User talk:Correctionperson

May 2013
Hello, I'm Blackguard. I noticed that you made changes to Christian Identity, but you didn't provide any reliable sources. It's been removed for now. Please include a citation on any further edits to Wikipedia. Thank you. Blackguard 17:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

corectionperson: I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I do not know how to respond on your talk page so I will respond here, simply add a request for a citation, it is not necessary to add a citation as the information was provided by hyperlinks, the previous information, the information you keep reposting is out dated and out moded, I replaced it with more detail and descriptive information one does not always need to add citation when it is not necessary to do so, stop removing the true factual content I keep posting, if you really want to request a citation there is an option to do so, please refrain from further vandalization of articles by doing that, thank you, it will remain posted for now
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I have reviewed your additions and cannot find any references, neither "provided by hyperlinks" nor a citation of a single secondary source. Please take some time to read Wikipedia's policy on original research, verifiability and while you're at it, good faith (you should be careful when accusing editors of vandalism). If you can find appropriate sources, your additions can be reinserted. Blackguard  23:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

correctionperson: you keep removing my edits because you claim they have no references, however the original content in which I replaced also has no references attributed to them, as I said before, if you really want someone to references their content then simply use the feature that requests for a references I know it exists I have seen it before, instead of completely removing my content, and since you are removing my content and reverting it with the original content that I replaced which is also not at all references yes I absolutely believe you constant amending to my content is vanadlism in nature as well as unruly, as I would like to reenforce, request references for my content, instead of vandalizing it and completely deleting it, I am again, going to change it back to the way I had it as that information is more up to date and more descriptive of the nature of the Christian Identity belief, my content that I am posting does include hyper links in them and it is valid and purely documentorial and unbiased in nature, there is no reason for you to be removing it, I would like to further state a third time simply request a reference for my content instead of completely deleting it, my content is a wealth of information and knowledge and it is a shame you keep removing it

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Blood libel, you may be blocked from editing. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 14:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

correctionperson: I corrected it not vandalized it Blood Libel accusations are accusations that Jews have committed blood libel not the false accusations whether such accusations are true or false is another question entirely but the blood libel accusations are accusations not inherently false accusations that makes no sense and looks stupid

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Christian Identity. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I will add references later if I add references will you stop undoing all of the hard work I put in to post the wealth of knowledge I posted? will that make you happy and make you stop defacing/vandalizing my content? I am fully aware on can merely request a references within the content itself I know the feature exists that and the original content you keep reverting my content to also has no references that tell me you are reverting my content for another reason reason you are not admitting that is to say censorship in which it is absolutely vandalism and defacement if you really do want me to add references or anyone else to add references although still unfamiliar with it but I do know such features exist on Wikipedia that allow a user to request references within the content posted, please stop censoring/vandalizing/defacing my content, that is all


 * The issue is not just the contents of your edits, but your edit-warring. Since you reverted after a warning for breaking the three revert rule, I have reported you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please do not edit-war even if you believe you are right; it is disruptive. The best thing to do is try to reach consensus on the article talk page. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

correctionperson: why do you not just request references in my content rather than just censoring it entirely? can I post my content and then add references to it later? it is a wealth of information it is such a shame that you keep reverting it, let me ask you this, if I add references to it, will you stop removing my content?


 * I strongly suggest you use the talk pages of articles you would like to edit to reach consensus before you edit the article - especially at Christian Identity, where your edits have been reverted by at least five different users. To answer your question, no, you can't post your content to the article without sources, but you can post your proposed text to the talk page and solicit input from other users there. Please consider reading Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and original research, too. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Christian Identity. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

correctionperson: okay you are lying, bullying, vandalizing, and defacing now, that is not the reason you are removing my content because I did added sourced references and I was about to add more just now, scum

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing the same behavior that led to your previous block, namely edit warring to reinsert your preferred version of content, as well as personal attacks. It is evident that you are not here to contribute in a collegial manner. 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. Kinu t/c 00:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)