, without a discussion or newer consensus, is not permitted. As six other editors have now opined that the material is valid for inclusion ([4][5][6][7][8][9]), Bloggyelf's insistence on ignoring this policy, and the numerous messages on this talk page to that effect, and continuing to disrupt the article without providing a valid rationale or even an attempt at discussion will result in longer and longer blocks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James Randi. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently removing valid, sourced content from the James Randi article, ignoring consensus, repeated warnings and four past blocks, and engaging in edit warring, the most recent violation being this edit, and possible violation of WP:Civility with this talk page edit. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Bloggyelf

A tag has been placed on User:Bloggyelf, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

it's pure vandalism and a possible sock of banned user JarlaxleArtemis

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]