User talk:Frankenstein3000

Keisuke Honda
Note that my revert of your edit of Keisuke Honda is pursuant to the Wikipedia guideline on Biographies of living persons:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing..The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

If you add any information on Keisuke Honda without giving reliable sources, I will enforce the guidelines strictly and revert your edits without notice. Craddocktm (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Well that pice of information is widely known, so if you plan on "reverting my edits without notice", you better get ready for an edit war, pal.


 * Widely known is just your personal opinion, nothing more. Read the guidelines again if you do not understand it. You bear the burden of giving evidence that it is "widely known". If you are prepared to stage an edit war, that is perfectly fine with me, but I am afraid you will get banned soon enough. Since I have given you repeated reminders on WP:BLP, if you choose to continue to ignore the guideline I have no choice but to treat your edits as vandalism and report you to the administrators.Craddocktm (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actions will speak louder than words, I promise. If you want to grass me up to the administrators, work away. I will continue to add this information to the page as it is known everywhere. Get a life and leave this article alone.


 * All I (and Wikipedia) am asking for is the citation of sources. It's simple and I don't see why you don't understand it. Read the guidelines again. It's self apparent and I shouldn't have to waste my time explaining it. Get a life and leave this article alone. Do not vandalize it.Craddocktm (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And I shouldn't have to waste my time keeping information that is widely known available on the related article page. And its not vandalism you fool, its relevant information.

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Keisuke Honda. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. YOU need to provide the reliable sources or the content does not belong in the article. Active Banana (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Keisuke Honda. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 17:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also note that you are trying to add unsourced information to an article about a living person. For any information which is challenged (as this has been) and which could potentially be negative (which this could be), you must provide a reliable, third-party source for the information. This is a requirement. There are no exceptions. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 17:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It seems to me that Frankenstein3000 is sincere in believing that their edits are improvements to the article, which means they are not vandalism. Vandalism is deliberately obstructive editing.
 * 2) On the other hand it is Wikipedia policy that any information about a living person which is challenged or questioned by another editor must be removed unless reliable sources can be found. This information has indeed been challenged, so it must not be included without sources.
 * 3) If the information is "widely known" then it will probably not be difficult to find suitable sources. If, on the other hand, it is not widely known but only widely speculated or gossiped then it does not belong here.
 * 4) It is not acceptable to announce the intention of breaking Wikipedia guidelines or policies (as in "you better get ready for an edit war, pal"). It is not acceptable to be uncivil to other editors (as in "Get a life").
 * 5) I hope that any way forward will be via discussion, civility, and an attempt to achieve consensus. However, if unacceptable editing continues then a block will, unfortunately, have to be. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You have violated the 3RR rule
You have violated the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 19:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

July 2010
By now, you should realize your editting behaviour to Keisuke Honda is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community. Your edits have been reverted by a number of editors, which means the consensus is that your edits are disruptive. Any addition or restoring of information in biographies of living persons must be backed up by sources per WP:BLP. If you want to improve Wikipedia, please observe the rules. Craddocktm (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not this crap again. EVERYONE knows this to be true, get a bloody grip would ya!


 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.     Thank you.--Craddocktm (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And this reply is to inform you that I have posted my thoughts on the matter on the noticeboard.

Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 04:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I have blocked your account for one week. Please stay civil, avoid edit warring, sign your posts with for tildas, and respect the current WP policy on the biographies of living people; do provide reliable referenced when adding information there. One more thing, discuss issues related to a certain article at the talk page of that article - your talk page is intended for personal communication. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)