User talk:FatherTeresa

Welcome!

Hello, FatherTeresa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Michael Kimmelman, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 21:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Michael Kimmelman. bonadea contributions talk 23:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article's talk page instead of simply reinstating your edits - but note that this policy applies to all Wikipedia pages, including talk pages. --bonadea contributions talk 23:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Longhair\^talk 00:07, 28 May 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Outsider information not allowed? Subject not allowing edits

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:29, 28 May 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

will fix critical phrases, but citations are important for context

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If individuals are unable to cooperate with others they must be excluded. You need to face that is what happened to you. PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2018 (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 see that outsiders cannot add more balanced citations to the existing article which is being protected and content must be non-critical. Still, some existing quotes are out of context and some phrases are weak and need “citation added” .... each edit I made was one at a time so they could be viewed individually, but it seems that no edits are allowed on this page? My requests and edits have been much more detailed than your reversions and blocking. Wikipedia is supposed to be for everybody, and this profile of an important architecture critic is not getting the balanced citations it deserves—including those from Architect’s Newspaper, New York Observer, and the subject’s own words that accurately describe the subject’s own approach. If you don’t like a few phrases, I’ve tried to change them. This kind of censorship is bad for the public. FatherTeresa (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

generic blocking with no specific reasons

Decline reason:

I am puzzled by Longhair's description of the block as being for vandalism, as your editing does not look to me remotely like vandalism. However, you are clearly here for the sole purpose of making an article conform to your personal view of how it should be, and have shown no willingness at all to collaborate or to take notice other editor's concerns, and you have persistently edited contrary to Wikipedia's policies. You are unlikely to be unblocked unless you show that you understand of those issues, and that you will henceforth avoid doing the same things.

I do understand your complaints about the lack of specific information about what the problems with your editing have been, and so, in the hope of helping you understand, here are a few of the things you have done which are no in line with the way Wikipedia works.

Despite using lack of citations as grounds for removing content written by other editors, and your statments about your own use of citations, you have sometimes added significant claims which are not supported by the sources you have ostensibly cited them to.

You have posted your own commentary and opinions, in violation of both the policy on neutral point of view and that on biographies of living persons, as for example here, here, and here.

You have very frequently used edit summaries which grossly misrepresent the nature of your edits, as for example here, here, here, here, here, and here That looks like a deliberate misrepresentation in order to hide the nature of what you are doing, but it may merely be incompetence; either way it does not encourage us to think that you can be trusted to edit in acceptable ways. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2018 (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.

My detailed citations and reasons have only been responded to with generic sentiments about content. is anyone actually reading the content? Your one line reasons are not sufficient, especially when you make no reference to actual content.