User talk:ATWA WOLF

January 2012
How convenient you people would find my contribution non-constructive! Any bit of information that might reveal something other than what you have been trained to believe is a "no-no" apparently. How sad that is:( I guess only YOUR word is law right? Well, I intend to appeal this by any means necessary and I will protest your actions against me!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Charles manson, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
 * 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. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place " " on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Charles manson was changed by ATWA WOLF (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2012-01-24T19:01:07+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Charles manson with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Calabe1992 19:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Helter Skelter (Manson scenario), you may be blocked from editing. -- WikHead (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Power Hungry Censorship!
I have no interest in the rant you've left on my talk page, nor am I interested in following up on the details. However, when a contributor blanks nearly the entire article (11,285 bytes from 70,448 bytes), removing categories, inter-wiki links, and other necessary components of the article, it is indeed blatant vandalism. This is why you were reverted, and I won't hesitate to revert again if such disruption continues. If you have a problem with the article's content, take your concerns to the article's talk page. Regards, -- WikHead (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Tgeairn (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.


 * Post whatever you like to your blogs, that's not my concern. This is proof that you did indeed blank the entire lower page as I stated above. You were reverted for it, and that's all that matters to me. -- WikHead (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL
If you go to the style guideline WP:WEASEL you'll see that unattributed weasel words are not permitted in Wikipedia.

Basically, anyone (allegedly) can (allegedly) add (alleged) weasel words to any sentence (it has been alleged). This can cause big problems, and isn't (allegedly) permitted unless you have an (allegedly) specific reliable that (allegedly) supports that it is (alleged) to be in doubt.

If you think about it, Wikipedia couldn't operate otherwise.

Anyway I expect you're going to be banned now.GliderMaven (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ATTA WOLF, I've reported you for edit warring. You might also like to consider why you are continuing to disrupt a serious encyclopedia in order to whitewash the history of a mass murderer. Not exactly a position most people would consider taking. Either way, its highly disruptive and you have failed to stop when multiple editors have asked you too, so please understand that any consequences that flow from your actions are your responsibility alone. Sparthorse (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Because you have attempted to evade your block by editing without signing in, I have extended the block to one week. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and yet further attempts at block evasion have led to an extension to 10 days. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Editing Wikipedia is not a right. WP:FREESPEECH. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only have you continued yet again to evade the block, but the nature of the block-evading editing you have done, including personal attacks and other unconstructive edits, have made it clear that you have no intention of fitting in to the collaborative approach on which Wikipedia works. The block has therefore been extended to indefinite. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)