User talk:24.224.214.165

December 2012
Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Oliver North, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Widr (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Oliver North is a criminal, regardless of whether he was pardoned. The article is entirely too lenient, and reads like a wishy-washy defense of his actions vis-a-vis the Iran Contra affair.24.224.214.165 (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * If the content I added could be regarded as defamatory, I suggest you look to the sources, which are reputable. This seems to me no less than a threat to not make changes that certain editors, such as Ronz, do not agree with. This is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia and troubling on a personal level.24.224.214.165 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pointing out these problems is no threat, and your change in behavior was the right thing to do. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My behvaiour has not changed. I have asked you to recuse yourself from this article, which you refuse to do, likely because then you would be less able to influence the content of the article. Threatening to block users is, indeed, a threat - and made solely because those edits do not conform to your POV. I believe that you continued use - and protection of - the term 'hunger strike' to be both inaccurate and in keeping with your POV. I change the article - with sourced references - and it is reverted, because in your personal opinion, it is a hunger strike. Well, opinion aside, the facts do not support this. I see in the talk page you question the WHO's definition of a hunger strike which includes only water, with no caloric intake. Your beahviour has been ridiculous ; I have rarely been so aggreived by the actions of an individual editor. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel this way. I'm glad you've changed your behavior. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying 'you changed your behaviour' does not make it so. Until you and other affiliated editors allow balance to be added to the article, my behaviour will not change. In fact, you have convinced myself and others that wikipedia is not deserving of our financial support - since editors with political views seem free to present only their views to the exclusion of all others. I would like for you to be honest and at least admit your editing has not been in good faith. If the sourced edits I made were defamatory, I would expect the media outlets publishing those articles to be sued. As this is not the case, it seems to me you are simply blowing hot air in order to revert changes you dont agree with. Thanks!! Oh - Just realized one of the original articles you complain about my editing is for Gregory VII - what a bunch of sophomores and child-level intellects I am dealing with here. I forgot, in wikipedia everything must be politically correct, even history which does not so easily conform to such humanist twaddle. Gregory was a thief and a murderer, and that is reflected in common history texts, but not in wikipedia because we must'nt offend the vatican. What a joke.
 * 24.224.214.165 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're only now looking at what I'm referring to. This explains a lot.
 * BLP doesn't apply to Gregory, but your comment did demonstrate the same behavior from you: attacking the subjects of articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to discuss your concerns?
Seems you're are extremely upset at what you see going on here on Wikipedia. I suggest you take some time away from all this, then come back later to discuss it. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ronz - I am deeply disturbed by your actions - threatening and harassing users, reverting legitimate edits, and pushing a biased, personal POV. You can answer for these allegations on their merits. Perhaps you should take a break, rather than continuing to insert your own personal viewpoints into the Theresa Spence article. Thanks! BTW - its you're or you are, not both. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. You seem frustrated and angry. I'm glad you've chosen turn your focus away from the subjects of biographical articles towards the articles themselves. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no animosity towards the subject of the articles. I have been frustrated by the inappropriate protection applied to this article, unbalanced editing and veiled threats being sent to those making clearly needed balance changes. Intimidation is not a substitute for debate. As I have clearly stated, it appears there is a subtle bias in the way information has been added to the article. I want an article that ensures that the controversy regarding the 'hunger strike' and other aspects of Spence's demands - ie. the audit - are given equal weight within the article as information that is more positive for Spence's reputation. I don't think this is an unfair request - reading the article in its present state one gets the feeling the editors support Spence's POV, which is less than ideal. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is poor as written. I don't think much can be done until far better sources are available to us. The press seems only interested in sensationalizing the situation as it develops - no one has bothered to even research and report a short biography on her yet. In such circumstances it's expected that the more controversial information will be trimmed per WP:BLP and the article will continue to be protected to prevent the most problematic editing from continuing.
 * In a few months the situation with Spence and how the press reports on her should be past. Then it should be much easier to rewrite the article. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole problem is your cherry picking of those very media reports. Balance in all things, I wish you would be able to understand that and apply it to the article. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing with these allegations is that they can all be examined by looking at sources. That's what WP:FOC reminds us to do. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for violating our policy on personal attacks. See WP:NPA. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Graham Colm (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm Dawn Bard. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mike Duffy because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dawn Bard (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Dawn Bard with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 12:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mike Duffy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent vandalism. 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Danger High voltage! 12:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

How about leaving the dishonourable epithet up? If not, I can always bombard the article with multiple sockpuppets. Should keep it interesting, n'est pas. Goddamn traitors.24.224.214.165 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm Moe Epsilon. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Brad Wall because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  17:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2013
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:GHcool, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

What a child.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for attempting to harass other users. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)