[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Southern Adventist University]]. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT|collaborate]] with others and avoid editing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]].<br>
In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|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 [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you continue to edit war, you '''may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further notice.'''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:BelloWello|BelloWello]] ([[User talk:BelloWello|talk]]) 19:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 19:30, 25 April 2011
April 2008
Extended content
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Prescott Bush, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Prescott Bush was changed by Fountainviewkid (u)(t) deleting 7861 characters on 2008-04-02T14:41:52+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May 2008
Extended content
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Pensacola Christian College appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to MSNBC, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to A More Perfect Constitution appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.
Please do not edit messages by other users to change their wording. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August 2008
Extended content
Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Jacob Weisberg. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ThaddeusB (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
January 2009
Extended content
Your edit to Strikebreaker appears to be vandalism, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
February 2009
Extended content
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bob Herbert. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. NcSchu(Talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fountainviewkid. You have new messages at AgnosticPreachersKid's talk page. Message added 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Out of curiosity, why do you have nested collapsing threads on your talk page? --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, because I saw it on a page and decided I liked the idea. I accidentally did it to all of them, and didn't feel like redoing it. What's ur recent interest in my User talk:Fountainviewkid page, if I may ask?
Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
National Conservative Political Action Committee, etc.
Extended content
Please refrain from inserting your own point of view into Wikipedia articles.
I have twice reverted your edits at National Conservative Political Action Committee because your changes misrepresented the content of the cited source. The statement was about what Time magazine said about the organization. Time said "ultraconservative." You are not entitled to change that to your own interpretation of what the word should be.
Regarding your edit to Jonathan Alter, you are entitled to have an opinion regarding his political views, your point of view does not belong in an article, and we never put that kind of characterization in an article lead sentence. --Orlady (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, your habit of collapsing threads on this page is not going to win you a lot of friends at Wikipedia. It is extraordinarily difficult to read the content here. --Orlady (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove relevant citations. You are inserting your own viewpoint into the article. Time used "ultraconservative" and "conservative" interchangeably. Based on the title of the organization and the page it reverts to "Conservative" is more appropriate, and less biased. I am using a more neutral point of view. It's interesting that you are fine with using neutral terminology for Jonathan Alter, but refuse to do the same for National Conservative Political Action Committee. I would suggest you do one or the other. Either Ultraconservative & left wing or Conservative & no description. It's your choice but be consistent. Oh and there are plenty of political "characterizations" in lead sentences all over Wikipedia. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. The lead paragraphs of the Time magazine article consistently used the word "ultraconservative" (also "right-wing") to describe these organizations. The fact that the word "conservative" appears later in the article does not change the Wikipedia article's statement, i.e., that "Time magazine characterized NCPAC, the Conservative Caucus and the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress (headed by Paul Weyrich) as the three most important ultraconservative organizations making up the New Right." Here's what the Time article says (emphasis added):
Block the SALT treaty? "We'll fight it to the end," says Howard Phillips, 38, a husky Bostonian who heads one of the ultraconservative groups that are raising millions to oppose ratification. "In the long run we lose only if we fail to fight."
Unite Protestant fundamentalists and Catholic ethnics into a political bloc by emphasizing emotional "family" issues? "A year or two ago nothing was happening," says Paul Weyrich, 36, a former TV reporter who leads another right-wing organization. "Now we're moving."
Chop down some of the Senate's most prominent Democrats? "Of course, we can do it," says Terry Dolan, 28, chairman of a third ultraconservative organization.
Your edits had the effect of putting different words in the source's mouth.
2. The source that I removed is slightly relevant to the article because it mentions NCPAC, but it has zero relevance to the sentence where you cited it. The sentence is the one about the Time magazine description of NCPAC, and your source says nothing about that. See WP:Citing sources.
3. Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons applies to the article Jonathan Alter. Your now-repeated addition of the term "left-wing" to the lead section of that article to that article violates that policy. If you persist, your edit access will be blocked. You may consider this your only warning. --Orlady (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Already responded on the article page. Remember, however, to use a neutral point of view, which the term "ultraconservative" is not.
2. The source is very relevant to where it is cited. If you want I will edit that complete section so that we have more than one source.
3. Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons also applies to the article Richard G. Colling. If you persist in your endeavors on this page, then your access should be blocked. To be consistent either we eliminate both leading terms or we allow them both. You should stick to your pages rather than coming over to my pages and trying to undo every edit I have made.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2010 (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).
personal grievance being taken out over other issues
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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.
The request for unblocking is not "personal grievance being taken out over other issues". Vianello Please see below for full explanation. Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2010 (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).
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Your statement shows no acknowledgement of the nature of what you have done, and it appears that you would do the same again. If a source clearly and unambiguously characterises an organisation as "ultraconservative" then to edit war to repeatedly replace this by a different description is to deliberately misrepresent the source, and it certainly looks as though this was done with the intention of giving preference to a different point of view than the source showed. To describe this as trying to give the article a more "neutral point of view" is to completely misunderstand what "neutral point of view" means in Wikipedia terms. Similar considerations apply to your other edits. If you sincerely cannot see the nature of what you have been doing then you would be likely to repeat the same errors. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2010 (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.
