User talk:Avigilantone

Hi, Avigilantone. You seem pretty passionate about the former Mellon Arena. Unfortunately, I had to remove the essay you inserted into that article, as it's really not encyclopedic content. We can only include information and commentary that has garnered media attention; we are not a publisher of original thought. Your commentary is extensive, and would be much better suited to a blog or personal web site, rather than an encyclopedia page. If you have any questions, please let me know. Powers T 23:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC) I would like to emphasize that this is not an attempt to silence you or to suppress your opinion. But the insertion of your entire essay into our encyclopedia article is just not appropriate. If there are specific details missing from our article, please add them -- just not in the form you have used thus far. Powers T 10:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion should take place here, not via email. If you think phrasing like "And this is where we will begin with the 'Rest Of The Story'" and "In 1998, Howard Baldwin whined and complained to the Regional Asset District" is encyclopedic writing, you need to take a close look at WP:TONE.  While you're at it, give WP:UNDUE a read.  After all that, if you still think your content is worthy of inclusion in the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page, Talk:Civic Arena (Pittsburgh).  Thank you.  Powers T 01:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, I will not communicate with you via email. Use this forum.  Also again, my problem is not with the veracity of your contribution, it's with the unencyclopedic tone and the excessive detail into which your essay goes.  That level of detail would be fantastic on a dedicated web site, but that's not what we're here for.  I'm not going to enumerate every example of unencyclopedic phrasing, because the entire thing is rife with it.  For starters, it's written in the first person, and signed personally by you -- have you seen any other article on Wikipedia that's written that way?  No, and for good reason; we are an encyclopedia, and we must take a detached, third-person, observational tone.  We record what other sources report.
 * Your contributions have crossed the line from advocacy into ranting. Our encyclopedia must remain neutral regarding any controversial issue; your edits do not reflect that neutral point of view.  If you do not start contributing constructively, we will have no choice but to block you from editing.  Powers T 12:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Civic Arena (Pittsburgh) with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Calabe1992 (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Civic Arena (Pittsburgh). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 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 produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Civic Arena (Pittsburgh) was changed by Avigilantone (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.865601 on 2011-09-16T03:01:01+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reported you for vandalism. Posting personal commentary in articles is not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Civic Arena Commentary
I removed the commentary in your edit on the Civic Arena article. I see that you were warned on this previously. It is perfectly alright to edit articles to enhance them - especially so when you have 3rd party references. However, all articles have talk/discussion pages associated with them and discussion about the writing of the articles should take place there. I anticipate that there will be those who disagree with your edit. If this is the case, the appropriate process is to discuss your views on the talk page and not to include commentary in the articles.   Wikipelli Talk   13:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I came here to say much the same thing - we 've got a talk page for every single article, including this one. You can raise your concerns there. If you continue to add commentary to the actual article, as you've done with this edit and others, You may be blocked from editing. Please consider this your final warning - come discuss the issue at the talk page. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for continuing to insert your personal commentary into articles after being asked to stop, and failing to use article talk pages for discussing disputes. Further incidents after this block expires may result in a permanent block. 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)