User talk:Gowlo

March 2010
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Gowlo, you will be blocked from editing. Goodvac (talk ) 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, ignorance is no excuse - and just to be sure, I'm including a whole whack of vital policies at the top of this page. Let us know when you've had a good look over them, please. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 00:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just requesting a reversing of the decision to block my account indefinitely for reasons of "vandalism". I am only new to the world of editing and working with Wikipedia and whilst, i am sure, ignorance is a poor defense, i was not actually aware that deleting certain pieces of information was classed as "vandalism". My mistake, and i apologise. It wont happen again. I have, since being blocked, checked on the process for reporting and disputing information posted on Wikipedia and from now on i will be using the correct procedure to do so.

There are certain statements of accusatory opinion currently listed on the page for "Edge Church" which have been posted by a journalist from an Australian newspaper outlet. This journalist has used Wikipedia to propagate unfounded claims and then cross-referenced the claims by linking them to their online news report. This link doesn't confirm their accusations or give any factual weight to their claims, it simply restates the accusations from their website.

There have been a number of attempts to address this situation which are still under investigation and the information that is currently on Wikipedia is both defamatory and incorrect.

If you could please advise me of what my next course of action might be to address this i would be very grateful. Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:02:07 +0000 (Copy of e-mail to me  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC))
 * This sounds to me that your editing is intending to continue to continue in the same vein if unblocked.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You say there are some COI issues with the Article Edge Church. I would add that you also seem to have a conflict of interest yourself. Please realise that there are plenty of vandal fighters around the world trying their best to keep Wikipedia in good shape - that means that any deletion of text gets highlighted, and when there are supporting references as well, then it becomes a priority to revert. If others agree that the block should be lifted, then I'm happy to go along with that. Note, if that happens then please be sure to discuss any content removal on the Article's talk page, and when you have agreement to delete material - always flag up the discussion in the edit summary so that a fast revert and warning does not occur again.  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As Ronhjones says, discuss this on the talk page. I am unblocking you with his agreement, but please be aware that any re-occurrence of the behaviour which led to the block will cause the block to be re-instated. Find reliable, independent sources which show that the sources given are incorrect - and provide these on the article's talk page. Let a discussion occur, and if consensus is in favour of the changes, then let another editor do it. -- Phantom Steve /talk &#124;contribs \ 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)