JamesBWatson (talk why not go to dispute resolution first before blocking? Isn't that generally the Wikipedia policy? I added other relevant citations along with the Time article. Why should Time be the only allowed source? Those citations should not have been removed, one pro conservative, and one more skeptical of conservative. Also with the Richard G. Colling article why should a random description about a controversial issue be allowed to be inserted in the first paragraph? There is a strong inconsistency here. You say the Time article is right for it's insertions of controversial terms, and yet you freely allowed this to be done on Richard G. Colling. The Richard G. Colling article was fine, until it was edited wrongly by someone who didn't like my edits on a few other pages. Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you take some time to familiarize yourself with WP:Lead section. The lead section of an article like Richard G. Colling should contain some indication of what it is that makes the person notable, which is something the lead section of that article did not do until I added the information that I added. The information I added was (and is) fully supported by the text of the article and the sources cited therein. Reading WP:Lead section and WP:BLP might help you understand why the words "left-wing" did not belong in the lead sentence of Jonathan Alter -- it was your persistence in making that addition that caused me to block you, but your overall edit pattern contributed to my decision. --Orlady (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should stick to your pages rather than coming over to my pages and trying to undo every edit I have made.
They are not your articles; they are the community's articles and may be edited at will by anyone within common sense and basic guidelines. –MuZemike 19:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry
Extended content
It appears that you have created a second account in order to circumvent the block that was placed on this account. At Wikipedia, the use of multiple accounts for purposes deception is seriously frowned upon. As discussed at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, the general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. If you wish to avoid additional sanctions and return to good standing as a Wikipedia contributor, you should refrain from using additional accounts. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I'm just waiting for the 72 hours to expire so I can go back to regular editing. I won't be visiting Jonathan Alter or any of the other articles of debate anytime soon. As for sock puppetry, I know what it is, but I am not exactly sure how it concerns me here. I can't edit anything for a couple days anyway. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser has verified this user's connection with the sockpuppet account Austudent1. See User talk:Austudent1. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, and the duplicity in your responses related to it, I have reset your block. Kuru(talk) 14:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kuru, Why do you keep blocking me? Am I ever going to be able to edit Wikipedia here? Why extend the block? You are essentially just continuing this forever. I might as well just leave Wikipedia since all you seem to do is keep extending blocks --Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2010 (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).
I made some editing mistakes on Jonathan Alter, National Conservative Political Action Committee, and Richard G. Colling. I was blocked for 72 hours. The block has been extended under accusations that I have two accounts. Supposedly another new user has edited several pages, one of which is similar to my edit. I looked at the new user account User talk:Austudent1 and noticed, however, that there are distinct differences between the two. Please allow my block to expire after the first 72 hours.
Decline reason:
If we accepted your word that there are "distinct differences", we'd be like that guard in the joke about the guy who drives up to a checkpoint on a steep slope with his car having a broken emergency brake. So, the guard holds down the brake in the front while the driver opens the trunk and then asks "Is there any contraband in there?" We decide to block people as sock puppets based on our investigations, not their say-so that they're not. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2010 (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.
Checkusers can use technical processes to determine Socks, not just behavioural ... and you'd be amazed how far honesty goes when technical determination has been made (SOCK is usually indefinite block) (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have some evidence that appears to link the two accounts, but you have no absolute proof. Supposedly my IP address is blocked even if I wanted to create another account. I only have one personal computer. Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's just too bad, isn't it? We have evidence, yes we do, if Checkuser's been used. We do not have to disclose this, and we don't because doing so would conceivably make it easier for people to sockpuppet. But I can tell you it's very thorough, and if more than one administrator with access to the Checkuser tool believes the accounts match, that's a lock. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is too bad that you have so much faith in technology that is not 100% reliable. Of course there are some similarities, but it's also possible that the technology only looks at these and doesn't weed out the differences. It is dangerous when we rely too much on either man or machine (so to speak). Wikipedia seems to make both of these errors, in spite of the good it does. You may think you have a lock but you can't because I only have this one account. The only way I would ever have a second account is if the block just continued (which with the one Administrator this seems to be the case). I would just like to get back to regular editing. Adding proper citations on a link shouldn't constitute blocking for such a long period of time. Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
April 2011
Extended content
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (Fountainviewkid) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.
There are two issues with this:
It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. The article in question is [[Fountain View Academy]]. Thank you. BelloWello (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I have had this username for a very long time. You are right in that it is based on [[Fountain View Academy]], where I was a student several years ago. I use this username many places and have not had a problem with it. I believe however that you are exaggerating this issue. For example, if a person were to be a fan of a sports team and put "Bearsfan1" would you attack them as working on behalf of the Bears organization (be in University of California or Chicago NFL team)? The fact that my username just happens to be similar to an organization need not imply that I work on behalf of that organization. If you would notice I do not regularly edit pages relating to that organization, as I have no official ties other than having graduated high school there. If there were a true conflict of interest I would probably change my account, however none currently exists. Thank-you for the suggestions. Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 1:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.BelloWello (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]