User talk:Audreetucker

Canterbury University (Seychelles)
I am attempting to introduce an unbiased view on this topic. It is important to be fair enough to introduce  both sides of this issue, as both sides still clamor to be heard. Or has objectivity in reporting now died completely? Are we to only publish what we wish to be seen in an attempt to bias one side or another? I most assuredly hope that Wikipedia is big enough to objectively report all views in an reasoned manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verifiability, based on reliable sources. Personal essays and rationalizations are not accepted. Online forums are not reliable sources. --Orlady (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Orlady, you are correct. Personal essays and rationalizations are not acceptable - which is why I'm not making them. Instead, I am actually introducing unbias to a horrifically slanted article which you apparently take quite personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Orlady (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, Orlady - I recommend you contact Wikipedia and ask them to rule in favor of one of us. It takes two to tango. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please continue discussion on the article's Talk page. Also, please sign your talk page comments. Type four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your signature. --Orlady (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Orlady, from reviewing the talk page, many other users have had similar concerns. If you feel that a further discussion of something which has not already been tackled is warranted, then you can certainly let me know. But unlike some people, I do not live at my computer, feverishly debating Wikipedia adjustments. I am happy to contribute to the discussion if you have a new insight? Perhaps you haven't read the entire discussion yet? I highly recommend it, and find that I agree with a great deal of it. I believe that it is not asking too much to demand an unbiased article which allows BOTH allegations/sides to the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked 31 hours for edit warring, and for sock puppetry with your IP address as evidenced at Sockpuppet_investigations/Audreetucker. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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. --Orlady (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Orlady: You are apparently under the impression that you can dictate. Please share your credentials, then. Are you a direct employee of Wikimedia? Or, are you merely an amateur hack who is getting her jollies by being Big Frog in Small Pond?

YOUR content is not constructive, nor is it welcomed. It is harassment to continue to divulge personal and innacurrate information about someone. None of this information is available in any books or press releases which Percival Davis has made.

Wikimedia has been contacted and although YOU are not on a need-to-know basis in this matter, they are. If you choose to bring your friends into this war, everyone could be ultimately adversely affected. You obviously have an axe to grind since we disagreed about a poorly written article in another section of Wikipedia. Therefore, you've traced my edits on other articles and you've chosen to harass me this way: This is not wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 23:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Note that I have counted both your logged in and logged out edits here, and blocked your account and IP for the same duration. Kevin (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)